C J1llllunica ted to the Council (

0d the Members of the League]. an Official No.: C. 48. M. 21. 1935. VII.

~::: c c..; GJ • rt 2 -:)_ tr 1 r vt' v ~

Geneva, J anuary 16th, 1935.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

REQUEST OF THE YUGOSLAV GOVERNMENT

under Article 11, Paragraph 2, of the Covenant

COMMUNICATION FROM THE HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT

.Vole by the Secretary-General:

In accordance with the Council resolution of December roth, 1934, and with the consent of the Rapporteur to the Council (the representative of the United Kingdom), the Secretary­General has the honour to transmit to the Council a communication from the Hungarian Govern­ment.

[Translation.]

HUNGARIAN DELEGATION TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

I Annex.

Sir,

Geneva, January rzth, 1935,

33, quai Wilson.

I have the honour to enclose the text of the communication submitted on behalf of the Hungarian Government to the Council in compliance with the invitation addressed to it by the latter in its resolution of December roth, 1934.

M. Joseph A. A venol, Secretary-General of the League of Nations,

Geneva.

S.d.N. •·90l (1'.) t / 33· 1.173. (A.) :/33· Imp. Kundig

{Signed) Tibor DE E CKHARDT,

Delegate of Hmtgary to the Cotmcil of the League of Natio?lS.

Series of League of Nations Publications

VII . POLITICAL

1935 . VII . 2 .

'

-2-

COMMUNICATION FROM THE ROYAL H UNGARIAN GOVERN­MENT TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

CONCERNING THE MARSEILLES OUTRAGE

[Translation.]

The Council of the League of Nations, by its resolution of December roth, 1934, being:

" Desirous that the good understanding upon which peace depends should exist betwee M~mbers of the League, and expr~ssil!g its confidence that they will avoid anything whic~ m1ght be of a nature to comprorruse 1t;

" Noting that, as the result of the discussions which have taken place before the Council and of the documents which have been communicated to it- in particular, the diplomatic correspondence exchanged between the Hungarian and Yugoslav Governments from 193 r to r934- various questions relative to the existence or the activities outside Yuaoslav territory of terrorist elements have not been settled in a manner which has given satisf~ction to the Yugoslav Government;

"Being of opinion, as the result of these discussions and documents, that certain Hungarian authorities may have assumed, at any rate through negligence, certain respon­sibilities relative to acts having a connection with the preparation of the crime of 11farseilles.

"Considering, on the other hand, that it is incumbent on the Hungarian Government' conscious of its international responsibilities, to take at once appropriate punitive actio1;

in the case of any of its authorities whose culpability may be established; "Convinced of the goodwill of the Hungarian Government to perform this duty"-

requested the Hungarian Government to communicate to it what measures it had taken to this effect.

While I have the honour, in response to this request, to submit on behalf of the Royal Hungarian Government the communication asked for, I think it necessary first of all to dra1r attention to the following points:

(r) The investigation opened by the Hungarian Government, in compliance with the Council resolution of December roth last, is only the continuation or resumption of the investigations which, as I will show later, the Hungarian authorities did not fail to institute immediately after the abominable outrage at Marseilles, partly on their own initiative and partly at the request of the French and Yugoslav authorities, with a view to throwing full light on the hidden rami­fications of the affair.

The Hungarian Government was in possession of the information supplied by these investi­gations when it replied, in the memorandum submitted by its representative to the Council at Geneva on December 8th, r934, to the main points in the Yugoslav Government's request of November 22nd, 1934, and in the memorandum annexed to the request.

Our memorandum shows that the accusation made in the Yu,goslav memorandum to the effect that the H1.mgariatt authorities had incurred responsibility in regard to the M arseiltes outrage is absolu,tely 1mtenabte, for Hungary was not the scene either of the conception, preparation or execution of the crime, and consequently, since no act connected with the Marseilles outrage had been committed on Hungarian territory, the Hungarian authorities do not bear the slightest responsibility, either direct or indirect, for that crime. .

Even itt the light of the results of the itwestigation instituted irt accordance with the ~ounc!l resol1tti01t of December roth and sin-ee completed, the Htmgariatt Government maintains ·m lheiT mtirety the cotu;lusions contained in the Hungarian memorandtt,m of December 8th.

(2) I venture to point out further that, both in the memorandum laid before the Council on behalf of the Hungarian Government on December 8th last and in the Hungarian represen­tative's speech before the Council, it was stressed that most of the complaints put forward by the Yugoslav Government in its request of November 22nd and the annexed memorandum had ceased to be a subject of discussion between the Hungarian and Yugoslav Governments as a result .of the agreements concluded in Belgrade on J uly 21sf, 1934, settling the question of the fronher incidents referred to the League Council, as also that of the Croat immigration. .

In support of this view, I am glad to be able to refer to the words of Baron 'Aloisi, the Itallan representative on the Council, who, in his speech at the Council meeting on December 8th, str.essed the point that the Belgrade agreements of J tt,ly 2Ist, I934, marked a dividing point in time ~tl t?1e relations between Hungary and Yugoslavia, a fact which the Council was bound to bear in rmtzd 111

order to appreciate the situation properly, as it was a fundamental fact; whence also it foli?~vs, legally speaking, that it is irrelevant to revert, as the Yugoslav request does, to the pos1t1~n preceding the Belgrade agreement, and that what is relevant and fundamental is to .ascertam whether, in the period following the Belgrade agreement, the Hungarian Government has dtscharged its obligations faithfully.

(3) It is known from the debates that took place in the Council at its special session last December, and from the memorandum submitted on behalf of the Hungarian Government .0~ December 8th, that that Government has not failed to adopt and loyally to carry out, in the spl.l1, of the Belgrade Agreements, all the measures which, in its note of April 26th, 1934, to the Yugos)~\ Government, it had described either as already in operation or, in part, as contemplated fort e

ture with the object of liquidating the Jankapuszta farm, to which the Yugoslav Government's ~mpl:unts relat~d, _and expelling from Hungary such Yugoslav emigres as had failed to respect

laws of hospttahty. the It is to be noted once again that, in so doing, the Htmgarian, Govemmmt gave clear proof of .1 efforts to eliminate all circ1~mstances which might disturb neighbm~rly relations between the two 1 smtries ·and it may be stated with certainty that, had the Marseilles crime, which we all regard co_tth ho~or and reprobation~ been committ~d only a few months later, no body, however biased, :uld have a_ttel!lpted to brmg even the shghtest charge against the Hungarian authorities in connection wtth 1t.

(4) The Hungarian _Govemme!lt considers that, inasmu_ch as the Belgrade Agreements have settled most of the queshons to whtch the Yugoslav complamts relate, those complaints are now irrelevant, and the enquiry opened, or rather resumed, by the Hungarian Government, in conse-uence of the Council's resolution of December roth, should have been confined to the events ~hich took place after J uly 21st last and to the question of the Marseilles murder, which alone could form the subject of the case brought before the Council. None the less, the Hungarian Govemment has preferred to extend the enquiry to those of the facts mentioned itt the Yugoslav memo­ramtum which date from a comparatively more distant period. In so doing, it has been influenced, not merely by the consciousness of its international responsibilities, to which reference is made in the resolution of December Ioth, but also, and more particularly, by the conviction that an impartial enquiry, in which no detail is neglected, and the frank communication of the results of that enquiry to the Council, will greatly contribute to the restoration of a calm frame of mind, which all parties anxiously desire in the future course of the affair with which we are now concerned.

In so doing, the Hungarian Government is merely following up the declaration which it gave in the memorandum of December 8th to the effect that it was prepared to lay before the Council all the documentation in its possession and, if necessary, to supplement it.

After these general observations, I have the honour, foUowing the order of the Y1tgoslav memo­ra11dwn, to transmit the following communication concerning the enquiry conducted in accordance with the Council's resolution of December roth into the allegations contained in the Yugoslav memorandum.

The ob-ject of this commtmication is to give a detailed accmmt of the enquiry that the Hu,ngarian Gouemment has carried out in execution of the above-mentioned Council resolution; to state the disciplinary action which, in consequence of the results of the enquiry, it has thought necessary to take against certain Ht.~ngarian official agents; and, lastly, f{) inform the Council of the general measures which, in consideration of its recent experiences with Yugoslav emigres, it has enacted lor the purpose of establishing a stricter control over political emigres and has carried out as an ~anic reform in the method of issuing passports and the whole administrative system connected therewith-a reform which has already been put into practice.

I.

In reply to the general charges brought in the Yugoslav Government's memorandttm against certain Hungarian societies which are alleged to have engaged in illegal action against one or other of the States bordering upon Hungary, attention must be drawn to the following facts:

In its memorandum submitted to the Council on December 8th last, the Hungarian Government has already pointed out that the irredentist movement which has developed in Hungary was a natural consequence of the terms imposed upon the country by the Treaty of !rianon. It must not be forgotten that the collapse by which the end oft he war was accompanied m Hungary, the internal revolutions that followed and put the people to a severe test and, lastly, the unjust provisions of the Treaty of Trianon, which, by a stroke of the pen, expelled hundreds of thousands of Hungarians from their native land and caused them to seek refuge within the narrow limits of the new Hungary, maintained, for a long time after the signature of the peace treaty, a situation in which the country was more like a continually effervescent mass with constantly changing sentiments and aspirations than a stable and well-ordered State. It took years before the situation could be consolidated amidst a flood of difficulties, and before the wisdom of the Government could stem this elementary movement of the Hungarian soul. . . J:Ience, even if, in the first difficult years and in the circumstances that we have outlined, mdivtdual actions may have taken place, it is clear from the foregoing explanations that-at all events until 1926, when the internal situation became calmer through the success{ ul efforts of the Government to transform the eruptive forces of irredentism into pacific and constructive forces-no responsibility can be taken for those actions.

I~ has been alleged that certain Hungarian associations were in touch with the Croatian terronst organisations, and that the Hungarian patriotic societies were intended to serve as a screen for the action of the leaders of the Croat emigres. In reply to these asser tions, we need only, after making reference to the detailed statements in the Hungarian memorandum of Dece~ber 8th, say once more that Hungarian aspirations for a peaceful revis~on never affected Cr~aha; and, looking at the matter from another angle, that the Croat revolutionary movement, which develops wherever there are any Croats, has its source exclusively in the discont~nt ca~sed by the internal situation in Yugoslavia, which provided the real motives for the Mar~eilles c~~·

The Yugoslav Government's memorandum bases its charges against the Hunganan patnottc aSS?ciations on a deposition made by a person called Vinco Mihalus before a Czechoslovak co~t of JUStice on November 19th, 1934--s everal weeks after the Marseilles crime. The representahve

c

of the Hungari~n .G.ovemment described, i!~ ~is speech lo the Cou~cil on December the unsavoury tndtVIdual who appears as Witness for the prosecution " in the Yu 7th. memorandum, and whose status as a paid political agent and a common spy was undout~s~,. known to the authors of that memorandum. To make it clear that it was not proper th Y indeed, it was quite inadmissible-to base the charges embodied in the preamble to they; at, memorandum on the manifestly inspired deposition of such a person, whose statemeni~sla\' unworthy of credit, I should like to call the Council's attention to the report on the matte ~~ the Budapest Prefecture of Police, which constitutes Annex I to the present communica;. ) The facts stated in that report prove beyond question that Vinco Mihalus is an unbalan10~ intellectual, devoid of principles, ready to do anything for money, having never had any reputa~l profession and never earned a regular livelihood, having deserted his family, being suspected 0~ bigamy, a nd appearing in the course of his lurid career now as a Bolshevik agitator 1101 .

as a pan-Slav propagandist, now as a Slovak autonomist and always as an agent provocateu~ 1

If we analyse the evidence of Vinco Mihalus (regarding it in the proper light in view ~f the: character of the witness) as it relates to certain associations and organisations ; if we consult the articles of association and rules of organisation which define the true object and field of action of those associP.tions and organisations, and the main provisions of which are summarised in Annexes 2 a-h to the.pr.esent communi~ati.on, and, ,lastly, if we weigh ~he depositions made by th~ heads of tl1ose associations and orgamsatwns, whtch are reproduced m Annexes 3 a-g, it becermes clear that the CtSSe?'ttons connected with the deposition of the principal " witness for the prosecution " i1' the Yttgoslav memorandum cannot be accepted.

Here, in my view, it should be noted that the secret organisations alleged to be calltd " Tlw Sons of Arpad" and " The Young Guard " have never existed in Hungary, and that the .. Svcittr of Awakening Hungarians" (l1bred6 magyarok EgyesiUete-E. ME.) has never had a special committee working for the liberation of Croatia. Hence, it is likewise untrue that any Hungarian officers have taken an active part in the work of such a committee. Further , the YugosJay memorandum gh·es some names in this connection; of those na.mes, Petras, Lukas and Durie art> entirely unknown in the Hungarian army (honved) and cannot be found in the Army List of 1919 or any subsequent year. The memorandum mentions a certain Metzger, who was a captain in the old Austro-Hungarian army and is now retired, but has never served in the Hungarian army; it also mentions Major Balenovic, whose evidence, which will be found in the record in Annex 4. formally denies that he played any part whatsoever in any committee working againstYugoslaria.

With regard to the assertions in the Yugoslav memorandum brittging against officers of tlrl Hungarian army in a general way the charge that some of them have been in contact with the Yugoslav terr01ists, and with regard to the specific a llegations to the effect that Geza Adorjan, Laszl6 lly and Laszl6 Sesevic-erroneously described in the Yugoslav memorandum as officers­instntcted Stanko Matkovic, another " witness for the prosecution" in the Yugoslav memorandum in addition to Mihalus, to make an attack upon King Alexander at the time of his marriage, and t hat Major Klar had relations with Persec or with the Yugoslav deserter Stefan Fehervari or with the terrorist Tilmann and two of his accomplices, I would ask the Council to refer to t he records (Annexes 5 a-f) of the depositions of Geza Adorjan, Laszl6 Ily and J :inos Berta, the proprietor of a printing-works at Pees, which dispose completely of all the allegations on this subject in the Yugoslav memorandum.

Thus, the enquiries newly .reswrned or extended by the H1~ngarian Government with the object of elucidating the facts on which these charges were based have entirely confirmed the statement in the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th that Hungarian mt'litary authorities and members of the forces have never been concerned in the traitting or orgatlisatiott of Croat refugees.

II.

Regarding the alleged organisation of the terrorist movement in Hungarian territ?ry, the Belgrade Government's memorandum states t hat the Yugoslav emigres received the foll<m:mg three forms of assistance in H ungary:

(r) It is a lleged that they were housed at first in military barracks and then at Janka· puszta and in the communes enumerated in the memorandum ;

(2) That the Yugoslav emigres were so recruited that after they crossed the frontier they were kept in custody for a few days by the police or the military authorities until th~ head. of the terrorist organisation had checked up their identity, antecedents and their purpose m conung to Hungary, after which they were placed at the latter's disposal ;

(3) That the emigres were given explosives and arms by the Hungarian authorities and were enabled, with official assistance, to cross the frontiers.

In vie·w of these assertiom and on the basis of the results of the investigation underta~en and completed by the Hungarian Government, I have the honour to draw the Cotmcil's attentum to the following facts:

(r) (a) As regards Jankapuszta, the memorandum laid before the Council on DecemberS~ last on the Hungarian Government's behalf has already explained that Jankapuszta never wa: a camp, but a small farm leased by contract between private individuals for agricultural P!lf1?05~ and inhabited by a certain number-in actual fact, a very small number-of Yugosla.v emtg~e~ Annex 6 shows that, in the summer of 1931, an individual passing himself off as one Emil Horvat

-s-

eluded with the proprietor , the late Julius Szajbely residing in Budapest, a lease authorising ~n to carry on fanning. The fact that J ankapuszta was leased under a private law contract ~ ved -int.er alia, by the suit entered in th e Kaposvar court agajnst the tenant Emil Horvath r pr~n-~yment of the rent and which is still pending. or nit was also stated in the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th that, in its anxiety to

ticipate the wishes of the Yugoslav Government, the Hungarian Government had, even prior to ~ Yugoslav representations made on March 13th, taken steps to remove from Jankapuszta ~e Yugoslav emigres living there. As a result, the farm of Jankapuszta had already been ~cuated in April last, and on October rst, after the cancellation of thelease and the sale of the e~uce the winding up of the farm was also completely terminated. Annexes 7 a-d show that, ~far b~ck as the middle of February 1934, the head of the Csurg6 district had been instructed b the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior to find administrative means of removing from J~kapuszta the individuals there engaged in farming, but to bear in mind that there was a rivate Jaw contract involved and that, consequently, he should proceed in such a way as not to ~use material loss to the Treasury. The reports of the head of the district, which are also included with the annexes, give an account of the cancellation of the lease, the smooth winding-up of the farming business, the depar ture of the bnigres from the J ankapuszta farm and, lastly, the complete liquidation of the concern.

Regarding the other alleged emigre camps mentioned in the Yugoslav memorandum, it should be emphasised, with reference to Ann~xes 8 a-n and ~o the results of the investigation ca~ried ottt by the inspector of the Royal Hunganan Gendarmene (Annexes 9 a-x), that no Croat em~gre ever stayed at Annamajor, Szurdapuszta, Belcsapuszta, Commune of Geise or Rabamolmiri; there is no such place as Bagola puszta in the district and no Croat emigre ever lived at a place called Bagotapuszta in the Commune of Ujudvar, Nagykanizsa District. It has, on the other hand, been found that, among the farmhands at Bazapuszta, there were two or three persons whose mother tongue was Croat and who were simple farm workers. As regards Nagykanizsa, the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th had already stated that after the evacuat ion of Janka­puszta a certain number of emigres had gone there in search of work; as is clear from the records of the evidence of the witnesses heard and forming Annexes 10 a and b, they occupied the house situated at 23, Horthy Mikl6s ut., one of the busiest streets of the town. It was not a camp fora crowd of emigres, since there were not more than four or five there and later only one or two. As regards Kaposvar, it has also been proved, and the fact is confirmed by the results of the im-estigation (Annex II), that no Croat emigre either lived at or visited the address mentioned in the Yugoslav memorandum.

To sum up, we can only repeat the conclusion already stated in the Hungarian memorandum oHlecember 8th last- namely, that no H1~ngarian authority can be acc11-Sed of havi·ttg abetted or lim i1t~plicated in the events at Marseilles on acc01mt of the lease of ] ankapuszta.

(b) It was the desire to establish good tteighbourty t•etations between Htmgary and Yugoslavia tllalled the Hungarian Government to take measures t o evacuate the farm of J ankapuszta and to insist on the prompt execution of these measures. The same reasons decided the Hungarian Government-as already stated in our memorandum of December 8th- after the Belgrade negotia­tions had succeeded to make stteh arrangements as would induce the largest possible member of Croat emigres to leave Hungary.

According to the information given in the note sent on November 21st last by the Hungarian Government to the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest (Annex 12), the energetic steps taken to this effect by the Hungarian Government resulted in about half of the Jankapuszta emigres leaving the country and the others going off to live in districts where they succeeded in finding work. It may be well to point out that, as regards the Yugoslav emigres who left Hungary, the correctness ?f the particulars given in the l ist annexed to the Hungarian Government's note of November 21st IS admitted even in the memorandum of the Belgrade Government .

. (c) I must next observe that the right of asylmn granted by Hm~gary to the Yttgoslav emigres dzd not go beyond the limits of that right as gmerally applied in other States.

I must, on the other hand, once again draw the Council's attention to the special difficulties ~mding the supervision of Croat political emigres in Htmgary , on which the Hungarian representa­hve to the Council laid stress in the memorandum of December 8th laid before the Council.

Nevertheless, a most exhaustive a11d detailed investigation carried out after the Council resolution o~ December roth has shown that certain Hungarian otficials who were responsible for keeping the \~goslav emigres under the strictest possible police supervision have, in exercising this supervision, /a1led to display the requisite vig£lance in certain cases.

The provisions of the laws and decrees that have hitherto governed the supervision of aliens are summarised in the notice reproduced under Annex 13.

The cases in which officials responsible for supervision have been guilty of failure to observe lhffies~ regulations or have not proved themselves sufficiently vigilant are described in detail in the 0 ctal documents which form Annexes 14 a-d of the present communication, and I have the ho~ot\r to inform the Council that the Hungarian Government has taken the foUowing disciplinary actron against officials found gttilty of ttegligence: .. At. a disciplinary enquiry ordered by the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior, the

Dtsctplmary Council of the Budapest Police Prefecture sentenced Police Captain Emeric Gajdan, attached to the Nagykanizsa police captain's office, and Police Captain Louis Bokor, on !he _staff of the Budapest Police Prefecture and attached to the Central Alien's Control Office, to be dtsmissed for having failed to dischar""e t he regular duties of their office, thereby committing a disciplinary offence. ::>

-6-

Further, the inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, in the exercise of his po has punished Gendarmerie Commandant Alexandre Deseo with 30 days' ordinary det w~rs, and proposed his transfer to another gendarmerie district. Further, he has punished the genda:'o.n cadets J an Ferencz and J an Czinka with 30 days' close arrest each and transferred them tene station at a distance from the frontiers. 0 a

Lastly, I have the honour to inform the Council that the Hungarian Minister of the Int . has, on] anuary 2nd last, issued a Decree No. 2ofPreS.I935· VII B intended to tighten up the sztperv;:!0

'

of political emigres. Annex rs contains the complete text of this decree, which has already c010'~

into force. me

(2) Turning to the system of recruiting Yugoslav emigres in Hungary, may I be permitted to point out that all the assertions on this subject in the Yugoslav memorandum are based solei on the statements made by the terrorists arrested in Yugoslavia. Y

The enquiry conducted by the Hungarian Government has supplied no concrete data that would, even partially, 7'ustify the depositions of the terrorists arrested in Yugoslavia.

In these circumstances, we can only contest the value even of the concrete points contained in these statements or, at any rate, regard them as the products of an unbridled imagination which has built up a fanciful structure on the basis of facts which are admitted even by the Hungarian Government's memorandum of December 8th, facts which can be summarised as follows:

Any person taken into custody for having illegally crossed the frontier is, in Hungary, brought before the civil and military authorities, as in all other countries which employ this essential f~rm of defence against espionage. The facts ascertained during the investigation made by the inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie prove the existence of this practice. Croat emigres on reaching Hungarian territory, were subjected to this procedure and, when the measures of pro~ tection against espionage had been taken, they were sent back. Thanks to the secret links that existed between them, on which our memorandum of December 8th shed some light, they managed to find their way to J ankapuszta; the Hungarian authorities, however, gave them no help in this matter.

2Q

In t his connection, I would mention that it has been found-as shown in the report (in Annex r6) received from the competent commanding officer-that the Frederic barracks at Pees were not used for housing refugees from Yugoslavia.

The head of the district of Csurg6, in giving evidence at the enquiry, stated that he had never given the Yugoslav emigres identity papers or aliases and no trace of these was, in fact, found in his office. Similarly, it is absolutely untrue that Major Klar played any part whatsoe\'et at the Budapest Depot (ToloncMz) in selecting the itinerary for Croat emigres.

(3) On the strength of the evidence in the case of the terrorist Tilmal,ln, who was brought before the Yugoslav Defence of the Realm Tribunal in 1931, it has been asserted that the Hungarian authorities helped Croat emigres by procuring explosives and arms for them and that the Beremend gendarmerie assisted them to cross the frontier and, lastly, that the explosives found in Tilmann's possession came from the Peremarton works. In this connection, I have the honour to make the following statement:

The particulars contained in the depositions of the senior commandants of gendarmerie stationed at the points in question, and also of the commandant of Beremend, who were heard at the special enquiry ordered by the inspector of gendarmerie (Annexes 9 b, g, n, r) prove incon­testably that the terrorist Tilmann was never in the Beremend station barracks and was never seen in that place. Similarly, it is quite untrue that emigres crossed .the frontier with the help of the Hungarian Gendarmerie.

On the origin of the explosives which it is suggested came from Peremdrton, I beg to refer to the note verbale on this subject sent by the Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs under date of March 3rd, 1931, to the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest (Annex 17) and to the letter sent in the course of the recent enquiry by the management of the Peremarton Industrial Explosives Manufacturing Co. , Ltd., to the Budapest Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian Police (Annex r8~, which prove that, in view of the supervision exercised at the works, it may be regarded as an impom­bility that explosives could leave the works in an illegal manner. There is, however, nothing improbable in the view that, as explosives were regularly delivered to firms or private persons, they cou~d have been obtained, either through the employees of those firms or through private persons m possession of explosives, as a favour, out of friendshi_p or for payment.

I would further add that this works sends industrial explosives abroad in fairly large amounts; the possibility that such explosives, could have been obtained in a foreign country is therefore not excluded.

III.

The description given in the Yugoslav memorandum of the morality and the past history of t he emigres settled in Hungary is not such as to have called for concrete measures cons~quent on the enquiry conducted and extended by the Hungarian Government in accordance w1th the Council resolution of December roth.

I shall therefore confine myself to drawing the Council's attention generally to the following points:

The fact that Hungary and Yugoslavia are neighbours explains why a fraction of the Cr~at emigration, the root causes of which must be sought in the internal situation of Yugoslavia,

de its way into Hungary; the great length of our frontiers, drawn as they are regardless of tn~ural or geographical conditions and difficult to supervise, is largely responsible. It was : efore inevitable that Croat emigres should stay, at least temporarily, in Hungarian territory. It ~ould be borne in mind here that, first, the number of Croat emigres passing through Hungary

small compared with the number of Croat emigres living in other countries and, secondly, ~~t, for the bulk of the b~igres, Hungary was more a country of transit leading to western countries and even to oversea contments.

e11ngary cannot, therefore, be held responsible for the existence of the Croat emigres. Furthennore, the relevant chapter of the Yugoslav Government's memorandum furnishes eloquent roof of the fact that Croat emigration has no special, Htmgarian characteristic or ties with Hungary,

fhat, on the contrary, it is in all of its ramifications international and universal. To take now the emigres who are specially mentioned in the Yugoslav memorandum and

divided into groups, it may first be remarked that there is no better proof of the arbitrary and theoretical nature of this classification than the fact that the same persons appear in several groups. This part of the memorandum calls for several observations.

General Sarkotic has no connection with Hungary; since the end of the war, he has lived abroad and not entered Hungary. Lieutenant-Colonel Ivan Percevic also lives abroad and, if he sometimes came to Hungary, it was merely to pay visits. The names of Duic, Stipetic and Lahowsky are not known in Hungary. Regarding Captain Metzger, a retired officer of the former Austro-Hungarian army (the record of his deposition is given under Annex I9), we have already stated above that he was never on the active list of the Hungarian army (llonved). As regards Major Charles Balenovic, it has been ascertained (Annex 4) that, having a good knowledge of Croat, his mother tongue, this officer rendered certain services as an interpreter in the Yugoslav frontier area; but his own deposition proves that he was never at Jankapuszta.

As for the regicide, Vlada Georgijev, it has been established beyond a doubt- the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th has already referred to this point-that this individual never was in and had no connection with Hungary. I refer on this point to the detailed report (Annex 4r) submitted to the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior by the Budapest Police Prefecture on the measures taken and investigations made at the time of the Marseilles outrage and to the note from the Bulgarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Annex 20) retracting the information given at the outset of the enquiry to the effect that the assa~in had left Bulgaria for Hungary.

The Hungarian Government has already supplied the information in its possession regarding Rajitch and Pospisil, first, in its note of November zrst last sent to the Yugoslav Government and, secondly, in its memorandum to the Council of December 8th, I934·

Finally, as regards the terrorists said to have been sent to Hungary by the Macedonian­Bulgarian Committee, Dimitri Avramov and Grigor Milcinov are absolutely unknown in Hungary. Enquiry on the point has supplied no material that would suggest that Kiril Drangov entered Hungary. Besides, it is known from Press information that Drangov repudiates the accusations made against him and denies having stayed in Hungary or having had any relations either with the Federation des Associations sociales (TESZ.) or with any other organisation.

IV.

The Yugoslav Government produces alleged proofs in support of the assertion that the Hungarian authorities knew of the methods and aims of the terrorist action organised on Hungarian territory. In this connection, I have the honour to recommend to the Council's attention the declaration made by the Hungarian Government on April 26th last, in its note to the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest (Annex zr) and renewed in the memorandum of December 8th by the Hungarian Government's delegate to the Council. This declaration stated that the most careful examination of the facts add1tced in the Yttgoslav Government's notes, although undertaken immediately after the occurrence of these facts, had twt brou.ght anythi1£g to light that could serve as jttstificatimt for the charge that the Hmzgariatz authorities tacitly tolerated the preparations for terrorist action it~ Yugoslav territory by Yttgoslav reft,gees living itt Htmgary. . 0? the basis of the results of the enquiry undertaken by the Hungarian Government in connec­

tion w1th the different allegations, I have the honour to make the following observations:

(r) As regards the official Press organs of the Oustacha mentioned in the Yugoslav memoran­dum, 1t has been established that the newspapers named Gric, Ou.stacha and Nezavisna Hrvatska ~rzava were never published in Hungary. Hungary had nothing whatever to do \vith the publica­tto~ of these journals, and the assertion that the Yugoslav emigres introduced a large number of ~p1es ~f these journals into the Hungaro-Yugoslav frontier area with the knowledge of the

unganan authorities is also an entirely gratuitous one.

(z) It has been asserted that the Yugoslav emigres wore the military uniform of the Oustacha at Jankapuszta. It may, however, be regarded as proved by the results of the enquiry (Annexes 22 a-k) and by the evidence of the commanders of the gendarmerie groups, brigades and stations concerned who were questioned during the enquiry ordered by the Hungarian Government (see the records of the evidence, Annexes 9 a-x). that the bnigres had no uniforms, that ~hey wore !he peasant clothing of agricultural labourers and that at most a few of them wore somethmg resemblmg an old military jacket, but with a civilian hat. It should be emphasised that the concordant

-8-

evidence on this point was given by persons who were well acquainted with local conditions d had been in permanent contact with the Croat emigres employed at the farm. This evid an is indeed confirmed by the declaration (Annex 23) made by Lieutenant-Colonel Percevic b:rce the Prefecture of Police in Vienna. ore

(3) The Yugoslav Government asserts that the coins circulating among the members of tl Oustacha were struck at the Hungarian State Mint in Budapest. As regards this point I sho ;~ like to supplement what was said in the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th by quotf the report of the Director of the Hungarian State Mint (Annex 24), submitted on December 27~f last to the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior; in this report it is stated that, apart from th legal small coin for Hungary, Bulgaria and Egypt (the orders for the latter two States having bee~ given to it after public tenders in the prescribed form) , the Budapest Mint did not strike coins for the use of any other foreign State, or on behalf of private individuals or legal persons belonging to a foreign State. None of the employees of the Budapest Mint has any knowledge of coins struc~ for the use of the Cr?at emigres _or has s~en any such coi_ns or t~eir designs. The report of the Dtrector of the Hunganan State Mmt descnbes, moreover, m detail the reasons which prevent the Yugoslav experts' statement being regarded as justified and still less as proof.

(4~ . According to the unanimous te_s~imony ?f the ~endarmerie (Annexes. 9 ~-x), the Hungarian authontles had no knowledge of the m1htary dnlls whtch the Yugoslav emzgres are said to have engaged in at J ankapuszta.

Similarly, the enquiry disproves the assertion that the J ankapuszta lands constituted a closed area. On the contrary, a large number of reliable witnesses stated that there was absolutely free passage through the farm of J ankapuszta {this is also shown by the statement made by Lieutenant-Colonel Percevic at the Prefecture of Police in Vienna) and that Hungarian gendarmes regularly made their rounds at J ankapuszta as elsewhere.

(5) The · particulars elicited by the enquiry undertaken by the inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie (Annexes 9 a-x), and the evidence in our hands, prove that the Hungarian authorities were entirely unaware of any revolt of the Croat emigres at Jankapuszta. On the other hand, it has been ascertained that discontent broke out among the emigre workmen employed at the farm of J ankapuszta regarding the food question, and that, in consequence, a patrol from the gendarmerie st ation proceeded to J ankapuszta. After that, the workers resumed their occupations.

As regards the role attributed by the Yugoslav memorandum to Major Klar, it has been clearly established that this officer was attached to the military intelligence service. In the performance of his duties, he had to question the refugees from Yugoslavia, and, for this reason, he sometimes paid visits to Jankapuszta. Moreover, Lieutenant-Colonel Percevic, in his statement mentioned above, categorically denied having given any directions or instructions to the J ankapuszta emigres.

In connection with the foregoing, it should be noted that the statements of vitez Julius Tokos, a retired colonel, and of vitez Andrew Huszar , a Protestant clergyman (Annexes 25 a and b), both of whom are mentioned in the Yugoslav memorandum, show that it is quite true that for a short time- two or three months at the most-they employed one and three Croat refugees respectively in their farms beyond t he Tisza in Eastern Hungary, and thus at a good distance from Jankapttszta. The above-mentioned persons never went to Jankapuszta and had no relations whatever with Croat emigration.

V.

The official enquiry undertaken after the Marseilles outrage established without the shadow of a doubt- as the Hungarian delegate has already informed the Council in the memorandum of December 8th-that the emigres could not have had and did not have any possibility of procuring Hungarian passports by legal means.

The Hu,ngarian Government has examined in every' detail the assertions made in this connection by the Yt.egoslav Government in its memorandum. The attached report (Annex 26) from the Deputy Prefect of Police gives an account of this examination and its results.

On the basis of this report, I have t he honour to inform the Council of the following facts :

In the course of the most careful enquiry, we have examined all the points contained in the Yugoslav memorandum.

Paragraphs I and 2 of Chapter V of the memorandum charge the Budapest police with having issued identity and travel papers to Salev Dimitrie, Atanasov Gligorije and Jelic Branimir.

The enquiry has elicited the fact that, at the time in question, the above-mentioned persons did indeed receive identity and trave1 papers from the Bu.dapest police.

The Prefect1tre of P olice was entitled to isszte identity and travel papers, because the H1.J-ngaria11

Government had accepted the recommendat-ion of the League of Nations (dated November 22nd, 1927-docurnent C.ss8(b) .M.zoo.1927.VIII; see Annex 27) proposing to the States Members of. ~h~ League the issue of su.ch travelUng papers. In accordance with this recommendation, the authontll:':-.

-9-

the acceding S~ates h_av~ the ri_gh~. i! ~ot the duty, to i~sue an identity and travel paper to of person domiciled Wlthm the )Urtsdtchon of the authonty concerned and unable to receive any rt in his country for the reasons indicated in the recommendation. a ~~graph 3 states that the Budapest police issued a passport, No. 400768/83720, dated

1 e 23rd 1934. to Stjepan Peric, and paragraph 4 says that Andrija Artukovic received from ; BudaPest police a passport, No. 404509/31456, dated February sth, I934·

As the enquiry, carried out with the greatest thoroughness, has definitely established that the names of Peric and Artukovic do not appear in the card index of the Passport Department, but as on the other hand, photographs of the two passports in question are reproduced on

es S2 and 33 of the Yugoslav memorandum, it is clear that either the passports in question ~!total or partial forgeries, or that a fraud was committed by a person or persons unknown which Jed to the apparently legal issue of two passports. This latter hypothesis is supported by the facts ascertained by the enquiry-namely, that the registration numbers of the dossiers which appear in the photographs of the Peric and Artukovic passports actually belong to the dossier of other persons dating from other periods.

It~ the actual cases before 1~s. the passports may have been fraudulently obtained by the submission of forged £dentity and nationality documents, and, once in possession of the passports, the applicants stole the dossier or caused someone to steal it, or else, by changing the number of the application sheet, made it impossible to trace it in the archives.

Such a procedure constitutes the most perfect method of deceiving the passport authorities; at the same time, it is most dangerous for the latter, since the passports thus obtained are valid as regards form but false in substance.

The authorities conducting the enquiry naturally did not confine themselves to noting that the registration numbers of the incriminated passports were in reality those of passports issued in other names; they endeavoured, by different combinations of the figures of the numbers communicated, to discover the dossiers of the incriminated passports, and devoted a considerable time to the examination of several hundreds of thousands of dossiers. In the course of their fruitless labour, account had to be taken of the possibility that forgeries had been committed in the passports themselves. In order to have the matter cleared up, the photographic copies of the passports were sent to the laboratory of the Criminal Intelligence Department, in the hope that some useful new facts might be discovered.

The expert report on this subject is given in Annex 28 of the present communication. As regards the facts alleged in paragraph 5, and in the ne>..'i and last paragraph (Chapter V

of the memorandum), no lec;s care was exercised in the investigation, and, if the results obtained -omestill more indefinite, this is due to the fact that even photographs of the passports complained oi ~·ere lacking. The same remark applies to Percevic's passport, which was mentioned by .V. l'evtitch, the Foreign Minister, in his speech before the Council on December roth.

The thorough enq"iry carried out, leaving no detail out of account, has led to the conclus£on that:

r. The present system for the issue of passports is defective in certain particulars. To remedy them, the Royal Hmtgarian Ministry of the Interior issued, on Jan'ttary 2nd, I935. Circular No. I72IoofVIII.B.M./I935. which is reprodu,ced in Annex 29.

2. The enquiry has also established that the practice adopted in the passports depart­ment of the Budapest Prefecture of Police is not such as to preclude certain abuses in all circumstances. Apart from the inadequate methods hitherto employed, responsibility must rest on the deputy head of the Passports Office, Desire Vilmanyi, who neglected to draw the attention of his superiors to the technical difficulties involved. A disciplinary enquiry was opened against him, and as a result of this enquiry a disciplinary sentence of the second degree was pronou,nced against him, involving his transfer to the provinces (see Annex 30).

VI .

(I) In the memorandum submitted on December 8th last, on behalf of the Hungarian GovemJ?ent, we already had occasion to note that, apart from a general statement accusing the Rungartan authorities of having given the Croat emigres material assistance, the Yugoslav Government's communication contains no concrete evidence of any kind of these imagt·nary subsidies.

In. the circumstances and in view of the results of the enq11iry carried ottt after the Comwit's resolutwn _of December roth, I maintain absolutely that the Y'~tgoslav emigrants have 'never received anr tnatenal assistance from the authorities in Hungary in any form whatsoever. I would venture to tint out, however, as regards the origin of the funds of the Croat bnigres, that the appeal of t roats abroad issued in June 1933 was signed by upwards of 300,000 persons of whose readiness 0 ~ake pecuniary sacrifices there was never any doubt. The various reports and statements P~blished in the world Press are a matter of common knowledge, and we might mention in parti­~ ar the statement of Ante Valenta, a member of the Supreme Council of the Croat Separatist arty, to the effect that one million Croats are sending money to help the Croat independence

:vement. Some light is cast on the nature of the funds in question by the Minu~es (Ann~x 23) eady referred to, which describe the statement of Lieutenant-Colonel Percev1c, m Vtenna,

~hen ~nder examination at the Prefecture of Police. In that statement, Li~utenant-Colonel re:cevJc says that about one-third of the Croat people-that is, one and a half million persons-are ;~~as emigrants abroad, and he also gives some information concerning the money and cheques rnvmg from the four quarters of the world.

2Q

-10-

Again, the two photographs of receipts annexed to the Yugoslav memorandum deemed to constitute proofs in support of the charge brought against the Hungarian a~~t.be In point of fact, as the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th has already noted these ron~es. -assuming their authenticity-simply prove that the Oustacha settled its busine~ affairs~~~~

(2) The enquiry carried out by the Htmgariatt Govemment in the most scmpulous m possible, in executiOtt of the Cotmcil resolution, has revealed no 1'tt-sti(£Cation for the st~ggestion t/=1~~' Croat emigres received, at J ankapuszta or elsewhere, arms or amtmmition frOtn the Hunga . e civil or military authorities. rran

What has been established (Annex 31) is that, on October 15th, 1931, the head of the distri of Czurg6 issued licences to carry revolvers to four of the entigres who were staying at J ankapuszt c~ those emigres actually required the weapons for the proper performance of their duties as rur~ ~uards. The arms in question were revolvers of an old model, as is shown by the evidence reproduced m Annexes 22 a-k.

Again, as was stated in the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th, the few pistols which were found in the possession of the Croat emigres during the enquiry ordered after the Marseilles outrage, and which were confiscated by the Hungarian authorities, are all of foreign origin and bear without exception the stamp of the Oustacha.

VII.

The memorandum presented to the Council on December 8th on behalf of the Hungarian Government considered in detail the arguments brought forward in the Yugoslav memorandum criticising the Hungarian Government on the grounds that the n.otes addressed to the H11ngarian Government by the Yugoslav Government over a period offottr years on the illegal activities of the Yugoslav bttigres had produced little or no result.

It is clear from the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th that, since the receipt of the first Yugoslav representation of October 9th, 1930, the Htmgarian Government has never 011ce failed to forward withoz't delay requests for information to the competetzt H1mgarian police methorities or to comm1tnicate the latter's replies to the Y·u.goslav Government.

The table annexed to the present communication (Annex 32) gives a summary of the notes exchanged during a period of four years, the texts of which were attached to the Yugoslav memorandum, and proves adequately that the charge relating to delays on the part of the Hungarian Government is absolutely untenable.

M. Yevtitch, Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking, at a meeting of the Council on December 7th, 1934, of the diplomatic correspondence between the two Governments, thought fit to direct the Council's particular attention to the Yugoslav representations of J uly 1oth, 1933, and March 13th, 1934, and described them as having been of a most urgent character.

I feel bound to point out that the two cases quoted by the Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs bear witness in point of fact to the very scrupulott-s care with which the Hungarian Government examined tlte cases brought to its knowledge and dealt with the representations referrit~g to those cases.

Moreover, the H ungarian reply (Annex 33), dated November 15th, 1933, to the Yugoslav note of July 10th of that year proves adequately that the efforts of the Hungarian Government and the Hungarian authorities to prevent the clandestine crossing of the frontier between Hungary and Yugoslavia were hampered by the attitude of the Yugoslav frontier-guards, who not only refused to co-operate with the Hungarian authorities but actually assisted the escape of emigrants over the frontier. Further, the impossible situation which obtained in this respect for years on the frontier between the two countries was described in the complaint addressed on May 8th last by t?e Hungarian Government to the Council of the League of Nations concerning the question of frontier incidents.

Again, as a point to the Hungarian Government's credit may be mentioned the Hungarian note of April 26th last (see Annex 21) in reply to the Yugoslav representation of .March 13th of that year (Annex 34). In that note, the Hungarian -Government, showing its extreme solicitude, anticipates the Yugoslav desiderata and informs the Yugoslav Government that, even before the representation of March 13th, 1934-that is to say, in February of that year-it had taken the necessary measures for the evacuation of J ankapuszta by the Yugoslav political refugees and the emigres, and it declares that it is prepared to accede to the Yugoslav Government's request that all Yugoslav emigres who have abused the hospitality they enjoyed in Hungary should be removed from Hungary. The Council knows, from the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th, I934-that the energetic steps subsequently taken by the Hungarian Government were such that half the emigres at J anka Puszta had left the country within a few months.

It is clear then, from the foregoing considerations, that there is no foundat ion for the statement that all the Yugoslav diplomatic representations produced no result or for the further statement, made by M. Yevtitch in his speech of December 7th, that the Hungarian Government met them with an undoubted lack of goodwill, which the Yugoslav Government sought to prove by reproducing the correspondence in question in its memorandum.

On the contrary, the Hungarian Government has never failed to give the Yugoslav representations due consideration, although, as was pointed out in the Hungarian memorandum

-II-

mber 8th, there was no sign for <1; long timet? sh?w that the Yugosla~ Govern men~ attributed of~litical importance to the question dealt With m those representations or that 1t regarded any Pas anything more than police matters. thelll

In order that these ~atters may be prope~ly understood, it may be wel~ to recall the atmosph~re t revailed at the tune. May I be perrmtted to revert to the notonous persecutions dunng

that p riod of which the Croats were victims not only in Yu~oslavia but, in the form of outrages, ~~road. Those persecutions and crimes were the object everywhere of the keenest reprobation.

It was in that at!llosphere that the Hungaria~ Government had to consider the Yugoslav resentations; and 1t could only contemplate pobce measures as the utmost that could be done

~~psatisfy those representations. It was strengthened in this view by the further fact that, having uested the Yugoslav Government for further information to assist in the enquiries voluntarily

:tituted with the object of elucidating the circumstances of cer tain outrages committed in Yugo­slavia-that is a point to which I shall revert presently-it received no reply. Hence the Hungarian Government could not attach greater importance to the Belgrade Government's requests than the Belgrade Government itself attached to them.

The charge brought against the Hungarian Government that, during a period of four years, it was slow in replying to the _Yugoslay G.o~emment's complaints falls to the ground in view, inter alia, of the fact- the detatls of which 1t 1s not necessary to recall here, as these have already been reported in the memorandum of December 8th-that, desirous as it was of establishing neighbourly relations, the Hungarian Government, without waiting for the Yugoslav Government's representations, took the initiative, early in 1931, of opening an enquiry into cases in which news of certain criminal attempts committed in Yugoslavia had reached it. Through its Minister in Belgrade, th~ H~gari.an ~ovemment informed the Yugoslav Govern~ent ?f the results, invariably neaative, of 1ts mveshgatlons, and asked that Government to put at 1ts d1sposal the data collected by

1\he Yu~osl3:v authorities, il! order that the Hungarian Gov~rnment might complete the investi­

gations which 1t had voluntarily undertaken. In the Hungan an memorandum of December 8th, we were obliged to note to our regret that, at the time in question, the Yugoslav Government did not see fit to reply to the Hungarian Government's invitation, and this fact made any further comment superfluous.

At the same time, seeing that M. Yevtitch, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated at the meeting of the Council on December roth, 1934, that the Yugoslav Government, after seeking carefully in its archives for any traces of the Hungarian application, had been unable to discover my, I feel that it may not be devoid of interest to attach to the present communication the infor­mation that the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs possesses in the matter (Annex 35), and I would venture to direct the Council's special attention to that information.

VIII.

The Yugoslav Government thought fit to devote a special chapter of its memorandum to the Koprivnica outrage and, in this connection, to deal-in a tone calculated to cast doubt on the good faith of the Hungarian authorities- with the question of the failure of the efforts to arrest Mijo Kralj. who was implicated in the Premec affair, and that of the Hungarian nationality of ~emec, who was finally condemned by the Hungarian courts to fifteen years' imprisonment '11th hard labour. The memorandum also gives a biased account of the incidents which took pl.ace before the Royal Court of Kaposvar and the Supreme Royal Court at the sittings dealing "1th the Koprivnica outrage.

The discussion of these questions might perhaps be regarded as exhausted by the exchange of notes between the Hungarian and Yugoslav Governments, some of them having also been cleared up by the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th. Nevertheless, as I stated in the preamble to the present communication, the Hungarian Government, prompted, as regards the measures adopted in pursuance of the Council resolution of December roth, by the desire to submit to the Council information covering the whole of the facts discussed or touched upon in the yugoslav memorandum, I now have the honour to set forth the following facts and considerations tn order to rectify the contents of Chapter VIII of the Yugoslav memorandum:

.(1) The detailed report drawn up by the Secretary of State for Justice on the basis of the offic~al. documents (Annex 36) clearly shows the zeal and circumspection with which the Htmgart"an admtmstrative and 1"udicial a1dhorities took, without delay, all the measttres which were likely to lead to the ~rrest of Mijo Kralj, pursued their investigations on this matter and carried out, according to the1r instructions, and so far as was necessary, a supplementary investigation.

A (2) The allegation that Edouard Premec was not a Hungarian national is likewise tmfoun~ed. t ~refn:ec's request, the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior gave him back his Hunganan

nahonahty (the deed of naturalisation constitutes Annex 37). Premec and his wife bot~ t~ok the oath of allegiance on November 24th, 1927. I should like to point out that na.turahsa~wn ~anted on the basis of Law XVII of 1922, Article 24 of which was invoked in t.he case m q.uestlon, 15 not. s~bject to the proviso that the person concerned shall have. previOusly. recetved an el!patnatton permit from the State whose national he bad become in v1rtue of Arhcle 6r of the Treaty of Trianon.

-12-

(3) The Yugoslav memorandum suggests in veiled terms, which can, however dece· one, that Premec's Hungarian nationality was recognised for form's sake, and that their{vestitt no with a view to the arrest of Mijo Kralj were intentionally unsuccessful, because if Eda IOns Premec was not a Hungarian national and Mijo Kralj had been found, their extr~dition ~u~dd have had to be granted to Yugoslavia. Our reply is as follows: 0

Under the Convention concerning extradition and judicial co-operation in criminal matt , concluded in Belgrade on February 22nd, 1928, between Hungary and Yugoslavia and mers precisely in accordance with Article 3, paragraph I , No. z, and paragraph II, No. r, tk extradit?re of Edouard Premec would have had to be refused in any case, apart from the q1~sticm of his nalitmal ~:n on the one hand because this was a political offence, and on the other because, since he han~~d over the infernal machine to Slavko Zagar at the Hungarian frontier-station of Gyekenyes h committed the criminal act on Hungarian territory and thus the whole act leading to' the perpetration of the crime was committed on Hungarian territory. The fact that the explosio~ of the infernal machine took place on the territory of another State does not affect the definition of the place where the crime was committed; Hungarian law (Law XXXIII of 18<)6, Article I6 paragraph r) lays it down that the competence of the court is usually determined by the plac~ where the criminal act was committed, even if its effect is produced elsewhere. For these reasons the Royal Court of Kaposvar considered Edouard Premec's act as an act committed on Hungaria~ ~erritory . In virtue of the foregoin~ .convention, therefore, the Hungarian Go':'ernment could m no case have agreed to the extradition of Edouard Premec, and the same co1~stderations would apply to the case of Mifo Kralf, had it been possible to arrest him.

(4) As regards the Premec trial, the Yugoslav memorandum states that this was carefuUy organised, and the members of the Oustacha organisation present handed over to the advocate Hegyi, at Kaposvar, at the latter's request, revolvers and ammunition in such quantities as would according to M. Hegyi's statement, have sufficed for the waging of a regular battle. '

The enquiry instituted on this matter included, in.ter alia, the hearing of the advocate Hegyi whose deposition (Annex 38) shows that he made no proposal inviting the Croat emigres wh~ wished to be present at the trial to leave their arms with him, and that it is also untrue that some thirty pistols were deposited at his residence. The truth of this statement is also confirmed by the report of the witnesses' deposition forming Annexes 39 a and b.

(S) Lastly, as regards the biased account in the Yugoslav memorandum of the proceedings before the Royal Court of Kaposvar and the Supreme Royal Court, we should like to make tbe following observations:

The Hungarian courts enfoy complete independence, and the Hungarian Government is powerless to modify the c01trse of ftl-Stice. The Hungarian judicial authorities have no means of influencing the method by which the President of the cour t conducts the proceedings. The Yugoslav state­ment that at the Premec t rial the reporting judge sketched a very dark picture of the political situation in Yugoslavia cannot be true, because, according to Hungarian legislation (Law XXXIII of r896, Article 296), the proceedings are conducted by the President, and the reporting judge takes no part in them. If the court admitted the possibility of Edouard Premec, a simple peasant, himself being able to manufacture a bomb, it was because Premec had informed the court that he had been a soldier during the war, and during that time had followed a course in the handling of explosives, and also that be had received from Yugoslavia precise instructions for the manufacture of the bomb.

As regards the speech made by the representative of the Public Prosecutor before the Supreme Royal Court on October 9th, 1934, I beg to attach to the present communication (Annexes 40 a and b) the declaration of the Public Prosecutor's deputy, representing the prosecution at the hearing in question. This shows that the text quoted in the Yugoslav memorandum has been taken, not from the speech delivered before the Supreme Royal Court, but from an article wh!ch appeared in a Budapest newspaper. The Public Prosecutor's deputy asserts in his declaration that be said nothing which could be regarded as a criticism of the Yugoslav internal situation and merely expressed his conviction that the accused should be punished according to the law, but .th~t the punishment should be proportionate to his subjective culpability. This declaration IS m accordance with Hungarian law, which provides that official authorities and agents mus.t take into account aggravating circumstances constituting a charge, as well as attenuating circum· stances constituting a defence, from which it appears that the courts dealing with the case were called upon at all stages to weigh very carefully the subjective circumstances as well, as these must be taken into consideration in establishing the degree of culpability and the extent of the penalty.

lX.

The authors of the Yugoslav memorandum have drawn up a table of terrorist acts con:mitted on Yugoslav territory between the years 1929 and 1934, and have endeavoured to give the unprcr sion that these acts were prepared or instigated on Hungarian territory. I should like to rep Y to them as follows:

In the first place, it should be noted as a characteristic feature that the whole series of terrorist outrages attd crimes enumerated in the Yugoslav comtmmication dates from the period subsequent to the institution of the neco regime on J amcary 6th, I929.

I need only point out that the Hungarian Government has already observed in the memo­randum submitted to the Council on December 8th last that, out of the large number of outrages

-13-

J}1Jllitted in Yugoslavia during the last five years, the Yugoslav memorandum mentions only f nty perpetrated by Croats on Yugoslav territory against the Yugoslav State, and that in most

0f~ese cases the Yugoslav Government itself does not claim to find any traces of a connection with Hungary·

We would add that the table attached to the present communication and summarising the change of diplomatic notes during the four years referred to in the Yugoslav memorandum

~~ly shows that, in the sma.!l nu~ber of cases in whi~h the Yug~sl~v Gove~ment. approached the Hungarian Government, etther m order to commurucate certam mformatton to tt or to urge .1 to take certain measures, the Hungarian Government never failed to transmit the requests to ~e competent Hungarian authorities and to bring the information co1lected to the knowledge of the Yugoslav Government.

Lastly, as regards the list of sentences passed on terrorists in the cases brought before the Yugoslav Court for the Defence of the State, and the description of the circumstances of the outrages, 1 would emphasise that, in most of t~e cases considered and as rega:ds the majority of the persons implicated in these _cases, t~e Hunganan Govern~ent ~uly _commumcated to the Y.u?oslav Govern­ment the informatiOn obtamed as the result of mvesttgahons made at Yugoslavia s request, ancl the present communication also contains such information, where necessary.

As regards the sentences of the Yugoslav courts, I am also bound to point out that the presumed relations with Hungary of the perpetrators of outrages in Yugoslavia were based, as regards cases tried in Yugoslavia, chiefly on the depositions of the accused. It is only natural that the Yugoslav Court for the Defence of the State should have taken these statements into account when passing judgment, but it is impossible for us to attribute the force of conclusive evidence to the statements of the accused, especially as we were unable to establish definitely whether they were true or not.

X.

At the end of the memorandum of December 8th last submitted on behalf of the Hungarian Government to the Council of the League of Nations, we analysed in detail the facts put forward in the communication from the Yugoslav Government in order to place a part of the responsibility for the Marseilles crime on the Hungarian authorities. We showed in this memorandum that flis accttsation did not bear examittation, since Hm~gary had been the sce1le neither of the coucepti01z, ~preparation nor the execution of the crime.

In the introduction to the present communication, I ventured in the course of general observations to remind the Council of the conclusion to be drawn from the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th-namely, that no responsibility, either direct or indirect, can be thrown on the Hungarian authorities with regard to the Marseilles outrage. The Hungarian Government maintains this conclusion unchanged after the enquiry which it opened, or rather resumed, in accordance with the Council's resolution of December 1oth, the results of which I have the honour to summarise in the present communication.

It is therefore solety for the sake of thoroughness that I deal will• the assertions contained i1t Chapter X of the Yttgoslav memorandum.

(1) It is stated that the emigres Kralj, Pospisil and Raic were selected for the assassination oft~e King of Yugoslavia by drawing lots in the presence of Lieutenant-Colonel Percevic, at Nagy­kamzsa. This statement may be considered as rebutted by the deposition made by Lieutenant­Colonel Percevic before the Vienna police, the official record of which is several times quoted in ~he present communication and forms Annex 23. This officer was in Hungary for the last time m April 1934; during the month of September, he did not leave Vienna for a single hour ; under these ~ircurnstances, he states that it is a pure invention that the persons who were to commit the cnme were selected by lots drawn in his presence at Nagykanizsa .

. (2) The Yugoslav memorandum states that the three emigres left Hungarian territorv unhlndered, with Hungarian passports made out in false names. •

, . T~e Hungarian memorandum of December 8th has already explained that these three Croat ~~~~gres, who are at present detained in France for complicity in the Marseilles crime, left Hungary, bike other political bnigris who have left the country since April last, as a result of steps taken Y the Hungarian Government, in the first place to evacuate the farm of Jankapuszta and, in the

second, to remove the Croat emigres from Hungary.

. The report from the Budapest Prefecture of Police annexed to the present communication ~.{lOses of the Yugoslav accusations in respect of passports by showing that the three Croat etn~tris could not possibly have possessed Hungarian passports. The Budapest Prefecture of P~lice has undertaken the most exhaustive enquiries into this matter; the investigations have ~ 0~. that no passports have ever been made out in the names of the terrorists Mijo Kralj,

05PISil and Raic or in their assumed names mentioned in the Yugoslav memorandum.

fo (3) . Let us pass on to the accusation that the three imigris in question receive~ in~truc~i?ns i r the JOurney, railway tickets and the necessary funds from the heads of t~e o~ga~tsation hvmg n Budapest, who sent them through a person called Mijo Bzik. The enqu1ry mshtuted by the

---14-

Budapest Prefecture of Police and carried on at the request of the Marseilles examining ma . showed that if a person of the name of Mijo Bzik existed, he had certainly never stayed in II~:~~

(4) Lastly, I wo.uld point out. that there is no contradiction between the radio-tel from the Budapest pollee referred to m the Yugoslav memorandum and the Hungarian note v!~T of December 14th, 1933, regarding Michel Kralj. The particulars contained in the note ver ~ relate to an earlier period, in particular the year 1933, while the radio-telegram from theBuda bale police refers to a later period-namely, the months preceding the Marseilles crime, when to~ knowledge of the Hungarian authorities, Mijo Kralj did not, in fact, come to Hungary.' e

XI.

Speaking of the attitude of the Hungarian authorities after the Marseilles outrage the memorandum of the Yugoslav Government asserts that the Hungarian police took refuge in complete silence and that the Hungarian Government obstructed the international enquiries designed to shed light on the circumstances of the crime by a policy of systematic negation. In reply to this statement, attention may be drawn to the following facts:

(1) In Annexes 41 and 42 to the present document will be found two reports dated October 31st, 1934, submitted by the Prefecture of Police in Budapest to the Royal Hu~garian Minister of the Interior ; the first of these reports contains an account of the measures and investi­gations instituted by the Budapest Prefecture of Police with regard to the Marseilles outrage prior to the date of the report, the other being a record of the telegrams exchanged between the Budapest Prefecture of Police and the French Surete.

From these detailed reports, it is clear that, even before the case was officially referred to them, the Hungarian police authorities had, on their own initiative and immediately after the perpetration of the crime, set on foot investigations covering all the facts and circumstances brought to their notice, at the outset merely through reports in the foreign Press. From the \'ery beginning these investigations were extended to J ankapuszta, where enquiries were made on the spot and where it was found that, in so far as the persons who had been staying there 1rere concerned, the farm had already been liquidated in April 1934; similar action was taken at Nagykanizsa, where the enquiries led to the arrest of two Croat refugees who were found there. The most careful enquiries were made regarding the personal history of the regicide, from which it appeared, as is well known and as has already been stated in the present communication, that Vlada Georgijev had never made a stay in Hungary. The records of the past four years in the archives of the passport service of the Budapest Prefecture of Police were examined with the assistance of the Hungarian central criminal records authorities and the political section of the police. The investigations also bore upon the activities of the Croat emigres Kralj, Raic and Pospisil, and all those who had been mentioned in the Yugoslav Government's notes to the Hungarian Government. Every attempt was made to trace J ohn Servaci, Dr. Mile Budak and Dr. Alexandre Vlahov, and the Budapest Prefecture of Police kept the Paris Surete constantly informed of the various stages in the investigations undertaken at its request.

These facts justify the conclusion that the accusation that, after the Marseilles outrage, tl1e H1·mgarian police authorities took refu.ge in silence is completely unfot-inded. The efforts of the Hungarian police authorities were on the contrary hampered by certain action undertaken from outside. As an example, I may cite the following case:

Immediately on the receipt of the request with regard to Vjekoslav Servaci, the Hungarian police authorities did their utmost to trace him, and if their assiduous endeavours were defeated, the responsibility must be borne by M. Negre, the Budapest correspondent of the Havas Agency, who, even before the arrival of the request addressed to the Hungarian authorities, had undertaken private enquiries and issued a false report-which was reproduced by foreign newspapers-to the effect that Servaci had been arrested in Hungary. These enquiries, together with the false report, obviously warned Servaci-Szendrey that he would be prosecuted, with the result that he disappeared from Budapest on October 13th last-that is to say, more than eight days before the arrival of the Yugoslav Government's note. For evidence of the foregoing statements, reference may be made to the records reproduced in Annex .43·

(2) I n like mamter, I again categorically protest against the accusation that the Hung~ria11 Govern·ment followed a policy of systematic negatiott towards the international investigations destgned to shed light on the hidde·n ramifications of the Marseilles outrage. In actual fact, the reque.sts which reached the Hungarian Government were at once passed on by the Royal Hungar1an Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the competent Hungarian authorities, who lost no time whatsoever in co-operating to the full in the investigations suggested in the Yugoslav communications.

I need only refer to the verbal notes-of which a summary table is submitted (Ann~x 44 to the present communication)-sent by the Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affa~ w reply to the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest with regard to the following subjects: the .penod: which the regicide Vlada Georgijev is alleged to have passed in Hungary; the investigatl~ns s~ on foot to trace the Croat emigre Vjetoslav Servaci; the action of the Yugoslav Le~~bon .;~ the case of the fisherman J oseph Dudas; the action taken by the Hungarian authonttes WI

regard to the alleged Croat bnigres accused of subversive propaganda on the banks of the Mu.ra, where they have the right to fish, together with the action taken in respect of the Hung~na~ " joint owners " accused of similar propaganda. I would draw special attention to the promphtud

- I5-

'th which the Hw1garian authorities acceded to the Yugoslav requests for the arrest of Dr. Mile Bvt dak and I venture to recall the exchange of notes regarding the investigations in respect of J x~dre Vlahov's passport. In the last place, I would refer to the verbal note of November 2nd : e.vhich the Hungarian Government dealt with the question of Croat emigration into Hungary !D ;eneral and c~mmunica~e~ to the Yugoslav Legation .in Budapest a lis~ of seventeen persons JD der special police supervlSlon. In the last place, I desrre to draw attention to the note on the :Oe subject handed by the Hungarian Government to the Legation on November 21st, together with the particulars given in the lists annexed to that note.

(3) As regards the specific allegations put forward in the Yugoslav memorandum, I have the honour to submit the following observations:

In the case of the receipts alleged to have been signed by Persec under a false name in Budapest n June 24th, 1934, the question at issue is whether the letter and signature are genuine. In

~his connection it should be noted that Persec, who also gave the name of Emile Horvath, under which he le~sed .Jankapuszta, ~s one and the same person-as the Budapest police have succee.ded in establishmg smce the Marseilles ou.trage-as the man who, on August rst, 1933, took lodgmgs at 129 Baross-Utca, Budapest, under the name of Joseph Haber, and subsequently disappeared from that address at a date which it has been impossible to ascertain. On this point, I may refer to the records of witnesses' statements reproduced in Annexes 45 a-c. The statement that Persec, alias Joseph Haber, removed his furniture to the above-mentioned address under the escort of the Hungarian police is untrue.

I consider it superfluous to revert to the statements regarding Mijo Kralj, as on this subject 1 have already supplied detailed information based upon the report drawn up by the Secretary of State for Judicial Affairs.

As regards Vjetoslav Servaci, I have already ventured to draw the Council's attention to the difficulties encountered by the Hungarian police authorities in their search for that individual in consequence of the interference of the Budapest correspondent of the Havas Agency. In refutation of the report-a pure invention-that the Budapest Prefecture of Police had arrested biro on October 23rd last and that the head of the Press Bureau at the Prefecture of Police had announced that fact, I will confine myself to referring to the records in Annexes 46 a and b.

In the last place, although it would appear superfluous, after the detailed information supplied in the Hungarian memorandum of December 8th and in the present communication, to lay stress upon the absence of any contradiction in the Hungarian Government's statements regarding the liquidation of the 1ankapuszta farm, I wish to emphasise that, as is proved by the facts, the Hungarian Government took these measures as early as February 1934, that the farm was in ~uence vacated in the following April and that by October its agricultural activities had been completely wound up.

* • • In summing up the foregoing, I consider it tucessary to draw special attention to the following

points:

(r) In the light of the very searching enquiries carried out by the Hungarian Government, #should be borne it~ mind that it is impossible to establish any direct or indirect connection between tlfe Hut~garian Government or its st~bordinate attthorities and the Marseilles <mtrage, for which they are in no way responsible.

(2) In view more especially of the inadequacy of the measures in force which made no allowance for the abnormal cases then in existence, certain mi·nor Hungarian officials failed to supervise Croat immigration with the vigilance t~sary in such unusual cases; for these reasons, the Htmgarian Governme11t has taken st,itable disciplitUJry measures wherever such ttegligence has btetJ established.

(3) Under the inftuence of the events of Marseilles and in accordance with the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations, the Hungarian Govemmeut has decided to take stricter measures as regards the supervision of foreig11e-rs atul the regttlation.s govemit£g the issue of passports. . The Royal Hungarian Government considers that, having, in the foregoing memorandum, mformed the Council of the results of the very thorou.gh enquiries carried out in execution of the Co~cil's resolution of December 10th last, of the disciplinary action taken in regard to certain o~~1als and also of the governmental reforms recently introduced, with a view to stricter super­VISion of political emigres and improvements in the methods of issuing passports and in the whole of the administration connected therewith, it has shown itself conscious of its international responsibilities and fully discharged the obligations laid t4pon it by the Cot,ncil.

Geneva, January r2th, 1935. (Signed) Tibor DE ECKHARDT,

Delegate of Htmgary to the Council of the Leagt'e of Nations.

- 16 -

Annex 1.

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of State Police, Budapest.

No. 3456/1934 Allro.

To the Prefect of Police.

With regard to the antecedents of Vincent Mihalus we have the honour to report as follows:

I. - Vincent Mihalus was born in 1890 in the County of Trencsen, Commune of Szedern where his father was a farmer. After completing his secondary education, he matriculafed towards 1910 at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Royal Hungarian University in Buda est He intended to become a teacher of botany, but did not complete his studies. On December f6th. 1916, before the Registrar of District IX of Budapest, he married, in due legal form, Mlle. Katheri11~ Magdalen Demusz, daughter of a relative of the owner of the Demusz Restaurant, domiciled in Budapest. During the 1918-rgr9 revolutions, he was an extremist in attitude and sentiments It was said that, under the communist regime, he worked with a communist official named Mokniny, or some similar name. After the fall of the so-called Republic of Hungarian Soviets he did not dare to remain in Hungary. He went to his native village and then to Nagyszombat' where he settled down in partnership with his brother-in-law, Zemko. He soon became lh~ organiser of t he Communist Party. In 1920, he took part in the Slovak Separatist :\Io,·ement He had no definite profession, position or resources. He sometimes described himself as ;u; employee, sometimes as a journalist or professor, and later even as a politician. Ashe was without resources, he made use of both movements to obtain money in exchange for confidential services· he applied to those who were working for these movements as well as to those who were working against them.

In Slovakia, everyone is convinced that Vincent Mihalus has several times been in 3Ioscow, where he is said to have attended the school for agitators. This is possible; in any case,\\ is certain that Vincent Mihalus left for Moscow as the agent of lhe Communist Party of Slovakia, his mission being to secure the inclusion of the Slovak question on the agenda of the Komintem Congress. It would seem that, on this occasion, he only reached Berlin. There, he got into touch with the Soviet leaders, perhaps also with Bela Kun . At this time, he and his secretary are said to have entered into negotiations at Geneva with Bela Kun. It is certain that Mihalus was at Geneva and was fairly well acquainted with the situation at Geneva at that time.

While he was still in Berlin, Mihalus was deprived of his office in the Communist Party because the party did not consider him to be trustworthy. At this time, Mihalus was deported from Bavaria as a communist suspect. In 1923, he was definitely expelled from the Communist Party. Since then, he has always ~trongly denied having had anything to do with Bolshevist movements. This, however, as far as he was concerned, was merely playing a double game, because information published by the Czech Press concerning the Tuka case also confirmed the fact that Mihalus was in the service of Bela Tuka, one of the leaders of the Slovak Separatist Movement, and that he said that he bad agreed to play a part in the Communist Party in order to carry on the work undertaken by M. Tuka, but on better lines. This proves that Mihalus was an agent provocateur. His subsequent activities provide further evidence of the fact.

Towards 1924, Mihalus lived partly in Budapest and partly in Slovakia at Nagyszombat, after definitely settling his wife in Budapest. This was useful to him, because he could come to Budapest without attracting notice on the ground that he was visiting his v.rife, and could also obtain access to associations in which he would have some chance of exercising his talents as agent provocateur.

We have said that, when expelled from the Communist Party, Mihalus-as is proved by his own official deposition-entered the service of Professor Tuka. But, at the same time, ~e sought and succeeded in establishing contact with other political movements, particularly .rn Czech circles which certainly did not approve of the movement initiated by M. Tuka. This 1s f~~er evidence of Mihalus' double-dealing and also proves that he was a humbug and a conunon pohtlca~ adventurer. He himself says in a letter in his own handwriting, dated February 19th, 1929. " One thing is certain: little ammunition, little result; much ammunition, great results". ~Io~e­over, apart from this dictum, his petty frauds and sharp practices to obtain money, wh~n 1:

confidential services failed to provide him with sufficient funds, also prove that Vincent M~~u~ was actuated by purely selfish motives. This selfishness, absence of all principle and hypocnhca duplicity were even more clearly demonstrated by his activities subsequent to 1925. .

In the years 1926 to 1928, Vincent Mihalus played a very active part in Czechoslov~a. In 1927, he published a pamphlet entitled "Civil Disobedience: A Weapon in the Campatgn for National Freedom in India ".

In 1928, further proof is forthcoming tha,t Vincent .Mihalus was an agent provocate~;'· ,h~ was determine.d ~t all costs to becom~ a memb~r of the " Society of S~ovak Refugees " ,ed t he Slovak bmgres hoped to found. H1s plans fa1led because the Hungar1an Government refuih' to approve t he statutes of the proposed society, owing to its political character. A few mon '

-17-

t r on November 4t~, 1928, there appeared a pamphlet entitled "Dekret '', which contained I~ e proclamation of an mdependent Slovak State. This pamphlet was signed by Vincent Mihal us ~ ethe name of the " Slovak Council of State ". 10

On December 24th, 1928, the judicia I authorities at Briinn (Brno) issued a warrant for the est of Vincent Mlhalus ~nd his accomplice.c; on the ground that they had signed the proclamation

arrd to escape prosecution, had fled Czechoslovak territory and gone into hiding. Mibalus ~~~equently settled _at Baden ne~r Vienna. Ht> l ived there in grand style, spent money fre~>ly

d resided at the Vtlla Flore wh1ch bears the name of the Duke of Reichstadt. He may have a~tained funds from various quarters. He oiten went to Vienna, to the Soviet Legation and to ~afes frequented by ':'iennese C_omm~nists .. _He also maintained relatio~s with Czech info~ers. His manifold connections, provmg hts duphc•ty, are betrayed by these hnes from a letter wntten b him on February 12th, 1929 : " I note that the time for open offensive action has not yet clme and that nothing can be done in this matter. In the meantime, while Ugy Berns, Head of the Flemish Movement, Pavelic, Croat delegate abroad, and I are working to create the league of oppressed. nations, \~e lack the means that would enable us to hasten the course of even ts". A letter, wntten by him on September 15th, 1930, at Velden am Worthersee, throws further light on the character of Mihalus. This letter shows that Mihalus had for some time past been in close touch with several Croat emigres. It also proves that Mihalus was able to get over the Pan-Slav convictions he had often proclaimed, since he says: " I have convinced our Croat brothers that our economic and political position could only be assured within the framework of the former Great Hungary and the Empire founded by St. Stephen and Coloman ".

The year 1930 is an important date in the multifarious and suspect activities of Vincent Mihalus. He says that in that year the Czechs offered him an estate of 220 arpent&, which h(. refused in order to devote himself to the creation of a " World Slovak Federation ". According to Mihalus' ideas, that would have enabled him, among other matters, to get into touch-for the purpose of producing false information-with Hungarian associations working for revision by peaceful means, or other cultural and patriotic Hungarian associations.

The World Slovak Federation was in fact founded in Vienna in the Cafe Bellaria. At the umstituent Assembly which appointed Vincent Mihalus its Secretary-General, William Bajan, a Communist who had been forbidden to reside in Hungary, was also present. We have already mentioned Mibalus' relations with Communist circles; it should be noted here that William Bajan was at that time an informer for the Presburg police. The heads of the World Slovak Federation soon found out that Vincent Mihalus had relations with the Presburg police, Dr. Milan Ivanka and William Bajan. Consequently, the Slovensko Noviny, which appeared at Passaic, expressed in its number of April 4th, 1931, the suspicion that Mibalus, the founder of the World Slovak federation, was in the pay of the Czechs. At the instance of Mihalus, the Austrian Government :rnnted recognition to the World Slovak Federation by approving its statutes. Thereupon the leaders of the Federation excluded Mihal us, because they had not received satisfactory information concerning his personal character. That is not all. These leaders had become convinced that Mibalus was secretly endeavouring to give to the Federation's activities a direction which would have made it the tool of the Czechs. He also spoke of terrorist acts, the blowing-up of bridges, attacks on individuals, etc . . that was not in keep~ng with the aims of the Federation. The leaders of the Federation had the impression that Mihalus was a Communist at heart and was more concerned with obtaining money than worlcing for a cause. Furthermore, Mihalus was too keen on getting into touch with Government circles in order to continue his activities as agent pr()l)ocateur. He pretended to ignore his exclusion from the World Slovak Federation. Brazenly, he continued to work in the name of the Federation. There was no longer any doubt that he was endeavouring to make himself useful to the Czechs and, as he bad nothing to offer them, he set out himself to manufacture false information for which the Czechs might be prepared to pay. A case in point is the false information which Mihalus endeavoured to furnish concerning the Workers' Federation "Gabor Aron" and concerning the M.E.F.H.O.SZ. and the M.O.V.E. to which he refers in his statement. He needed to obtain money by this means, the most obvious reason among many being that in the meantime be had become separated from his wife. At Baden, he made the acquaintance of a retired general's daughter; it is even said that he married he~ and had a child by her. We have no definite information concerning this alleged bigamy. It IS also asserted that this bigamous marriage was the second in Mihalus' career. The fact is tba, at this period Mihalus spent most of his time at Baden living at the ho.1Sf' in the PaJffy-gasse ~f a ~etired colonel of the name of Spielberger-Spiluall. During his stay at Baden, Mibalus lived m good style, so that it is fair to assume that he was being paid for Communist missions. At that time, on account of his relations with the Communists, he was deported from Austria. For a short .while he came to live in Budapest, whence he proceeded once or twice to Vienna. There he communicated to the Czech delegate all the false documents he had forged in Budapest as agent provocateur.

A fact which indicates that Vincent Mihalus was endeavouring to establish relations with ~e Czechs is that he had often in these last few years expressed a desire to return to S~ovaki;;t.

e had been unmasked in November 1933-and be made use of the fact to achteve. h1s purpose. The Slovak emigres had had enough of his double-dealing, and his deeds and domgs w~re described in the Vienna Slovak newspaper Rakuski Slovak. Moreover, in October 1933, Mihalus bad received from the Czechs an assurance that, his personal liberty being guarantee~, he could prepare the winding-up of his work at Brno and return to Slovakia. He accepted tbts offer and on November 3rd, 1933, left for Brno. There he came to an agreement with. Dr. Stef~n~k, a deputy of the Czechoslovak Agrarian Party, and M. Igor Hrusovsky, a Czech NatJOI_Jai-Soctahst deputy, regarding the conditions of his return. These conditions included the deltvery of all

- r8-

information concerning M. Tuka, the Slovak emigres, the" Junak" and" Janosik" Or ani . witnesses, written evidence, etc. These deputies promised Mihalus a considerable grew sa~ons, his work accomplished on behalf of the nation. I t was agreed that he should receive f for year 3,000 Czechoslovak crowns per month, a complete set of furniture and, for the or one of his mission, a sum of r oo,ooo Czechoslovak crowns cash down, various facilities ef~?ses deputies stipulated in exchange that for one year he should hold himself at the disposai of ~~e police and the courts. If these conditions were accepted, be would have to surrender him 1~ to ~he Pres burg police and remain at Presburg, " in custody ", so that he might always s~ available. e

At the outset, Vincent Mihalus hesitated to accept these conditions for his return B his hesitation can hardly have been serious. Two months after the date of November rgth. 1 ut fixed for his return , he went to Presb.urg, were be was arrested in acc?rdance \~th theagre~m~~~· It would seem that the other promiSes were also kept and that Vmcent Mibalus received h.­reward. At any rate, that seems to be the implication contained in the open letter publishe~ by the Czech National deputy Vladimir Polivka in the June 7th, 1934. issue of the A.-let newspaper appearing in Prague and a strong supporter of M. Benes. The open letter a'sk~da in connection with the Mihal us affair, whether Dr. Milan I vanka was the real head of the Presbur ' police, whether it was true that the Presburg police were paying Mibalus 2,500 Czechoslova~ crowns per month and had paid for Mihalus' furniture at Presburg.

* * * II. - In his statement, Vincent Mibalus refers to two social associations, the M.O.V.E.

(Magyar Orszagos Vedero Egyesiilet) 1 and the National Association of Turanian Sportsmen (Tunini Vadaszok Egyesillete), as if they were armed groups under the control of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of National Defence.

In face of this assertion-which is either biased or the result of ignorance-we would state that the statutes of both these associations have been approved by the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior and that it is this Ministry which supervises them. We would emphasise the fact that neither the M.O.V.E. nor the Association of Turanian Sportsmen has ever been an armed group or ever possessed such groups.

The M.O.V.E. has always endeavoured to realise the aim specified in its statutes on a national and Christian basis. It has shown great activity, mainly in the sphere of the organisation of spotts. Latterly it has widened its scope and taken up social work. It endeavours to bring Hungarian workmen back to the national ideals. Its activities in the domain of sport are growing daily. It has created special sections for athletics, ping-pong, wrestling, football, motoring, motor-cycling, cycling, marksmanship, gliding, t ennis, touring, swimming and fencing. The marksmanship section is probably that which has been represented as an " armed group ". The uninitiated might the more easily be misled by the fact that the members of the M.O.V.E. have to appear at certain festivals wearing the sports clothes (uniform) prescribed by the statutes. This uniform does not include firearms, so that persons wearing it in conformity with the statutes could not be, and in fact never were, armed. To confound this uniform dress, without arms, with a uniform of which arms form a part is therefore a distortion of the truth. We may add that the conditions under which the uniform may be worn and the manner of wearing it are laid down in a special ordinance of the Royal Hungarian Government.

These principles governing the M.O.V.E. also apply to the Association of Turanian Sportsmen, the Society of Awakening Hungarians, and, in general, all the associations mentioned in l\'lihalus' statement and worthy of being mentioned here.

The Association of Turanian Sportsmen mainly endeavours, in accordance with its statutes, to afford its members possibilities of indulging in sport and hunting. Its members were authorised to wear a sort of uniform. For a long time now, it has not engaged in any real activity.

We have mentioned above the Society of Awakening Hungarians, which owes to the uniform worn by the members of its " Sas " (Eagle) section the honour of a place in Mihalus' state~ent alongside the M.O.V.E. and the Association of Turanian Sportsmen. Like these latter, the Soc1ety of Awakening Hungarians abstains from all politics and endeavours, by cultivating a national and Christian spirit, to achieve its social, cultural and economic aims. The same principles govern ~he activities of the M.E.F.H.O.SZ. (Magyar Egyeterni es Foiskolai Hal1gat6k Orszagos Szovetsege -National Federation of Students of Hungarian Universities and High Schools).

The M.E.F.H.O.SZ. groups all the associations of university youth. It has always b~en concerned with questions of mutual aid, studies, e tc., of interest to the whole body of univers1ty and high-school scholars. One of its essential tasks is to set up institutions for the purpose of helping students to carry on their studies and of relieving their material difficulties. .

Vincent Mihalus says that the M.E.F.H.O.SZ., the E.M.E. (Society of Awakening Hunganans), the F.O. Association (in certain places: " armed detachment ") with an incomprehensible nam~, were the first publicly known organisations of a secret society which directed the " Sons of Arpad • " Arpadians ", " Young Guard ", etc., formed in university circles.

Without mentioning the imaginary F.O. Association, which does not exist, the M.E.F.H.O.SZ. and the E.M.E. have always worked so openly that if they had had secret groups they could n~.t have hidden them from the public or the authorities. Consequently, the " Sons of Arpad ' " Arpadians " or " Young Guard " groups could have existed neither within the framework of these

1 Hungarian Association of National Defence.

-19-

·eties nor elsewhere. We believe that these so-called groups can only have been names forged r\rresponsible individuals, and that Mihalus, as agent provocatmr, built around these names Y rious imaginary secret organisations and groups, in the hope of obtaining money.

va In the second part of his st~tement, Vincent Mihalus refers to three organisations which, he all es, are important. fro~ the 1:redentis~ stan? point. Th~se are the F~deration of .Societies, of U ~r Hungary. (Felvtde~t Egyesfi!et.ek Szovetsege), t~e Natto~al Federation (Nemzeh Szovetseg) ~the Federation of Soc1al Assoctatlons (T.E.SZ.-Tarsadalnu Egyesilletek Szovetsege). Each of

~ese federations has statutes approved by the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior, which supervises them.

The Federation of Upper Hungarian League of Nations Societies in Budapest endeavours, according to its statutes, to promote relations between social, educational and economic societies founded by persons who have had to flee from former Upper Hungary, and to propagate in these societies the ideals and aspirations of the League of Nations. It acts in conformity with its statutes. Moreover, it provides free, or very cheap, meals to students of Upper Hungarian origin and also makes them money grants.

The National Federation of Hungary is the second of the so-called irredentist organisations. It endeavours to achieve the objects defined in its statutes by internal and external propaganda. The first is intended to awaken and intensify a national consciousness in the Hungarian public; the second endeavours to draw attention abroad to the injustices of the Treaty of Trianon. The National Federation has assiduously cultivated the friendship of nations which have shown sympathy towards Hungary. It endeavours, in particular, to maintain the national sentiment among Hungarians 3:broad. a.nd to strengthen the bonds .which uni~e them ~it~ their mot~erlan~.

Finally, the mam act1v1ty of the T.E.SZ. (Federation of Soctal Assoctahons), mentioned m the third place, is to unite the forces of the social associations of the country, so that they may serve national ideals, freed from all politics. For this purpose, it has founded throughout the whole of Hungary local organisations, which have in turn organised a large number of patriotic festivals, exhibitions, meetings, etc. In the last few years, it has carried on considerable propaganda in connection with a" National Labour Week ", in order to stimulate the consumption of the products of Hungarian industry, agriculture and trade. Its section for external relations endeavours to strengthen friendly and social ties with other nations, and for this purpose it has founded " friendly associations", whose membership includes Hungarians as well as nationals of friendly countries. It bas also organised lectures and festivals, at which external questions are given a prominent place. It thus endeavours to aid by private initiative the official foreign policy pursued by the Government.

When Vincent Mihalus says that these federations and associations and, in general, the revisionist leagues are financed out of the State budget, he is not telling the truth. The sums indicated as representing the expenses of the National Federation and the T.E.SZ. are also imccurate. It is equally untrue, so far as we are aware, that the T.E.SZ. held an assembly on .tpril 8th, 1933·

Finally, we must say a few words concerning the organisations of the National Labour Defence and the" Levente " (" levente " means "athlete " in Hungarian) , which are misrepresented in the statement.

The National Labour Defence was set up by Government Circular No. 1II.II1/1921 of November 1st, 1921. The legislature approved it in the form of a provision in the Finance Law. The accounts of this organisation are published within the framework of the ordinary budget. All politics are banned. In creating this " Defence ", the object was to assure, in case of a strike, the normal operation of public services and industries indispensable to the existence of the country, or, in case of danger, the continuation of the work of these services and industries, and the protection of industrial plant. The members of theN ational Labour Defence join the movement as individuals, by public recruiting and voluntary enrolment.

The " Levente " must refer to what are called Levente Sections. Their organisation has its origin in Law LUI, of 1921, concerning physical education. On the strength of the powers conferred by this law on the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education, the latter promulgated Ordinance No. 9000/1924 concerning the application of this law. Articles 18 and 19 of the ordinance contain clauses concerning Levente Sections. These are destined to supervise the physical education of young persons no longer attending school. Their statutes must be submitted for approval to the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education. Decree No. 6gooo/1926-XIII of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education defines the duties of young persons obliged to undergo physical training and the guarantees to be afforded for the fulfilment of these duties. . And now, after analysing from end to end the statement of Vincent Mihalus, we must empha­

stse the fact that the associations mentioned here have never in the past taken part, nor do they take any part at present, in illegal action of any kind; that they have not received in the past and do not receive at present any subsidies which would aid them to undertake such action; th~t they work in the open light of day; and, finally, that they do not pursue any of the secret obJects which Vincent Mihalus endeavoured to impute to them in his statement in order to obtain a safe-{;onduct.

Budapest, December 22nd, I934· (Signed) Dr. Emeric HETENYI,

Assistant Prefect of Police, Head of the State Security Control Section.

-20 -

Annex 2 a.

EXTRACT FRQ:\1 THE STATUTES OF THE H UNGARIAN ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL DEFF.:->cE (MAGYAR 0RSZAGOS VEDERO EGYESOLET, M .O. V .E .). · -

0 ••••••• 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 •••••••• 0 •••••••• 0 0 0

Article 2.

Object of the Association.

The object of the Association is to arouse, maintain and consolidate in the Hungarian race the love of and respect for its country, the consciousness of a high mission and national pride and, secondly, to improve and increase the intellectual and physical capabilities of Hungarian~ with a view to making t he nation more vigorous. In order to achieve this object, the Association proposes to establish, for young people of both sexes, social and athletic organisations, which shaU be placed under its authority, to provide the said organisations with the necessary means of attaining these aims, to support their efforts, to promote esprit de corps, friendly relations, discipline the spirit of sacrifice and mutual assistance and Christian morality to the greatest possible extent' By all these means, the Association intends to create for the Hungarian peoples a national organi: sation which shall be strong, united, shall have well-defined aims and which shall be the standard­bearer, champion and defender of a national and Christian spirit and of the high mission of the nation from every point of view and in every sphere.

The Association shall not engage in party politics, nor support any political party or any association dealing with party politics and shall have no contact with the latter.

Article J.

Means of achieving the Assoe1'ation's Objects.

(a) Organisation of social groups;

.. ..

(b) Organisation of athletic groups; (c) Lectures, entertainments, courses, physical exercises, books, periodicals, etc.; (d) Subscriptions, gifts, competitions, clubs, sports grounds, educational workshops,

authorisations ; (e) Economic and social enterprises.

Annex 2 b.

EXTRACT FROM THE STATUTES OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF H UNGARY (MAGYAR NEMZETI S z oVETSEG).

II. Object of the Federation.

Article 4·

The object of the Hungarian National Federation is to promote national ideals and so~dar!ty, national consciousness, Hungarian civilisation and education and Hungarian econonllc life; secondly, to establish friendly relations and mutual understanding between the citizens of the Hungarian State and the citizens of other States.

In order to achieve this object, the Federation proposes to unite, co-ordinate, stimulate and utilise all Hungarian efforts, whether of private individuals or of the various organisations a_nd institutions, so that their fraternal endeavours may be exerted on behalf of the recon~truct!On of Hungary . . The Hungarian National Federation shall endeavour to unite aJl Hungan~ns and constantly to keep alive their national sentiments. It shall advocate mutual understanding and reconciliation. On the basis of Christian morality, it shall endeavour to make of the new Hung_ary a united, strong, hard-working and moral nation, capable of effectively defending itself agamst attacks and disturbances from whatever quarter they may come. . _

The Federation shall endeavour to establish and maintain relations with foreign natl_on~ in order to acquaint them with the past history, civilisation and efforts of the Hungarian nat~on . to arouse their interest in Hungary and to stimulate their friendship for the Hungarian natton.

- 21-

Annex 2 c.

EXTRACT FROM THE STATUTES OF THE FEDERATIOK OF SOCIAL ASSOCI.\TIOKS {TARSADALMI EGYESULETEK SzOVETSEGE, T.E.S.Z .) .

. . . . .

Article 2.

Object and Tasks of the Federation.

The Federation is an aJliance between private initiative and the organised forces of national society for the purpose of promoting, disinterestedly and loyally, the aims and objects of the nation.

The Federation shall keep aloof from party politics and shall endeavour to create a national and united public opinion in regard to all problems affecting the life of the na tion, thus ensuring the full development of national energy by co-ordinating the organised forces of Hungarian society in every sphere of activity for the promotion of national aims.

Annex 2 d.

EXTRACT FRO~t THE STATUTES OF THE SOCIETY OF AWAKEKI KC H U:-<CARIA>IS (EBREDO MAGYAROK EGYESOLETE, E .M .E.) .

• • • • • • • 0 • 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 ••• 0 • 0 ••••••••••••• 0 ••• 0 ••

Article 2.

The object of the Society is to reawaken and constantly to keep alive a national and Christian ~irit in Hungarian society, to unite and organise Hungarians in this spirit in order to serve the social, cultural and economic consolidation of the Hungarian na tion.

Problems of party politics are completely excluded both from the aims and activities of the Society. Hence the Society, which has been formed exclusively for social purposes, shaU keep strictly aloof from party politics in all its activities. The Society shall endeavour to organise Hungarian society as a whole in non-party groups so as to render more complete, within the limits of the law, and effectively and constantly to ensure, the social, cultural and economic supremacy and domination of the Hungarian Christian race.

Annex 2e.

EXTRACT FROM THE STATl"TES OF THE NATIO?\AL A SSOCIATION OF T URANIAK PORTS)IEN (TuRA:-.~1 VAnA.szoK 0Rs zA.cos SrovETSEGE) .

. . . . .

Article 2 .

. T~e object of the Associa tion is to preserve the ancestral virtues of the nation, the spirit of sohdanty and altruism, and to promote the physical development of the Hungarian race. .

The Association proposes to attain these objects by encouraging its members to engage m gymnastic (athletic), etc., exercises, shooting and hunting, and by providing them with the necessary ground and equipment for these exercises, since sports, and especially hunting, ~~e of the_gre~test value, not only for training the body, but also for developing self-controJ, the spmt of solidanty and altruism.

Article J.

In_ order to achieve its object , the Associa tion shall organise friendly gatherings, patriotic and SCtentific lectures, entertainments, dances and athletic competitions.

-22-

Annex 2 f.

EXTRACT FRO.M THE STATUTES OF THE UPPER H UNGARIAN F EDERATION OF L EAGUE OF 1\Anoxs SOCI ETIES IN BUDAPEST (FELVIDEKI EGYESULETEK $zOVETSLGE A NEMZETEK SZOVETSEGEXE.

T iu'!OGATASARA BUDAPESTEN). 1\

.......... . . . .

Object of the Federation.

§ 4· - The object of the Federation is to encourage friendly contact between the mem~rs of t he social, intellectual and ~conomic ~s~ociations of person~ natives of Upper Hungary, which are approved by the Hunganan authonbes, to promote the mtellectual and economic interest~ of its members and to uphold the ideas and movements of the League of Nations.

§ 5· - M eam to be employed. by the Federation in order to achieve these ob-jects :

(r) The Federation shall support the efforts of the League of Nations to pacify and reconstruct the world and shall t ake part in t his work in collaboration with the other unions and association~ established to support the League of Nations.

(2) For the purposes of ensuring permanent contact between the members of the affiliated associations, the Federation shall organise a central secretariat and shall fit up tbe necessary premises. ·

(3) It shall organise friendly gatherings, lectures, concerts and exhibitions, and shall help to publish newspapers, periodicals and literary and scientific works.

(4) I t shall afford moral and material support to the affiliated associations, the members of those associations and especially young persons anxious to proceed further with their studies.

(5) It shall encourage the formation of new social, economic and cultural institutions. (6) The Federation shall endeavour to establish contact with other associations and

federations.

Annex 211.

EXTRACT FROM ORDINANCE No. 9000 OF 1924 OF THE ROYAL H UNGARIAN MINISTER

FOR ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION (§ 18).

The Levente Sections.

As a rule, the physical training of youths leaving school shall be given by the Leven~e Sections, whose statutes are drawn up by the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education. There may be several Levente Sections in the same place; nevertheless, efforts shall be made, in so far as the available premises and playgrounds permit, to organise the youths in as small a number of sections as possible. .

In exceptional cases deserving of special treatment, sections which have had conspt~u?us success in training young people may be authorised by the National Council of Physical Trammg to establish , at their expense, a special Levente Section of their own, provided that the number of their members who have left school and are liable for physical training exceeds fifteen. T_hts authorisation may be withdrawn at any moment. Troops of boy scouts belonging to the Hunganan Boy-Scout Federation shall be granted this authorisation in virtue of the present ordinance; troops availing themselves of this authorisation shall be required to establish a special LeYe~te Section forthwith, and this shall be controlled by the authorities responsible for the offictal organisation of physical training, in agreement with the President of the Hungarian Boy-Seoul Federation.

In the case of certain young men, membership of a Levente Section shall not preclude active membership of another young people's athletic association, or social athletic association whose activities are imbued with an unexceptionable patriotic spirit ; nevertheless, such persons ~ust also comply with the obligations to which they are liable as members of the Levente Section. On joining another athletic society, they must notify the Instructor of Youth ( § 17).

-23-

Annex 2 b .

EXTRACT FROM THE LAW 0~ PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Law LIIJ, of I92I, concerni1'g Physical Trai?,it,g.

Article I.

The object of physical training is to improve the state of public health and to increase the nation's working capacity, while safeguarding the health and physical integrity and developing the moral and physical powers, resistance, dexterity and working capacity of individuals.

Article 2.

For these purposes, the State:

(r) Shall see that young people of both sexes, in schools of every grade, are given physical training, and that, in higher educational establishments, every student is provided with opportunities for this training;

(z) Shall organise the physical training of youths leaving school in such a way that all the sons of the nation shall be obliged to undergo this training until they have completed their twenty-first year;

(3) Shall encourage social groups which devote serious attention to physical training and merit this encouragement by reason of the national ideals governing their activities.

Article 3·

The necessary regulations concerning physical training (curriculum, system, methods and means of training, length of time to be devoted thereto) shall be drawn up by the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education.

The Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education, in agreement with the Ministers concerned, shall be responsible for the organisation and national direction of physical training outside the schools (social training). This measure shall not affect the right of supreme control om social associations vested in the Minister of the Interior.

Article 4·

As soon as the finances of the State have been placed on a sound basis, a physical training roUege for teachers shall be established, the cost of upkeep being borne by the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education. 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • 0 0 0 • • 0 • • • • • • 0 • • 0 0 • • • • • • •

Article IO.

The duty of the National Council of Physical Training, consisting of the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education and physical training experts, doctors, members of the teaching profession and athletic federations, shall be to give its opinion on and'make proposals conc~rning physical training. This Council shall also supervise and carry out the measures specified by the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education. Its statutes and functions shall be fixed by decree of the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education.

Article II.

This law shall come into force on the date of its promulgation and shall be put into effect by the Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education.

Royal Minister of the Interior.

No. II32I/I934· VI II. res.

Annex 3 a.

Sttbfect: Request for reports on the supervision of the activities of various social organisations.

To the Mayor of the City of Budapest, Budapest.

In connection with the assassination of the King of Yugoslavia in France, the .Memorandum of the Yugoslav Government mentions several Hungarian social organisations and alleges that these o~ganisations carried on illegal activities against certain foreign countries, and even played a part In cultivating the state of mind that led to the crime.

-24 -

According to the Memorandum, the Society of Awakening Hungarians had a special C committee (group), whose purpose was t he liberation of Croatia. roat

I would ask you therefore, Mr. Mayor, to ascertain without delay whether in conn f with the customary annual enquiry into the activities of the following social ~sociationec ton organisations: s and

(1) Federation of Social Associations; (2) National Federation of Hungary; (3) Hungarian Association for National Defence ; (4) Society of Awakening Hungarians; (5) League for Revision;

which e~quiry is IT!ade l;>Y the co~pete!lt l?cal ~uthorities-viz., the distric~ mayors' offices-or perhaps m connection Wlth other mvesttgatwns, tt has been found that the satd social associations and organisations have concerned themselves with questions of foreign policy in the above sense· if so, I instruct you to investigate the nature of these political problems and the extent to which the above associations concerned themselves with them and, more particularly, whether these associations had a Croat section and what were that section's activities.

Please inform me also in what years and on how many occasions the activities of the associations so far specified have been enquired into by the authorities.

I would ask you also, Mr. Mayor, to question personally the Presidents (or, in their absence their deputies) of the above-mentioned social associations and organisations and any member~ of the boards that may have been appointed by the Presidents on the above questions by sending to each representative an official, who shall draw up a record of the statements made and have it signed by the person que.stioned.

I request you , Mr. Mayor, to fonvard to me (addressed to the head of Section VIII of the C.l.D.) the reports regarding the enquiry into the activities of the said associations and organisations and the official record of the Presidents' statements in any case before midday, the 27th instant.

Budapest, December 22nd, 1934.

Mayor of the City of Budapest. No. x6g/I934·

(Signed) Dr. Ferencz vitez Keresztes FISCHER.

[L .S.]

Annex 3 b .

Su.bfect: Order of the Royal Minister of the Interior regarding the activities of and supervision over various social organisations.

Sir,

Ref. No.: II32I/I934-VIII.res. 5 annexes.

I have the honour to report that I took immediate steps to give effect to your instructions. I attach to this report the official records drawn up during the enquiry and have the honour

to report that the social associations and organisations specified in the Order-viz., the Feder~tion of Social Associations, the National Federation of Hungary, the Hungarian Association for Nabonal Defence, the Society of Awakening Hungaria,ns and the League for Revision-have never concerned themselves with questions of foreign policy, and that the activities and the administrative a~d financia l management of the said associations and organisations are conducted regularly. tn conformity with the statutes. These associations and organisations have never had a Croat section or relations with the Croats or Croat emigres.

I have the honour to add that, in recent years, the activities of these associations have been regularly enquired into every year by the competent district mayors' offices and that neither. the activities nor the administrative and financial management of the said associations have gtven grounds for criticism.

Budapest, December 27th, 1934.

To His Excellency [L. S.]

The Royal Minister of the Interior, Budapest.

For the Mayor:

(Signed) SZEPESVARY,

Councillor.

-25-

Annex 3 c.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up in Budapest, on December 24th, 1934, in the Office of Section IV of the Municipality (first floor, No. 5).

In response to a summons, there appeared before me John Szeder, certificated mechanical engineer, Vice-President and Manager of the Hungarian Association for National Defence (M.O.V.E.), who, ~n. the absence of the President, is the statutory representative of the Association before the authontles.

Dr. Joseph P ajzs, Clerk of the Municipal Council, as the official charged by Order No. 1fx}/ I934-res. of the 1\iayor of Budapest with the enquiry, asked the following questions:

(I) Does the Association concern itself with questio1ts of foreign policy ?

The Vice-President and Manager of the M.O.V.E. replied as follows: "The Association has at no time and in no way concerned itself with problems of foreign

policy. the aims of the Association as defined in the statutes giving no occasion for doing so. At the most, certain recent attacks made by the foreign Press on the M.O.V.E. were rebutted as baseless, partly in the Press and partly at the last meeting of the Grand Council of the Association. Furthermore, the M.O.V.E. has always observed its approved statutes and its activities have always been in conformity with its statutes."

(z) Had the Association. a Croat sectt'on ?

The representative of the M.O.V.E. replied: " The Association has never had a Croat section or any relations with the Croats or with

Croat emigres, and has never concerned itself with them in any way."

(3) Was the Association regularly i.t~spected by the District Mayor's Otfice ?

Reply: " The activities of the Association and its administrative and financial management were

regularly inspected every year by the District VI Mayor's Office, which is competent in the matter, and this inspection has never resulted in any reproach or comment being made on the activities or the administrative and financial management of the M.O.V.E."

The person summoned having nothing further to add, the present official record, after having been read over, was approved and signed.

Drafted by (Signed) Dr. J oseph PAJZS,

Clerk of the Municipal Council. (Signed) John SzEDER,

Vice-President a1ul .\.faMger of the M .O. V.E.

Annex 3d.

OFFICIAL REcoRD.

Drawn up in Budapest, on December 24th, 1934. in the Office of Section IV of the Municipality (first floor, No. s).

, I~ response to a summons, there appeared before me J oseph Szortsey, Senior Government Co~ncillor, President and Manager of the Federation of Social Associations (Tarsadalmi Egyesi.iletek SFzovctsege, T.E.SZ.), who, in the absence of the President, is the statutory representative of the ederation before the authorities. . Dr. Joseph Pajzs, Clerk of the Municipal Council, as the official charged by Order

No. 169/1934 res. of the Mayor of Budapest with the enquiry, asked the foJJowing questions :

(r) Does the Federation concern itself with questions of foreign policy ?

The President and Manager replied: . " The Federation has not concerned itself in the past and does not at pre.sent co~cern itsel~

WJ.th problems of foreign policy, as the Minutes of the meetings of the Federation testify. Undei the present statutes of the Federation, there is no occasion and there are no means to enable the

- z6-

Federation to concern itself with questions of foreign policy, or even with general political probl the Federation has always acted in accordance with the aims laid down in the statutes which ·~~s; scrupulously observed, as has also been proved by the last inspection." ' 1 as

(2) Had the Federation a Croa-t section?

" The Federation has never had a Croat section or any relations with the Croats or with Cro emigres, and has never had any relations with the latter." at

(3) Was the Federation regularly i1~spected by the District Mayor's Office ?

"The Federation was regularly inspected every year by the competent Mayor's Office of District V."

The person summoned having nothing further to add, the present official record, after having been read over, was approved and signed.

Drafted by

(Signed) Dr. J oseph PAJZS,

Clerk of the M ttnicipal Council.

Annex 3 e.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

(Signed) J oseph SzoRTSEY, President and Manager of the

Federatiott of Social Associations.

Drawn up in Budapest, on December 24th, 1934, in the Office of Section IV of the Municipality {K6zponti Varoshaza (Town Hall], IV, Karoly Kircily-ut, 28, I.em.6.ajt6).

Present: The undersigned.

In compliance with Order No. II32I/I 934 res. of the Royal Minister of the Interior and in response to an official summons, there appeared before us Dr. Andrew Csillery, President-General of the Society of Awakening Hungarians (:Ebred6 Magyarok Egyesiilete), who, to the following questions put by Dr. Alexander Timar, Clerk of the Municipal Council, charged with the enquiry under Order No. 169/1934 biz. of the Mayor, replied as follows:

(r) Does the Society of Awakening Hungarians concern itself with problems of foreign policy and, if so, what was the nature of these political problems?

(z) Had the Society a Croat committee (group) and, if so, what were its activities?

Replies:

"(1) The Society of Awakening Hungarians, being a social association, does not concern itself with politics, and its activities are exercised in full conformity with its statutes, as approY~d by the Minister of the Interior. In accordance with its statutes, it works for the cultural, economtc and social organisation and for the union of the Hungarian Christian community.

" (2) In accordance with the foregoing, the Society has no Croat committee and no foreign committee and has never had any such committee or been in relation with such a commi~tee. or with such organisations; as I have already stated, the sole object of the Society is the orgamsahon and reunion of Hungarian Christians on social lines.

"I have nothing to add regarding the above questions."

Approved and signed by the witness after having been read over.

Drafted by

(Signed) Dr. Alexander TIMAR, Clerl~ of the Council.

(Signed) Dr. Andrew CsiLLERY, Presiden-t-General of the Society

of Awakening Htmgarians .

-27-

Annex 3 f.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up in .Budapest, on De~em}>er 2~th, 1934, in the O!fice of ~e~tion I V (Public Law) of the Municipality (IV. Kozponh Varoshaza [Town Hall] Karoly Kualy-ut, 28, I.em.19.szam).

Present: The undersigned.

In accordance with Order No. II321/I 934. VIII, res. of the Royal Minister of the Interior, Francis Herczeg, residing in Budapest (I. ker. Hidegkuti-ut, 51[b), appeared before Dr. Alad:ir Staub, Muni~ipa.l Secret~ry, charge.d with the enquiry ~nder Order No. 1~(1934 of the Mayor, and replied m h1s capac1ty as Pres1dent of the Hunganan League for Rev1s1on to the questions asked.

"I declare that I have been President of the Hungarian League for Revision since its foundation and have the most detailed knowledge of all its business.

" In strict conformity with the orders of the supervisory authorities, the League aims solely at convincing foreign public opinion that Hungarian revisionist aspirations can be realised by pacific means. It rigorously excludes any tendency which might have the mere appearance of interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Regarding the assertion that the League carried on the illegal activities complained of in the Yugoslav Memorandum, I declare that, in its work, the League took special care not to extend the scope of its activities to the territories of the countries of the Little Entente or to maintain relations in the territories of those countries, a!' it had no wish to aggravate the situat ion of the Hungarian minorities. Further, I am bound to declare that the League has firmly repudiated certain attempts to establish such relations. Previously, in connection with Press controversies, the League has frequently pointed out that it was prepared even to allow diplomats belonging to the Little Entente to acquaint themselves 1\itb its activities, so as to convince the latter of the honesty of its policy and the pacific character of its aims.

" The foregoing proves that the League has no section dealing more particularly with Croat questions. It is, moreover, common knowledge that Hungary's revisionist programme lays no claim to Croatia.

• Having duly read the official record drawn up in my presence. I declare that its contents k11y correspond with my statement."

(Signed) Dr. Aladar STAUB, Clerk.

Annex 3 ~·

OFFICIAL RECORD.

(Signed) Francis HERCZEG.

Drawn up in Budapest, on December 24th, 1934, in the Office of Public Law, Section IV, of the Municipality (Kozponti V:irosh:iza, IV, Karoly Kir:ily-ut, 28, I.em.16.sz:im).

Present: The undersigned.

In accordance with Order No. II321/I934 res. of the Royal Minister of the Interior and in res~n~e to an official summons, there appeared before me Dr. J oseph Ajtay, former judge of the A~rustrative Court (residing at IV. ker. Muzeurn-korut, 31. sz:im), in his capacity as Vice­President and Manager of the National Federation of Hungary (Magyar Nemzct i Szovetseg), who •. under the statutes of the Federation, acts as deputy for Baron Sigismund Perenyi, t~e Pres1dent, at present in Vienna, and gave the following replies to the questions put by Dr. Lo~1s Nagy, Secretary to the Municipal Council, charged with the enquiry under Order No. 169/1934. b1z. polgm. of the Mayor.

(r) Does the F ederatiott concern itself with questions of foreign policy ?

" The Federation has not concerned itself in the past with questions of foreign policy a~d does ~ot concern itself with them now. As regards its activities abroad, these •. in acco~danc~ WJth ~he ttatu~es o~ the Federation, as approved by the Royal Minister of the Intenor, cons1sted m mak!ng he Situahon of Hungary known abroad and thus gaining friends for Hungary. Th~ Federahon h~ only employed legal methods for this work and has never taken any steps which could be auned at any foreign State. "

-28-

(2) Has any investigation bem made in regard to the Federation ?

" The Federation's work is public in ali its aspects and it is supervised by the Mi · t the I nterior direct and through the local authorities. Its conduct has always been fou:;~s terbeor in conformity with the statutes and absolutely above reproach ." 0

Approved and signed after having been read over by the witness.

(Signed) Dr. Louis NAGY,

Clerk of the M 1micipal Council.

Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Hungarian Honved Army.

(Signed) Dr. Joseph AJTAY,

Vice-President and Mattager of the .Vationat Federatio1~ of Hungary.

Annex 4.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up in Budapest at the office of the Second-in-Command of the Honved Army (I. Diszter 17 mezzanine floor, No. 4), before the Commission appointed by His Excellency the Commander: in-Chief of the Honved Army on November 30th, 1934, on the occasion of the examination of

Major Charles Balenovic, concerning reports which have appeared in the Yugoslav Press.

Present, in addition to the above-named: Waldemar Vogt, General in t he Infantry, Chairman of t he Commission; vitez Francis Szombathelyi, Colonel, member of the Commission; Lajos Szunnay, Lieutenant-Colonel, drafter of the report; Roland Utassy, Captain, technical agent.

(1) Major Balenov-ic, have yot• been either directly or indirectly in tot4Ch with Croat emigres residing in Htmgary?

"Before the war, I served in the 27th Regiment of the Royal Hungarian Infantry of Sziszek garrisoned at Sziszek and Uj Gradisca; during the war, I served in the 42nd Honved division. It was t hen thal I made the acquaintance of Croats whom I subsequently met in H ungary when they were emigi'CS. After the war, I kept in touch with these persons in the usual spirit of comradeship."

(2) I/ that is so, with whom and when ? What was the object and extent of these relations ?

" I would first mention Dr. Ivo Frank, whom I knew before the war, met by chance after he had fled to Budapest, and with whom I have since been on friendly terms. Our relations had no political significance.

" I am also acquainted with Julius Ficsura, a former second-lieutenant in the Reserve and a Croat refugee, who acquired Hungarian nationality a long time ago.

" As regards the other emigres, I met them in the company of Dr. Frank by chance and very rarely; the latter, like Frank, have mostly become Hungarian nationals and now refrain from any political activities."

(3) I/ no political relations existed between you, to what chance oceztrrence do you. aUribute the fa"'t that your name has been mmtioned in the Y t~go­slav Press and gro1mdless suspicions have been formulated against yot' ?

" My name probably came to the knowledge of the Yugoslav authorities for the first t~ne when, as a prisoner of war in Russia, I engaged in propaganda against the Serbian Legion which had been formed there and the members of which I denounced after my return to Budapest to the Ministry of National Defence of that time. I did not wait for the Serbs to enter Croatia, .but fled, as I should have been arrested and imprisoned on account of the facts to which I have JUSt referred. Since that time, the Yugoslav authorities have treated me as a renegade. . .

" The second reason why my name has often come to the notice of the Yugoslav authonti~5 is because, from 1924 to 1932, I served in several places near the Yugoslav frontie~, :;tnd 111

particular at Bares, where I acted as interpreter in connection with minor frontier wcidentt "Since my name was known to the Yugoslav authorities and they were aware of my lac

of sympathy for the new Yugoslav State, it has been dragged in in connection with every a~t of terrorism, although I have refrained from all political activities so as not to aggravate t e situation of my parents, who live in Zagreb and are already exposed to perpetual annoyance on my account."

-29-

Has your statement been reported correctly ? (4) Have you atlything else to add ?

" My statement has been reported correctly. " I should like to add that all the reports in the Yugoslav Press to the effect that I frequently

"sited Jankapuszta and directed. military training there are completely false, because I have ':ver been to Jankapuszta and, smce February 1932, I have been serving in places a long way ~om the Yugoslav frontier, and since May 1933 at Nyirbator."

After being read over, the official record was closed and signed.

Done on the above-mentioned date. (Signed) Charles BALENO\'IC, Major

(as the party examined).

(Sig?ted} Waldemar VoGT, General in lite Infantry,

Chairman of the Commission.

(Sig11ed) vitez Francis SZOMBATHELYI, Colonel, Member of the Commission.

(Signed) Rol and UTASSY, Captain,

JV! ember of the Commission.

(Signed) Lajos SzuRMAY, Lietttet~a11t-Colmtfl, Drafter of the Report.

Annex 5 a .

[liminal Section of the Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS's DEPOSITION.

Drawn up in Budapest, on December 26th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that be was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the trut~ to the best of his knowledge and in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be requtred to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that if he gave false evidence he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Geza Adorjan. (z) Age: 43· (3) Place of birth: Budapest. {4) Domicile: Budapest, ro Rottenbiller-utca, II . 8. {5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Mechanical engineer.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned t~at they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply t ereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have taken note of the foregoing warning. ·: Fro_m 1921 to 1924 I was employed by the organising section of the Awakening Hungaria.ns.

I :v1sh to state categorically that neither during that time nor since then have I ~ad~anythmg: to do With a certain Lieutenant-Colonel Matkovic Stanko and have never given h1m orders ot any kind whatsoever '

::Moreover, I co~ld not have done so as I did not possess the necessary powers. I have never discussed with anyone the assassination of King Alexander, and the charge

that I gave instructions of such grave importance to Lieutenant-Colonel Matkovic in the presence

-30-

of Ladislas Sesevich and Ladislas Illy, who were only honorary members of the Associatio to me simply ridiculous. n, seems

" We do not even possess the necessary funds for this purpose. " I have nothing else to say."

Duly signed after it had been read over.

Dated as above.

(Signed) SCHWEINITZER,

P olice Counsellor.

Annex 5 b.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

(Signed) Geza ADORJAN.

Drawn up in Budapest, on December 3rd, 1934. at the Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police in regard to the examination of Ladislas Bela Illy, born at Szeged in 1901 ; Roman Catholic'

married, an employee, residing at Pestszentl6rinc (All. lak6telep, 22/12). '

In reply to the question put to him by the official on duty as to whether it was true that in April 1922, Geza Adorjan enquired of Stanko Matkovic, a retired lieutenant-colonel, whethe; he would commit an attempt on the life of Alexander, King of Serbia (Yugoslavia) , Illy replied as follows:

" I do not know and have never known Lieutenant-Colonel Stanko Matkovic. I do not remember ever hearing his name.

" The assertion that, in my presence, Geza Adorjan gave information to this man Matkovic or urged him to assassinate Alexander, King of Serbia, is completely untrue. I most emphaticallr declare this assertion to be a calumny. ·

" I have nothing else to say."

Signed after it had been read over.

[Signature illegible.] (Signed) Ladislas ILLY.

Annex 5 c. Criminal Section of the

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION .

Drawn up at Pees, on December 23rd, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the t~th to the best of his knowledge and in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be requued to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that if he gave false evidence he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness made the following statement:

(1) Name: John Berta. (2) Age: Born on August 15th, 1894. (3) Place of birth: Szigetvar. (4) Domicile: Pees, 30, Street of the Franciscans. (5) Civil status: married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Owner of printing works.

(The persons referred to in Articte 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have taken note of the foregoing warning. . . " I formally declare that neither in 1931 nor at any other time did the Hungarian aut~onhes

send Antal Herczeg to my house. He is completely unknown to me and I have just heard h1s na111e for the first time. Neither Herczeg nor anyone else visited me.

-31 -

"I deny h~ving received a letter sent by a certai!l Gustavus Percec, _domiciled in. Zagreb, to a amed Klar. I also deny that Herczeg lodged w1th me. I deny havmg acted as mtermediary

m~.:en Gustavus Percec and Klar. I deny this absolutely, because I do not know anyone of the be we of Gustavus Percec or Kl<ir. As I am not acquainted with them, I do not know whether nare:v days later Herczeg r~cei~ed a le~ter t~ be hande~ over to Klar. As for Stephen Febervari, a kn w this man. At the hme m quest10n--1..e., the sprmg of 1931-Stephen Fehervari came to my I rin~ing works, ask;og for employn:tent. I engaged~ because, :as he was unemployed, he was ~uling to work c_hea_Ply ;_ I gave hun board and lodgmg and a little pocket-money. However, } Yl!Sobliged to dism1sshun a few months later because he was a drunkard, had become intoxicated

1d had stolen from me several times. Moreover , he had had scandalous affairs with women. On ~s account, I sent him away about four mo,nths, I t~, after I had ~ngaged him. I deny that FeMrvari met at my house a man named Klar, who tned to persuade him to blow up the Zimony bridge. I do not know Tillmann or his com_rades; they never came to my house. I ~eny that a man amed KJar taught them to handle explostves at my house. I do not know how Ttllmann and his ~omrades could have brought such a charge against me before the Yugoslav court. ' " I consider it probable that Tillmann and the other accused persons were forced by the Yugoslav authorities to make this statement.

" Jn reply to the question whether Croat bnigres were lodged in the Frederick barracks of Pees, I declare this to be untrue. At any rate, I know nothing about it."

Duly signed after it had been read over.

Date as above.

(Sigt;ed) Dr. ZILAHY.

Annex 5 d.

REPORT.

(Signed) J ohn BERTA.

Budapest, December 3rd, 1934.

We, the undersigned, declare that, in the course of our enquiry, carried out in accordance tit\ the instructions given us, we have ascertained that Ladislas Sesevics, who was born at Jbzsega in 1895, is of Orthodox religion, a bachelor, and a clerk by occupation, that he left for Turkey, where he settled nine years ago and is at present living, in the employment of a firm of builders. He last resided in Budapest at Bezeredi-utca, No.4 (ground-floor, No. s). Since that time, Sesevics has not returned to the capital.

Annex 5 e.

Corps of Detectives at the Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police at Pees.

REPORT.

(Sigt£ed) Dr. HrvESSY,

(Sigtted) Dr. vitez ANTAL,

Police Inspectors.

Pees, December 24th, 1934.

I, the undersigned, declare that, in accordance with my verbal instructions, I have made enquiries in order to ascertain the domicile of Antal Herczeg, with the following result:

In the register of domiciles at the Pees Prefecture of Police, there appears the name of Antal He~czeg, born at Pees in 1901, Roman Catholic, bachelor, a pork-butcher's assistant, formerly res1dent at Makar-ucoa, No. 37/I. His present residence is unknown.

I have made confidential and exhaustive inquiries with a view to tracing this man, Antal Herczeg, but have been unable to find out where he lives.

(Signed) Dr. KAMARAS,

Police Commissioner, Head of the Corps of Detectives.

(Signed) CsiKVARY,

Detective.

Office for the Registration of Domiciles, attached to

the Pees Prefecture of Police .

-32-

Annex 5 f .

. I, the und:r~igned, officially ce:tify that, from J~ly roth, 1905, to November 1st, 1908 th regtstered do!luctle of Antal Herczeg_, hom a_t Pees m 1901, Roman Catholic, bachelor ' _e butcher's assistant, the son of Franc1s Herczeg and Theresa Schwab, was with his par~nrrk. Pees, Polya-u., No. 15; he subsequently possessed his own domicile at Felsovambaz-u. No

3 tat

August 16th, 1918, to July _20_th, 1919, and after that at Makar-u. No. 37/I, from Ju~e 8t.h,' 1 r~~

to August 16th, 1924. Thts ts the only person of the name of Antal Herczeg with a regist2- d domicile at Pees. re

Peer;, December 24th, 1934. [L.S.]

(Signed) Dr. HORVATH,

Head of the Office for the Reg-ist·ration of Domiciles, attached to the Prefecture of Police.

Annex 6.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up at Nagykanizsa, on October 20th, 1934. at the Royal Hungarian Police Prefecture of Nagykanizsa, on the occasion of the examination of M. J ulius Hajdu, barrister, resident at

Nagykanizsa. Present: The undersigned.

M. Julius Bogati Hajdu, doctor of laws, born at Nagyvarad in 1875. single, practising ba!Th'\er, appeared in response to a summons and made the following statement:

" I was instructed by the late Julius Szajbely, landowner and Aulic Councillor, domiciled in Budapest, whose lawyer I was in 1931, to let his estate of J ankapuszta. We placed the matter in the hands of agents and also advertised in the newspapers. We naturally took an interest in persons who were looking for leases of this kind. It was pointed out to one of our commission agents that someone was seeking through the newspapers to rent an average-sized estate about the size of Jankapuszta. In the summer of 1931-in the month of August, if I remember rightly­an individual called with the intention of renting the estate in question. He gave his name as M. Emil Horvath; he appeared to be about 35 to 40 years of age and gave me the impression of being an intelligent man engaged in agriculture, or even a landowner himself. On that occasion, we concluded a provisional lease and I informed him that I should consult M. Julius Szcijbely in Budapest and discuss the conditions with him. If M. Szajbely agreed to the conditions, the final contract would be concluded. M. Julius Szajbely agreed to the conditions, and I drew up the final lease in September 1931. It was signed by M. Julius Szajbely and M. Emil Horvath, who both attended at my office. The lease of the estate of Jankapuszta, having an areaofabout 242 cadastral acres, was concluded for six years.

" M. Julius Szajbely died on December 24th, 1933. The heirs were bound by the terms_of the lease. M. Emil Horvath had paid the rent for six months, namely 1,750 pengo, together \\1th the security of 1,750 pengo on signing it. .

" In 1932, Emil Horvath was sued for failure to pay the rent; he did not appear at the ~eanng of the case, which took place in November 1933. There was no means of serving on him th_e summonses to attend on December 14th, 1933, and January 18th, 1934. I have not seen M. Emil Horvath since November 1933. In the middle of April last, an individual giving his D:ame as M. Louis Vadasz called on me. He said that he was the manager of the estate in question and stated that he was obliged to cancel the lease. We then came to an arrangement; the above· mentioned M. Vadasz paid about 2,200 pengo in respect of rent and costs; he also surrendered the security. We therefore cancelled the contract and he left the estate.

" My deposition is in accordance with the truth."

The record was closed and duly signed.

(Signed) SOLYMOS,

Pol-ice Cozmsellor, Director of ihe Prefecture.

(Signed) Emilia SEKULJA,

Clerk (Drafter of the Record).

Done as above.

(Sigtted) J ulius HAJDU.

-33-

Annex 7 a.

TELEPHONE ORDER.

From the Royal Hungarian ¥inistry of the Interior to the Head of the Csurg6 district, dated February 14th, 1934, w1th regard to the termination of the lease of Jankapuszta.

3177 res., 1934. - I would ask you to find means by which the refugees from Yugoslavia 1vho are Jiving on the leased estate of Sandorbaza. (Jankapuszta) can be removed from that district and the ·lease terminated as soon as possible. With regard to the latter question, I notify you that, as this is. a matter of private law, the question should be settled in such a way that the Treasury sustams no matenal loss on any grounds whatever. I shall expect your telephonic report on any measures you may take at your earliest convenience.

Certified true copy:

Budapest, December 4th, 1934.

(Signed) LuKA.cs,

Deputy Head of the Chancellory.

Annex 7b. ~o. I3/eln.-I934·

From the Head of the Csurg6 District.

1~ His Excellency the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Budapest.

[L .S.]

[Seal of the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior.]

With reference to your Order No. 3177 res., 1934, which was communicated by telephone on February 14th last, I have the honour to inform you that, in accordance with your instructions, I immediately made enquiries with regard to the leased farm and have not failed to take the necessary steps. I have the honour to report that, as the farm is leased under private law, Jankapuszta cannot be evacuated completely until the crops have been harvested; otherwise, losses would subsequently be sustained by the Treasury.

Csurg6, February 20th, 1934.

[L.S.]

Annex 7 c. No. I3/eln.-1934.

From the Head of the Csurg6 District.

To His Excellency the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Budapest.

(Sig1~ed) HAHM,

Head of District.

With reference to my report of February 2oth last, under the above number, relating to Your Excellency's Order No. 3177 res.-1934, I have the honour to inform you that the winding-up of Jankapuszta has now been completed. According to the reports received, there remain only a few persons who will shortly leave the estate.

Csurg6, Sep tember 9th, 1934.

-

[L.S.] (Sig1ted) HAH~f,

Head of District.

-34 -

Annex 7 d . No. 13/eln .-1934.

From the Head of the Csurg6 District.

To His Excellency the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior, Budapest.

With reference to your Order No. 3177 res.-1934, I have the honour to communicate th additional information that, according to the report received from the notary of Surd the t/ remaining persons left Jankapuszta on October 3rd last, after selling the produce, the lea;e ha~o expired on October 1st. As far as I am aware, Jankapuszta is therefore completely evacuatel

Csurg6, October sth, 1934. [L .S.]

Annex 8 a.

Prefecture of t he Royal Hungarian State Police. Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at P6la, December 24th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

(Signed) HARM,

Head of District.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement :

(1) Name: Stephen Francsics. (2) Age: 48. (3) Place of birth: P6la. (4) Domicile: 28 Fo-utca, P6la. (5) Civil status : Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Cultivator, May9r of the Commune.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have duly noted the foregoing warning. "For eight years I have been Mayor of the Commune of P6la. Annamajor, which is situated

at a distance of approximately one kilometre from P6la, forms part of that commune. No Croat refugees have ever lived or even been seen on that farm.

" I know nothing further of the matter ."

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found accurate, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

Drawn up by

(Signed) Dr. GozMANY, Prefect of Police.

(Signed) Stephen FRANCSICS.

(Signed) TENYI,

Clerk (Drafter of the Official Record).

-35 -

Annex 8 b.

Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Letenye, December 23rd, 1934.

Present : The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned t~at h~ was ~ound to tell the tru~h, the whol.e truth and not~ing but. ~he truth, in accordance wtth bts consctence, and that be m1gbt be reqmred to confirm b1s deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Dr. J ohn Czigany. (2) Age: 49· (3) Place of birth: Mike fa. (4) Domicile: Letenye. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Chief of District.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have duly noted the foregoing warning. " I have been Chief of the District of Letenye since August 1934. " I hereby categorically declare that, since I have been Chief of the District of Letenye, no

Croat refugees have stayed at or even passed through Szurdapuszta and Annamajor, both of which ~aces are in my district.

"Szurdapuszta belongs to Nicholas Kovacs Sebesteny, landowner, of Beese; Annamajor belongs to Otto Schmidt and Cornelius Schmidt, of P6la. On both these properties, which were inherited by their present owners, only Hungarian agricultural workers are employed who have been in the employment of the present owners for years and even decades.

"I have nothing to add to the above statement."

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found accurate, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Signed) Dr. GOZMANY,

l'refect of l'olice. ( Signed) TENYI,

(Signed) Dr. John CZIGANY .

Clerk (Drafter of the Record).

Annex S c.

Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD oF WITNEss's DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Letenye, December 23rd, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness attending in response to a summons was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and wa~ned that he was bound to tell the ~th the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that be might be required to confir:m his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be gutlty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Dr. Francis Vida. (2) Age: 35· (3) Place of birth: Pacsatiittos. (4) Domicile: Letenye. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Assistant Chief of District.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned tb 1 they are not bound to make a statement . The warning, together with the witness's reply theret

must be mentioned in the official record.) 0•

" I have duly noted the foregoing warning. " Since April rst, r934, I have been acting as Assistant Chief of District in the District of

Letenye; my duties include the supervision of foreigners. I hereby categorically declare that no Croat refugees or persons of any other foreign nationality were ever seen at Szurdapuszta or Annamajor, which farms belong to the communes of Becsehely and P6la respectively.

" Annamajor, like Szurdapuszta, is a private estate managed by the owners in person · the agricultural workers employed on both properties are old Hungarian family servants, am~ngst whom, so far as I can recall, there have been no changes for many years.

" Both farms are situated at a distance of 6 or 7 kilometres from the chief town of the district so that I am fully aware of everything which goes on there. '

" That is all I know."

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found correct, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Sig1~) Dr. Goz~iANY, Prefect of Police.

(Sign.ed) TENYI, Clerk.

Annex 8 d.

Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Dr. VIDA, AssistatJt Chief of District.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S D EPOSITION.

Drawn up at P6la (Annamajor), December 24th, I934·

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing bu~ !be truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his depos1bon on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made t he following statement·

(r) Name: Cornelius Schmidt. (2) Age: 35· (3) Place of birth: P6la, Annamajor. (4) Domicile: P6la, Annamajor. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Landowner.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have duly noted the foregoing warning. " Annamajor and Szurdapuszta belong to me and to my brother Otto. Both these. esta~~

came into our possession by inheritance. For decades agricultural workers of Hungarian nattonali Y

-37-

ve been employed on the~. No Croat refugees have ever been employed there or on any other b~ te belonging to our famtly. es a" The statement ~ade by the ~hief of the Di~trict. of Letenye to the effect that Szurdapuszta was the properly of Ntcholas Kovacs Sebesteny ts mtstaken, the latter's estate being known as u· ajor.

JDl., I know nothing further of the matter."

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found accurate, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Sigtted) Dr. GOZMANY, Prefect of P olice.

(Signed) TENYI,

Clerk.

Annex 8 e.

Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Cornelius ScHMIDT.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESs's D EPOSITION.

Drawn up in Bares, December 25th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the mqriry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth i accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under tbe Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement.

{I} Name: Dr. Charles Boronkay. (2) Age: 41. (3) Place of birth: Marczali. (4) Domicile: Bares. (5) Civil status: Bachelor. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation : Chief of District.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have duly taken note of the foregoing warning. " I have been Chief of the District of Bares since November u tb, 1928. For admin istrative

purposes, both Dravapalfalva and Belcsapuszta, which is part of it and belongs to Maurice Kremzier, of Belcsapuszta, are attached to the commune of Bares.

"I hereby categorically declare that, since November Ist, 1928, no Croat political refugee has stayed at Belcsapuszta or has been employed on that estate. Had any Croat refugees stayed at Belcsapuszta before I entered upon my duties as Chief of District , I should be aware of that fact, as the past history of the district is well known to me; I am therefore in a position to state tBebat, even before my appointment as Chief of District, no political Croat refugee stayed at

lcsapuszta. " I have nothing to add. "

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found correct, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Signed) Dr. GoZMANY, Prefect of Police.

(Signed) Charles BoRONKA v.

Annex Sf.

Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF W ITNESS'S D EPOSITION.

Drawn up at Belcsapuszta, December 26th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness~ having appeared in response to a summons, was informed by me of tb.e ob'ect of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and not&n but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm ~ deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r ) Name: Paul Kremzier. (2) Age: 29. (3) Place of birth : Belcsapuszta. (4) Domicile: Belcsapuszta. (5) Civil status: Bachelor. (6) Religion: J ewish. (7) Occupat ion: Agriculturist, son of landowner.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness'sreply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

"I have duly taken note of the foregoing warning. " I t is I who, jointly with my parents, manage our family estate, Belcsapuszta. " I have certain knowledge that no Croat refugee has ever been employed on that estate

and that no such person has ever stayed there even for a short period. " I personally supervise the engagement of occasional -hands taken on by the farm bailiff;

I therefore maintain, categorically and in all circumstances, the statement which I have just made.

" I know nothing further of the matter."

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found correct, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Signed) Dr. GOZMANY,

Prefect of P olice. (Signed) T:ENYI,

Clerk.

Annex 8 g.

Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Paul KREMZIER.

OFFICIAL R ECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up in Bares, December 25th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing bu~ ~he truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his depofft!On on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an o ence under the Criminal Code.

-39-

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(I ) Name: Julius Huber. (2) Age: 73· (3) Place of birth: Zalaegerszeg. (4) Domicile: t~r 3, Szent Imre herceg, Bares. (5) Civil status: Bachelor. (6) Religion : Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Parish Priest.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned th t they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply th:reto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

• I have duly taken note of the foregoing warning. "For 34 years I have been Parish Priest in the commune of Bares. Belcsapuszta, which

·s attached to that commune for administrative purposes, also forms par t of my parish. As Parish Priest I am personally acquainted with all the agricultural workers employed at Belcsapuszta. 1 decl~re on my conscience that no Croat political refugees have ever stayed at Belcsapuszta and that no such person was ever employed on that estate.

• That is all I have to say."

The foregoing official record, having been read over and found correct, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Signed) Dr. GozMANY, Prefect of Police.

Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest Commissariat.

Criminal Section.

[L.S.]

Annex Sh.

(Sigued) Julius H UBE R,

Parish Priest.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Bares, December 25th, 1934.

Present : The undersigned.

We informed the witness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We warned him that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. We further warned him that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Ladislas Gujzer. (2) Age: 54· (3) Born at: Dravapalfalva. {4) Domicile: 167, Horthy Mikl6s-u., Bares. {5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Catholic. (7) Occupation: Carpenter.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned thah t they are not bound to make a statement . This warning, together with the witness's reply t ereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

"I have duly taken note of the foregoing warning . . " I am permanently resident at Bares. Since May 7th, 1933. I have been Mayor of the

uru~~d communes of Barcs-Dnivapillalva-Belcsapuszta. To my certain knowledge no Croat ~hhcal refugee has ever stayed or worked at Belcsapuszta. I am personally acquainted with a the agricultural workers at Belcsapuszta and know them to be H ungarian subjects.

" That is all I can say."

Signed after being read over.

Done as above.

(Signed) Dr. GozMANY. (Signed) Ladislas GUJZER, Mayor.

-40-

Annex 8 i. Royal State Police.

General Commissariat of Budapest. Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up, on December 25th, 1934, at the office of the Mayor of the Commune of Gelse.

Present: The undersigned.

We informed the witness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We wamed him that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. We further warned him that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In t he absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: John Simon. (2) Age: so. (3) Born at: Gelse. (4) Domicile: Fo-ut., Gelse. (S) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Catholic. (7) Occupation: Mayor, cultivator.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's replv thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.) ·

" For four years I have been Mayor of the Commune of Gelse, in which I was permanentlr resident even before that t ime. I formally declare that, since I have been Mayor and even be!Gre, no Croat refugee has stayed in Gelse. I should certainly have noticed the presence of such persons, as I am acquainted with all the inhabitants of the commune and I should have been struck by the presence of any foreigner.

" That is all I can say."

Signed after being read over.

Done as above.

Drawn up by the Commissioner of Police.

(Signed) PUSZTAI.

Annex Sj. Royal State Police.

General Commissariat of Budapest. Criminal Section.

(Sig1ted) John SL\IO~. Mayor.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up, on December 25th, 1934, at the office of the Mayor of the Commune of Geise.

Present: The undersigned.

We informed the witness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We warned him that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in accordance with his conscience, and that be might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. We further warned him that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement :

(r) Name: Paul Hajdu. (2) Age: 52. (3) Born at: Tormafolde. (4) Domicile: Gelse. (5) Civil status: Widower. (6) Religion: Catholic. (7) Occupation: Notary in chief to the Commune.

-41-

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned th t they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply th!reto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" Since September 1919, I have been secretary to the Mayor's office of the commune of Geise· The question having been put to me, I formally declare that no Croat refugee has, since

19 stayed in either the commune of Geise or the hamlets of Gelsesziget and Kiliman. Had any 1~ch'person stayed in these places, I should certainly have been aware of it, as it is part of my ~uties to register any foreigners settling in the commune and to report on their presence to the Chief of the District of Nagykanizsa."

Signed and approved after being read over.

Done as above.

Drawn up by the Police Commissioner. (Signed) PUSZTAI.

Annex 8 k . Royal State Police.

General Commissariat, Budapest. Criminal Section.

(Signed) Paul HAJDU,

Secretary to the Mayor's 0 !fice.

OFFICIAL REcoRD OF "·IT~Ess's DEPOSITio:-:.

Drawn up, on December 25th, 1934, at the office of the Chief of the District of Nagykanizsa.

Present: The undersigned. We informed the witness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We warned

mro that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. We further ramed him that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Doctor Alan Lontay. (2) Age: 42. (3) Born at: Als6lendva. (4) Domicile: 14, Batthany-u., Nagykanizsa. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Catholic. (7) Occupation: Chief of District.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have been Chief of the District of Nagykanizsa for five years. My district includes the commune of Geise. I formally declare that no Croat refugees have ever stayed either in that commune or in any of the other thirty-five communes in my administrative area.

" Having been questioned, I declare that there is no place of the name of Bagolapuszta. In my district there is, however, a place called Bagotapuszta in the commune of Ujudvar where, to my knowledge, there is only one person living-a Hungarian cultivator of the name of Joseph Gerencser. I formally state, however, that no Croat refugee has lived at Bagotapuszta."

Signed and approved after being read over.

Done as above.

Drawn up by

(Signed) PUSZTAI.

Taken down by

[Signature illegible.]

(Signed) Dr. Alan L ONTAY,

Chief of District.

-42 -

Annex 81.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up, on December 24th, 1934, in the office of the Secretary to the Mayor of Rabamolnari.

Stephen Polgar, cultivator, born at Rabamolnari, age 62, Catholic, Mayor of the Commu of Rabamolnari, has made the following statement: ne

" I have been Mayor for the past five years. I have no knowledge of any Serbian or Cro 1 emigres having ever stayed within the commune of Rabamolnari. I have never heard that a:.

such persons were in the commune or had passed through it." )

Signed after having been read over .

Date as above.

Drawn up by the Police Clerk: (Signed) Alexander K6RMENDY.

Annex S m.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

(Signed) Stephen POLGAR, Mayor.

Drawn up, on December 24th, 1934, at the office of the Secretary to the Mayor of Rabamolnari.

Julius Sely, Secretary to the office of the Mayor of .Rabamolnari, age 51, has made the following statement :

" No Serbian or Croat emigre has stayed even for a short time in the commune of Rabamoln:iri. I have been secretary at the Mayor's office since 1922 and as such should have been aware that foreigners were staying or had arrived in the commune."

Signed after having been read over.

Date as above.

Drawn up by the Police Clerk:

(Signed) Alexander K6RJ\1ENDY.

Royal Hungarian State Police. General Commissariat, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

Annex 8 n.

(Signed) Julius SELY,

Secretary to the Mayor's Office.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Nagykanizsa, December 24th, 1934, at the office of the People's Savings Bank.

Present : The undersigned.

We informed the witness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We warned him that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath.. We further warned him that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Dr. Joseph Kreisler. (2) Age: 69. (3) Born at: Nagybajom. (4) Domicile: 5, Csengeri-u., Nagykanizsa. (S) Civil status: Widower. (6) Religion: Jewish. (7} Occupation: Advocate.

-43 -

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned th t they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply

a eto must be mentioned in the official record.) ther" i am the owner of a farm situated at a distance of 24 kilometres from the village of Baza. ln 1931, I entrusted the People's Savings Bank with the parcelling out of the land. Since then, t o-thirds of the property bas been leased annually to peasants. I am well aware that there were ;ong the workers on the farm persons whose native language was Croat; unless I am mistaken, there were two or three such persons. At that time, however, the fact did not in any way surprise

e as there are in the neighbourhood several communes in which Croats are living. I never ~~w the names of the Croats who were living there; all that I can say is that their conduct was above reproach; that they were good workers and peaceful, good-natured people. I never beard any complaints about them.

"That is all I can say."

Signed after being read over.

Done as above.

Drawn up by the Police Commissioner. (Signed) PUSZTAI.

Annex 9 a.

OFFICIAL RECORD

(Signed) Dr. Joseph KREISLER.

Of the examination of Lieutenant-Colonel Emeric Rohonci, ex-Commandant of the Szombathely Area, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 27th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln.1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal

Hungarian Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(1) When were you Com·mandant of the Szombathely Area (between what dates) ?

From August 1st, 1928, to July 31st, 1934.

(2) Do ymt remember whether, duri1~g this period, any Yttgoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign nationality-stayed in your area ?

No, there were none.

(3) Did yo1t see any persons wearing lmiform in your area ?

No.

(4) Were any persons of foreig?t nationality detained or requested to prove their identity by the frO?~tier patrols ? I f so, to what authority were they handed over ?

Possibly, but I do not remember. Such persons were handed over to the administrative or military authorities in accordance with the regulations.

(s) Did you know or hear that ref-ugees belottging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha " had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in your area ? Did they drill with firearms and bombs ?

Nothing of this kind occurred.

(6) Did yo1t know of any emigres ltaving crossed the frontier with the help of Hu.ngarian gendarmes and retu.rned after c01mnitl1"ng terrorist acts ?

I did not.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brcn~ght to the station barracks for any other reason whatever?

No.

(8) Have yott anytltiug fnrther to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) Emeric ROHONCI, Lieutenant-Colo11et

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observations, after having been read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, Gen.eral. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9b.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of Lieutenant-Colonel Desire Takacsy, ex-Commandant of the Pees Area in connection V{ith the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungari~ Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 27th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.elo.1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian

Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set down.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the I nspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Em eric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmme.

(r) When were yot~ Commandant of the Pees Area (between what dates) ?

From September 1927 to J uly 31st, 1934.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav S1.1,bjects- i.e., persons of foreign na­tionality- stayed in your area ? .

Yes, in a few communes for a short time. I do not know any Yugoslav subject of the name of Tillmann. I have never heard that name,

nor have I ever h eard that the man in question entered the barracks of the Beremendgendarmerie station.

(3) Did yott see any persons wearing uniform in your area ?

No, I did not.

(4) IV ere at£y persons offoreigtt nationality detaitted or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If ·so, to what authority were they ha'ttded over ?

Yes, the patrol did now and then arrest Yugoslav deserters, and called upon persons !llici.tly crossing the fron tier to prove their identity. These per sons were handed over after ex~mnatton to the competent administrative or military authority in accordance with the regulatwns.

(5) Did you know or hear that refu,gees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in your area ? Did they drill with firearms and bombs ?

Not to my knowledge, nor did I ever hear of it.

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and ret1"ned after c<rmmitting terrorist acts ?

Nothing of the kind occurred. I know nothing of the matter and never heard anything tv that effect.

- 45-

were yo1~ order~ to ar~est emigres ? Did ~he (7) gendarmerie stat1.on deta1.n any persons offortf.gn

nationality ? Were any stu;h perso11.s brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever ?

The commandant of the area ~d not receive any orders to make arrests. The deserters who were detamed and the persons who crossed the frontier illicitly could

only remain at the station pending examination and not longer than twenty-four hours.

(8} Have you anything further to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) Desire TAKACSY, Lieutenattt-Colonel.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Sigtted) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9 c.

OFFICIAL REcoRD

Ofthe examination of Lieutenant-Colonel Desire Bertalanffy, Commandant of the 4th Gendarmerie Division at Kaposvar, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 27th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. s87/csf.eln.rg34, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal

Hungarian Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmeri<', amColonel Emeric Sztitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

p) When were you Commandant of the 4Jh Division at Kaposvtir (between what dates) ?

I have been in command of the 4th Division at Kaposvar since August rst, rgz8.

(2) Do you remember whether, dt.erit~g this period, any Yt~goslav st~bjects-i.e., persons of foreign 11ationality-stayed in your division ? •

Yes. In rg3r, a farmer employed a number of persons of Yugoslav nationality at Jankapuszta.

(3) Did you see any persons wearit'g uniform in y01tr division ?

No.

f-t) Were any persons of foreigt~ nationality detained or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

Yes, in the process of the supervision of aliens. I do not remember any concrete cases. Under the regulations, any persons detained had to be handed over to the competent military or civil authority within twenty-four hours.

(s) Did you know or hear that refugees bel<mging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha" had c~o~s~d the frontier ? Did they reside in you,r dtv~s~on ? Did they form, military units and carry ou,t military exercises with firearms and bombs in yottr area ?

Generally speaking, how did these emigres live ? What did they do, and what was their occupation at J ankapt~szta ?

Tb Th~ Yugoslav subjects living at Jankapuszta were all engaged in agriculture or similar work. ey dtd not carry out military exercises. They could not have procured arms or bombs.

(6) Did you order the Commandant of the Zdkdny station to place a guard at ] ankapttszta ?

No, I never gave any such orders.

(7) It is alleged that, itt I9JI, a revolt broke 01~t among the emigres living at J ankapuszta atui that this revolt was pt-tl down by the gendarmes of the station, who dispersed the turbulent elements.

Did this revolt actually take place and did you make a report thereon to your superior ?

I have no knowledge of the matter. This is the first I have heard of it.

(8) Did you kttOw of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the he/1J of Hungarian gendarmes and ret1trned after committing terrorist acts ?

No.

(9) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the station detain any persons of foreign national­ity ? Were any sttch persons brought into the barracks for any reason whatever ?

I remember the case of the Yugoslav subject Premec, who was arrested by the gendarmes of the Zakany station. That is all I know.

(ro) Have yotf anything fmther to say ?

No. {Sigt:d) Desire BERTALANFFY, LietJtenan~-Col01rel.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Dos6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9 d.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of Major Alexander Deseo, former Chief of the 4th Area at Csurg6, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 27th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 5~7! csf.eln.1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendannene.

The charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to tlie Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendanne~e, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendannene.

{I) Whet£ were you Chief of the Area at Csurgo (between what dates) ?

From February 15th, 1931, to August rst, 1934.

(2) Do you remember whether, d't-t.ring th£s period, any Yugoslav sub-jects-i.e., persons of foreig'IJ­nationality- stayed in your area ?

Yes, several Yugoslav subjects stayed at J ankapuszta. As regards the question whether I observed that a large number of Yugoslav subjects settle~

in the district and whether I reported the matter to my superiors and took steps for these person• to be placed under special supervision, I confess that I did not do so.

(3) Did you. see any persons wearing uniform i1~ your area?

I did not.

-47-

(~) Were a?JY persom offoreig·f£ natio11ality detained r requested to prove their identity by the frontier

patrols 1 II so, to what authority were they handed over I

I do not remember any particular case. In the ordinary course of the supervision of aliens, certain persons were. ~lled upon ~o. pr<;>Ve their i~entity. These persons were handed over to the administrative or m1htary authont1es m the ordinary way. I do not know of any special cases.

(·) Did you /mow or hear that refugees belonging to ) the Croat terrorist organisati<m "Oustacha" had

crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in your area ? Did they form military units and carry out mili­tary exercises with firearms and bombs in your area?

Generally speaking, how did these emigres live ? What did they do, and what was their occupation at J at:.kapuszta ?

I remember that once I went to J ankapuszta in the autumn of 1931. I found a few Yugoslav subjects working in the tobacco-drying shed. In general, they cultivated the land or engaged in other work of the same kind.

I do not know whether they carried out any military exercises or possessed firearms or bombs.

(6) Did yOtt order the Commandant of the Ztikdny stati01~ to place a guard at J ankapuszta ?

I gave no such orders. I could not have given them, since as far as I was aware the attitude of these Yugoslav subjects was not such as to justify any such order.

~l !tis alleged that, in I9JI, a revolt broke out among the emigres living at ] ankapuszta atul that this revoU was frut down by the gendarmes of the Jtatiot~, who dispersed the t11.rbulent elements. Did this revolt act1latly take place and did you make a report thereon to yaM superior ?

I know nothing of the matter. The case was probably of no importance, since it was not reported to me, nor did I report it to my superiors. Having had no knowledge of the case, I took no interest in the matter.

(8) Did you know of any ~migr6s having crossed the frontier with the help of Htmgarian 'gendarmes and returned after committing terro,.ist acts ?

I know of no such cases and have never heard of any.

(9) We~e yotl ord~ed to arrest emigres ? Did the stat101t detain any persons offoreigt~ nationality ? Were any such persons brought ittto the barracks /or a1:y reason whatever ?

Warrants for arrest are only received by the stations. As Commandant of the Section, I never received any such warrants. th . Person.s of. foreign nationality never stayed at the stations except for the time required for

err exarmnation.

(ro) Have you anything further to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) Alexander DESEO, Major.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Coloml.

Annex 9 e.

OFFICIAL REcoRD

Of the examination of Major Paul Nagy, ex-Commandant of the Szigetvar Area in conn f with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hunga~ Gendar ec '?n drawn up in Budapest on December zJili, 1934. in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln~ene,

of December 22nd, 1934. issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmeri~ 934. The charges have already been set forth. ·

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarme . and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp oi the Inspector of the Hoyal Hungarian Gendanne~!e.

H'.

(r) When were you Commandant of the Szigetvar Area (between what dates) ?

From December 1st, 1925, to May 15th, 1934.

(2) Do yot~ re·member whether, dt4fing this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreigtt natiotzality-stayed itt your area, particularly at Belcsapt~zta ?

There were no Yugoslav subjects in my area, either at Belcsapuszta or elsewhere.

(3) Did you see a1Jy persons wearing uniform i1-1 yottr area ?

No.

(4) Were at!Y persons of foreign nationality detai1ted or requested to prove their identity by the /r01uier patrols ? If so, to what attthority were they handd. over ?

Yes, a few deserters or persons illicitly crossing the frontier were detained and called upon to prove their identity; in each case, they were handed over to the competent authority.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in your area ? Did they drill with firearms and bombs ?

Not to my knowledge.

(6) Did yot' know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Huttgarian gendarmes a11d returned after committing t-errorist acts ?

I did not. Nothing of the kind could have occurred.

(7) Were yo" ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the statim detain atty persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brottght to th.e station barracks for atty reasott whatever ?

I received no such orders. Aliens kept under detention can only remain in the barr~cks pending their examination-i.e., not longer than twenty-four hours, according to the regulatiOnS.

(8) Have yott anything further to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) Paul NAGY, Major.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Sig11ed) vitez Stephen Dos6, Gmeral. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Coloml.

-49-

Annex 9f.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of Major Aladar Pinter, Commandant of the Szombathely Area, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on ~ecember 27th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. s87/csf.~ln.r934. of December 22nd, 1934, ISSued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene. The

charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sztitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie,

(r) When were you Commandant of the Szombathely A rea (between what dates) _)

Since April rst, 1929.

(2) Do ym' remember whether, d1tri1~g this period, any Yt4goslav subiects- i.e., persons of foreign natio­nality-stayed in yOt'1' area, particularly at Rdbamolndri?

I do not remember any Yugoslav subjects ever being in my area.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing 1mijorms in yoz" area?

I neither saw persons wearing uniform nor persons clothed in a uniform manner.

~~ Were any persons of foreign nationality detained or reqttested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? I f so, to what authority were they handed over ?

I received no report of such cases. If the patrols of the stations under my command arrested foreign subjects, they had to hand them over to the competent military or civil authorities within twenty-four hours.

(5) Did yott know or hear that refttgees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Ot~tacha " had crossed the frontier ? Did they reside i·n ym4r area ? Did they drill with firearms and bombs ?

I had no knowledge of it. I heard nothing to that effect. Nothing of the kind occurred.

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frotuier with the help of H14ngarian gendarmes and retumed aft.er committing terrorist acts ?

I do not know. I did not even hear of any such cases.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest the emigres ? Did the station detait~ any persot£S of foreign ?lationality ? Were any such persat£S br01~ght to the sta:ti01~ barracks for any reas01£ whatever ?

. My area received no such order and I am not aware that my stations detained any foreign subJects.

(8) Have you anything further to say ?

No. But I should like to emphasise that no foreign subjects ever settled in the commune of Rabamolnari.

(Signed) Aladar PINTER, Major.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Dos6, Genera/,. (Signed) Emeric Sz'OTsY, Colonel.

---so-

Annex 9 g.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of Captain Arpad Toldy, ex-Commandant of the Sik16s Area, in connecr with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hu~garian Gendannet?n drawn up in Budapest on December 27th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln 1 ne, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie .. w~

charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie:

(r) When were you Commandant of the Sikl6s Area (between what dates) ?

From August 1st, 1928, to August 15th, 1932.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign natio­nality- stayed in y(}ur area ?

I do not remember. Some communes included among their inhabitants a small number of Yugoslav subjects who possessed a residence permit. I have never heard the name of Tillmann before. I do not know whether he or any other Yugoslav subject stayed in the barracks of the Beremend station and was given food there.

{3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your area?

I did not see any persons wearing uniform or persons clothed in a uniform manner.

(4) Were any persons of foreign 1~ationality detained or requ.ested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols? If so, to what authority were they handed over?

Yes, a few persons who crossed the frontier illegally or deserters. These persons were handed over in the ordinary way to the competent authorities.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha " had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in ym~or area ? Did they drill with firearms and bombs ?

Nothing of the kind occurred.

(6) Did y01~ know of any emigres hav-ing crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and rett~orned after committing terrorist acts ?

Not to my knowledge.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the station detain any persons of foreign 1~tionality ? Were any such persons admitted to the station barracks for any reason whatever ?

Not to my knowledge. Orders for arrest were sent direct to the stations. . . Foreign subjects could not stay at the station, except under detention pending exannnatton,

and not longer than twenty-four hours.

{8) Have you. anything further to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) Arpad ToLDY, Captaitt.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOrsv, Colo·nel.

-51-

Annex 9h.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the exam_ination of Captain Cha!les Fejer, ex-Commandant of th~ Nagykanizsa Area, in connection wtth the ~barges brought m the Yugoslav Mem<?randum agamst. the Hungarian Gen­darmerie, drawn up m Budapest o~ December 27th, 1934, m accordance wtth Order No.s87/csf. eln.Ig34· of December 22nd, 1934, tssued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

The charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(I) When were you Commandant of the Nagykanizsa Area (between what dates) ?

From the beginning of 1927 until August IIth, 1932.

(z) Do you remember whether, during this period, any YtJ.goslav su.bjects- i.e., persons of foreign natio­t~ality-stayed in your area, particularly at Gelse?

If I remember rightly, no Yugoslav subjects stayed in the area in question. I should like to add that no such persons stayed at Geise, even for a short time.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your area ?

No.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality detained or requested to prove their idetttity by the frontier patrols? I I so, to what a1{thority were they handed over?

A few deserters and persons crossing the frontier illegally were called upon to prove their identity and were handed over to the competent military or civil authority in accordance with the regulations.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in your area? Did they drill with firearms and bombs ?

Nothing of the kind occurred at Geise or elsewhere in my area.

(6) Did you know of any emigres havit~g crossed the frontier with the help of Hut~garian gendarmes a1ul returned after committing terrorist acts ?

Nothing of the kind occurred. I heard nothing of it.

{7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the station detain any perso1ts of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brot,ght to the station barracks for any reason whatever ?

The Commandant of the area received no orders regarding detention. No person of foreign nationality stayed in the barracks of the stations in this area.

(8) Have you anything furtMr to say ?

One day, in rg28, a Yugoslav military aeroplane landed in the neighbourhood of Kerkaszentmikl6s. It was seized by the frontier guard, which reported the matter to the proper authorities.

(Signed) Charles FEJER, Captain.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Doa6, Getz.eral. (Sig1~ed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colo11el.

-52-

Annex 9 i .

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" John Baranyai, Commandant of the Csurg6 District . connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hun ari 10

Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934. in accordance with ~rdan No. 587/csf.eln.I934. of December 22nd, I934. issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungari:r

Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth. n Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.'

(I) When were you Chief of the Csurg6 Area (between what dates) ?

Since September 8th, 1932.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign nationality-stayed at 1 ankapz,szta in your district on the piece of ground entered in the land register tmder No. 24 ?

Croat-speaking agricultural labourers stayed at Jankapuszta, but I do not know if they were Yugoslav subjects.

As Commandant of the district, I am not acquainted with all the details of the local conditions prevailing in the district in which my stations are situated.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your district ?

No, I did not see any when visiting the gendarmerie stations.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality detained or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? I j so, to what authority were they handed over ?

I know nothing of the arrest of persons of foreign nationality. If the patrols made any such arrests, the persons arrested could only have been handed over to the proper authorities. I am not aware that the stations departed even on a single occasion from the rules laid down by law.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belot~gittg to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha " had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in your district ? Did they form military units and carry oz1t military exercises with firear·ms and botnbs in your district ?

Generally speaking, how did these emigres live, what did they do and what was their occupation at 1 ankapuszta ?

I know nothing of the matter. If such events had occurred, however, I would certainly have known it and would have reported the matter to my superiors.

(6) Did yo1' order the Commandant of the Zdkdny station to place a guard over 1 ankapuszta ?

I gave no such order, and have never heard of any guard being so placed.

(7) In I9JI, a revolt is said to have broken out among the emigres living at 1 ankapuszta, and to have been Ptlt down by the gendarmes of the station, who dispersed the unruly elements. Did this revolt actually take place, and did you report the matter to your superior officer, the Cotnmandant of the area?

I know nothing of the matter. In 1931, I was not yet Commandant of the Csurg6 Area.

-53 -

} Did yot' know of any ~migr~s having crossed the 18 frontier with the help of H1mgarian gendarmes

attd rett,rned after committing terrorist acts ?

No.

(g) Were y~ ordered to arrest ~migr~ ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign natiOtuzlity ? Were any such persons brought to th~ station barracks for any other reason whatever?

As Chief of District, I did not receive any order of the kind mentioned. When the patrols arrested foreign nationals, the latter could only remain at the barracks

during their examination.

(IO) Have you anything further to say ?

No. (Signed) John BARANYAI, "Adt"udant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Doa6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9j

OFFICIAL REcoRD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" Joseph Varga, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln.I934, of December 22nd, 1934. ~i!ed by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie. The charges have already

been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(1) When were you Commandant of the Bares District (between what dates) ?

From July rst, 1927, to J une 30th, 1932.

(2) Do you remember whether, dt"ing this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign na­tionality-stayed at Belcsapuszta in ymtr area, 01~ the piece of grot.tnd entered in the land register as No. IO?

No Yugoslav subjects ever stayed at Belcsapuszta or elsewhere in my area.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing tt.niform in your district ?

I never saw any Yugoslav subjects in uniform in the district of the station or elsewhere.

(4) Were any persons of foreign n.ationality detained or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

Yes, the patrol of the Lakocsa station arrested a suspicious Yugoslav subject in 1932 at the p~avafok railway station. The individual in question was handed over to the proper adrmmstrative authority.

15) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha " had cr_oss~d the frontier ? Are they established in yottr d~tnct ? Did they form military t.t"its and carry ~ut military exercises with firearms attd bombs m YOttr district ?

Nothing of the kind occurred in my district.

- 54 -

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and retumed after committing terrorist acts ?

Not to my knowledge; and I have never been informed of any similar case.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever?

We received no orders to arrest emigres. Persons of foreign nationality only remained · the station barracks during the time required for their examination. 10

(8) Have you anything further to say ?

No. (Signed) J oseph VARGA, "AdJ'tdant".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9k.

OFFICIAL REcoRD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" Andrew Bagoly, Commandant of the Somogyszob Distritt, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587! csf.eln.1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarm~rie.

The charges have already been set forth. Present :

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(1) When were you Chief of the Somogyszob District (between what dates) ?

Since 1929, without interruption.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign natio­nality- stayed at Bagolapuszta in your district ?

There is no such place as Bagolapuszta in my district. In the area of the Felsosegesd station there is a spot known as "Bagola erdoosrhaz" (forest guard house), but the latter was known until the end of 1933 as "Keteri erdoslak" (forest lodge) and there were never any Yugoslav subjects there.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your district ?

No, I never saw any such persons.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality detained or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

No.

(S) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they reside in your district ? Did they form military units and carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area ?

Nothing of that kind ever occurred in my district.

-55 -

Did yon kn<>W any emigres having crossed the frMdier with the help of _H~mgarian . gendarmes and rett~rned after commdttng terronst acts ?

No.

( } Were yot~ ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the 7 gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign

naiiOtrality ? Were any such persons &rought to the station barracks for any reason whatever?

No.

(8} Have you anything else to say ?

No. (Signed) Andrew BAGOLY, "Adftulant".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Sigtted) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric Sz'OTSY, Colonel.

Annex 91.

OFFICIAL REcoRD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" Paul Szab6, Commandant of the Nagykanizsa District, in oonnection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/ (S{.eln.I934. of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

The charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, t~d Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(1} Whet~ were you Chief of the Nagykanizsa District (between what dates)?

Since June 1st, and I still am.

(2) Do y01~ remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav su!Jfects-i.e., persons of foreign nationality-stayed at Gelse in your district on the piece of ground marked No. I in the land register?

No foreign subjects stayed either at Geise or elsewhere in my district.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your district ?

No, I never saw any such persons.

(4} Were any persons of foreign national·ity detained or requested to prove their identity lJy the frontier Patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

Once, in the summer of 1931, I arrested a foreign national in the commune of Gelse-sziget. Hhe was a Yugoslav subject who had obtained from the Yugoslav authorities a permit to cross I e frontier in order to procure official documents.

~) Did yott. know or hear that rej1~gees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha " had crossed the frontier ? Did they reside in your area ? Did they form military units and carry ~ military exercises with firearms and bombs tn your area ?

No, nothing of the kind occurred either at Geise or elsewhere in my area.

-56 -

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and retwrned after c01nmitti1~g terrorist acts ?

No, I have never heard of anything of the kind.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were at~y such persons brought to the station barracks for atty reason whatever ?

No.

(8) Have you anything else to say ?

No. (Signed) Paul SzAB6, " Adfudant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Doa6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9m.

OFFICIAL REcORD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" Dominic Szekely, Commandant of the Gendarmerie District of Letenye, in connection vvith the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance \11th Order No. 587/csf.eln.1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspectorof the Roya\

Hungarian Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, I and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-Camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(r) When were you Chief of the Letenye District (between wJtat dates) ?

I have been commandant of that district since November 24th, 1930.

(z) Do yo1-t remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign natio­nality-stayed at A nnamafor and Szurdapuszta in your area, these places being entered under Nos. 26 and IO in the land register ?

No Yugoslav subjects stayed at the places in question.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your area?

No.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality detained or requested to prove thei-r identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

My patrols arrested several persons having crossed the frontier without a permit and several Yugoslav deserters. After examination, these persons were handed over within t wenty-four hours to the proper administrative or military authorities.

(5) Did you know or hear that ref·ugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they reside in your area ? Did they carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs ?

I have no knowledge of anything of the kind.

-57-

Did you know of any emigres J~.av~ng crossed the !6) 1,011tier with the help of .lf.tmganan. gendarmes

and returned after cotnm$ttt.ng terronst acts ?

No. Nothing of the kind occurred. I never even heard of such occurrences.

) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the (7 station detaitt any persons offoreigt~ ttationality ?

Were at~Y st4Ch persons bro1tgltt itilo the barracks for any other reasott- whatever ?

At the administrative authority's request, the stations of Banokszentgyorgy and Letenye arrested a number of Yugoslav subjects in November 1934.

(8) Have yot.t anything else to say ?

No. (Signed) Dominic SzEKELY, " Adfudant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, a fter being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9n.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of " Adjudant " David Gaspar, Chief of the Sikl6s District, in the matter of the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up inBudapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587jcsf.eln.1934, of December

22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Szutsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

When were yott Chief of the Sikl6s District (be­twem what dates) ?

I have been Chief of the Sikl6s District since July 1st, 1931.

Do you remember whether, dt~ring this period, any Yt.tgoslav st,b-jects- i.e. , persons of foreign natio­nality-stayed in your district ?

Yugoslav subjects lived here and there in my district.

Did ycm see any persons wearing ttniform in ym1r district ?

No.

Were a?JY persons of foreign ttatio1wlity detaitted or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what at.tllwrity were they handed over?

. The patrols of my station arrested Yugoslav deserters and persons having crossed the frontier Without a permit. We handed over these persons to the administrative authorities or to the command of the P~cs Mixed Brigade.

Did you know or hear that refugees belottging to the Croat terrorist orgatlisatiorl " Oustacha " had crossed the frontier ? Were they lodged at Bere­mend in your area ? Did they carry out military exercises with firearms attd bombs ?

No Yugoslav subjects ever stayed at Beremend and there were therefore no military exercises. 1 never even heard such a matter mentioned.

-58-

(6) Did yoz• know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gmdarmes and returned after committing terrorist acts ?

I know nothing of the matter and never even heard it mentioned.

-

Having been asked whether I know a certain Yugoslav subject of the name of Tilhn I categorically declare that I do not know any such person. I therefore cannot say whethe~' not be entered the barracks of the Beremend station. But, knowing the strictness of the Commant of the station, I cannot believe that refugee Yugoslav subjects could have visited it and that t:r Commander could have assisted in any way persons crossing the frontier in an illicit manner. e

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the stat·ion detain a1ty persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brought into the barracks for any other reason ?

I do not remember having received orders to arrest emigres. At the stations of Sikl6s, Beremend and Vajszl6, gendarmes have occasionaJly arrested Yugoslav deserters on their own initiative.

(8) Have you. anything further to say ?

No. (Signed) David GAsPAR, "Adfudant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Sign-ed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9o.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of "aspirant" John Ferencz, Commandant of the Zakany station,. in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hunganan Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 5~7/ csf.eln.1934, of December zznd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene.

The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarme~e. and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene.

{1) When were you Chief of the Zdkdny station (between what dates) ?

Since May 13th, 1933.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., pers01~s of foreign nationality- stayed at ] ankapuszta . in your area, on the plot of land entered in the land register under No. 24 ?

Yugoslav subjects stayed at Jankapuszta. After St. George's Day in 1934, their numbJr continually decreased as the harvest proceeded. The last Yugoslav subject, whose name I 0

not remember, left at the beginning of October 1934, after transferring the lease to Joseph Schlosser, domiciled at Nagykanizsa.

(3) Did you see a1'y pers01's wearing t~niform ~n your area?

There were none. Seven or eight persons wore the same sort of clothes, but of civilian cut.

-59-

rv re atty persons offoreigt~ twtionality detained (4} or ~eqrusted to prove their identity by the frontier

patrols ? Yes; patrols arrested deserters and civilians crossing the frontier without a permit.

(S) Did yot~ know or hear that refugees belonging to

the Croat terrorist orgat~isation "Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in yot" area ? Did they f.orm 11~ilita~y 14nits atul carry 011t military exerc.ses w•th f1.reartns and b0'1nbs in you.r area ?

Get~erally speaking, how did these emigres live; what did they do and what was their occupation at J at~kapu.szta ?

Refugees of Yugoslav nationality crossed the frontier . We handed them over to the proper military or administrative authorities, according to whether they were deserters or not. I only read the term " Oustacha" in the newspapers after the assassination of the King of Yugoslavia.

The emigres who stayed at J ankapuszta did not carry out military exercises and threw no bombs.

The emigres at Jankapuszta were engaged in agricultural labour and similar work.

(6) Were you directed by your superior officer or by anyone else to place a guard over the emigres at JankaP1.szta, and did yot' give the gendarmerie slatiott arders to this e(ject ?

I did not receive orders from anyone, nor did I give orders to anyone. We only sent the usual patrols to Jankapuszta, which is in our station area. We did not exercise any special supervision there.

~) l11I9JI, a revolt is said t{) have brokm aut ammtg the emigres livittg at ] ankapttszta and to lwve bee1t Pttt dow1t by the gendarmes of the station, who dispersed the tenruly elements.

Dillhis revolt actually take place and did you report the matter to your stt-perior officer ?

I was only attached to the Zakany station in May 1933. and am therefore unable to reply. I have never heard of any such cases.

(8) Did yot' know of any emigres having crossed the frot~tier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after cammitting terrorist acts ?

No.

{9) Were yat~ ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persans of foreign natianality ? W ere any such persons brot,ght to the station barracks for any other reason whatever?

The station received many orders to execute warrants for arrest, but I do not know how many bnigres there were. I remember that, in the summer of 1933, I received from the Public Prosecutor at Kaposvar and from the Ministry of Justice an order to arrest bnigres of the name of Rraj Milo and Edward Premec. I arrested the latter and handed him over to the Public Prosecutor at Kaposvar, but we were unable to find Kraj Milo.

Apart from the refugees brought to the station, no one was admitted to the barracks. We handed the refugees over to the proper authorities after examination within twenty-four hours.

I_ fur_ther wish to state that I kept no register of the names of the refugees, because, after exanunahon, I immediately handed them over.

(Io) Have y(}u anything further to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) John F ERENCZ, " aspira-nt ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Doa6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

--6o-

Annex 9 p.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" Emeric Balogh, Commandant of the Bares gendarmerie st ti in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hun: ?n. Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with ~an No. 587/csf.eln.Ig34, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie ~~r

charges have already been set forth. · e Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmeri and Colonel Emeric Sztitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmen·~' e.

(r) When were you Commandant of the Bares station ( betewen what dates) ?

Since October rst, r gzg.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav sub·jects- i.e., persons of foreign na­tionality-stayed at Belcsap'uszta in your area, on the plot entered in the land register under No. IO?

No. None ever stayed there, even for a short time.

(3) Did yot' see any persons wearing uniform in yor4r area ?

No. I never saw any Yugoslav subjects wearing uniform in my area, nor did the patrols erer see any.

(4) Were any persons of foreign natt"o·nality arrested or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols? If so, to what authority were they handed ouer ?

No.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Were they lodged at Belcsapu,szta i1~ yottr area ? Did the-y carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area?

I have never heard of it, nor did I observe anything of the kind.

(6) Did you k-now of any emigres who had lived there having crossed the frontier with the help of Hun­garian gmdarmes and returned after committing temwist acts ?

No.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detai1~ a1~y persons of foreign t~atiottality ? Were a1ty such persons brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever ?

No.

(8) Have you anything fttrther to say ?

No. {Signed) Emeric BALOGH, " Adfudant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Dos6, General. (Sigtfed) Emeric SztiTSY, Colatzel.

-61 -

Annex 9q.

OFFICIAL RECORD

f the exarnina~ion of "Aspirant" ]o~ Czinka, Commandant of the g~ndarmerie station, ~connection wtth the charges brought m the Yugoslav Memorand_um agamst the I:Iungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up at Budapest on December 26th, 1934, m accordance w1th Order No. 5s7{csf.eln.1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued_ by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian · Gendarmene.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sz\itsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(r} When were you Chief of the Zdkdny station (between what dates) ?

From December 30th, 1930, to May 1st, 1933.

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, atLy Yugoslav su,b1"ects-i.e., persot~s of foreign na­tiotzality-stayed at ] ankapuszta in your area on the plot mtered 1·n the land register under No. 24?

Yes. In 1931, a certain Emil Horvath rented Jankapuszta and engaged some fifteen Yugoslav subjects as agricultural labourers.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your area?

I saw no uniforms. In 1932, I saw a number of workmen wea~ing yellowish garments made ~! some kind of linen in order to save their civilian clothing. Apart from this garment, some 'lllrehats, others caps and many were bareheaded.

U) Were any persons of foreign nationality detained or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ?

Yes, this often happened. Owners of land on either side of the frontier crossed the frontier even after the expiration of their permits. Such persons were arrested by the gendarmerie patrols and handed over to the administrative authorities.

~) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Did they settle in yottr area? Did they form military units and carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area ?

Generally speaking, how did these emigres live; what did they do and what was their occupation at ] anka.pttSzta ?

Not long ago. I read the word "Oustacha" in the newspapers. Refugees of Yugoslav nationality cro~d the frontier. In the case of deserters we handed them over to the military authorities, and mother cases to the administrative authorities. I know that some of these persons were sent back to Yugoslavia. A certain number of refugees were engaged at Jankapuszta as agricultural ~~"?rkers. I have no idea whether the persons staying at Jankapuszta carried out mHitary exercises IVlth firearms or bombs.

The persons referred to above were engaged in agricultural labour and poultry farming.

(6) Were you instructed by you,r superiors or any other person to place a g2.tard over the emigres at I ankapuszta, and did yoz~ give orders to this effect to the gendarmerie station ?

I gave no orders and received none. We did not guard Jankapuszta in any way.

(7) lt~~93_I, a revolt is said to have broken ou.t among the enugres living at J ankapuszta and to have been P~ down by the gendarmes of the stati01~. who dlspersed the t4nruly elements. Did this revolt

- 6z-

act~tally take place, and did you report the matte·r to your commanding officer ?

It happened on one occasion-! do not remember the exact date-that the Jank emigres openly complained of the bad food and refused to work. At the fanner's re ap~szta patrol from the gendarmerie station went to the farm, after which the workers resum~~e~~ _a tasks. I did not send in a report on the case because I did not regard it as important. t e:r

(8) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after cormn-itting terror-ist acts ?

. I had no kno~le~g~ of such acts. Neither I nor the gendarmes of my station gave any such assistance to the emzgres.

(9) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever ?

Many orders and warrants for arrest are received by the gendarmerie station. But I do not remember if the names of the emigres mentioned appeared on these warrants. Persons of foreign nationality only remained at the barracks during their examination, which was carried out within twenty-four hours, after which they were handed over to the proper authorities.

I should add that I did not keep a register of the Yugoslav refugees, because I handed them over to the proper authorities.

(ro) Have yot~ anything further to say ?

Nothing. (Signed) J ohn CziNKA, "aspirant".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read ovt~.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9 r.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of J oseph Gocze, Commandant of the Beremend station, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmene, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.~ln.I934> of December zznd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene. The

charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarme~e, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene.

(1) When were you Commandant of the Beremend station (between what dates) ?

I have been Commandant of the Beremend station since June 7th, 1928.

(z) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects-i.e., persons of foreign na­tionality- stayed at Beremend in your area on the plot entered under No. 24 in the land register i

No Yugoslav nationals stayed at Beremend. Owners of land on both sides of the fro~tie~ often visited Beremend, particularly in 1929 and 1930. In the evening, they returne t \ Yugoslavia, except those who had a permit valid for two or three days. Some of the Ia te occasionally stopped at Beremend or in their winepress buildings. It

I never saw any person of the name of Tillrnann among them, nor have I heard of or knO;he him. I am quite sure that there was no one of this name either among the deserters or among persons crossing the frontier without a permit.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your

area 1

No.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality arrested

01 req~~ted to prove their identity by the frontier

patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

The gendarmerie station arrested several persons who had crossed the frontier without a nnit We handed them over to the administrative authorities. The patrols also arrested

Vugosl~v deserters, whom we handed over to the command of the Pees Mixed Brigade.

IS) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha" had crossed the frontier? Were they lodged at Beremend in your a~ea ? Did they carry . out military exercises w~th firearms and bombs zn your area ?

r know nothing of the matter. Nothing of the kind occurred in my area.

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after committing terrorist acts ?

I know nothing of such cases. The gendarmes of my station gave no such help. I deny categorically having helped anyone called Tillman, or any other person, to cross the

frontier without a permit. I did not have anyone escorted by the gendarmes of my area except arrested persons.

~) Were y~~ ordered to a"est emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign naJionality ? Were any such persons brought to the station ba"acks for any other reason whatever?

My station received numerous warrants for examination and arrest, but I do not know -.+tther any of these referred to emigres. We only kept deserters at the barracks during their uzmination. At night, they were kept in the communal prison.

(8) Have you anything f11-rther to say?

No. (Signed) J oseph GoczE, "Adfudant".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOrsv, Colonel.

Annex 9 s.

OFFICIAL REcoRD

Of the .examination of "Adjudant" Stephen Szots, Commandant of the Felsosegesd station, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/ csf.eln.r934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie.

(l) W~n were you Commandant of the Felsosegesd statton (between what dates)?

I have been Commandant of the Fels6segesd station since August rst, 1930.

(2) Do you 1'emember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects- i.e., persons of foreign nationality- stayed at Bagolapuszta in you" area?

There is no such place as Bagolapuszta in my area. In the area of the Felsosegesd st t' t here is a spot known as "Bagola erd66srha~" (forest guard house) , but the latter was k~ ton until the end of 1933 as " Keteri erdeszlak " (forest lodge of Keter) and there were never own Yugoslav subject s there. any

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform m your a;ea ?

No, I never saw any such persons.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality arrested or requested to prove their identity by the f1ontier patrols ? If so, to teJhat a~tthority were they handed over ?

No.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha" had crossed the frontie1' i Were they lodged at Bagola­puszta in your area ? Did they carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area ?

Nothing of the kind could occur in my area, as there were no Yugoslav subjects there.

(6) Did you, know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after committing terrorist acts ?

No, I know nothing of the matter.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons bro,ught to the station barracks for any other reason whatever?

No.

(8) Have you anything fu,rther to say ?

Yes, I should like to add that my station is not a frontier station.

(Signed) Stephen Szors, "Adfudant. "

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9 t .

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of" Adjudant" J oseph Ferencz, Commandant of the gendarmerie stational Fels6sz6mn6k, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum aga1~st the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance \v~tb Order No. 587/csf.eln. 1934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hunganan

Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth. Present :

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarme~e, and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene,

(r) When were you Acting Commandant of the V asvdr station (between what dates)?

From July 26th, 1930, to J uly 2nd, 1932.

-6s-

Do you remember whether, during this period, (:z) a1~y Yugoslav sub-jects-;i.e., pe~s~ of foreign

nationality-stayed at Rabamolnarl m your area?

No Yugoslav subjects ever stayed there.

(3) Did y01~ see any persons wearing uniform ~n

ycmr area ?

No, we never saw any such persons.

( ) Were at~y persons of fot-eign nationality arrested 4 or requested to prove their ide1~tity by the frontier

patrols ? If so, to what authority were they Jumded over ?

No, I never stopped any such persons or called upon them to prove their identity, for the commune is at a great distance from the frontier.

S) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha " had crossed the frontier ? Were they lodged at Rabamolnari in your area ? Did they carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in yffuY area ?

No, nothing of the kind occurred.

(6) Did yo" know of at~y emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after commiltittg terrorist acts ?

I can only say here what I have already stated in my previous reports: nothing of the kind occurred in my area.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain at~y persons of foreign 1tationality ? Were any such perSff1lS brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever ?

The station received no orders to arrest emigres. No foreign nationals were admitted to the barracks.

(8) Have you anything f1.erther to say ?

No. (Signed) Joseph FERENCZ, Adfudant.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Doe6, Get1eral. (Signed} Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9 u.

OFFICIAL RECORD

~f the examination of " aspirant " Stephen Vizvari, Commandant of the Letenye station, m connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum agai nst the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln.I934, of December 22nd , 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian

Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth. Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungar~an Gendarme~e. and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal H unganan Gendarmene.

(I) Wh~n were you Commattdat~t of the Lete1~ye stat10n ( betweet~ what dates) ?

I have been Commandant of the Letenye station since J anuary 2oth, 1928.

- 66-

(2) Do you remember whether, during this period, any Yugoslav subjects- i.e., persons of foreign na­tionality-stayed in your area, particularly at Annamajor and at Szurdapuszta?

No Yugoslav subjects stayed at Annamajor or at Szurdapuszta or anywhere els~ in my area.

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your area ?

No, I never saw any strangers in uniform pass through my area.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality arrested or requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over ?

My patrols arrested Yugoslav deserters. We handed them over to the command of the Szombathely Mixed Brigade.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belonging to the Croat terrorist organisation " Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Were they lodged in your area ? Did they carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area ?

I do not know. I never heard of it, and observed nothing of the kind during my rounds.

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after committing terrorist acts ?

No. It is quite out of the question that gendarmes from my station could have assisted them to cross the frontier, since I am acquainted even with less important events which occmred in my area.

(7) Were you ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever ?

Yes. As far as I can remember, we were ordered in November 1934 to arrest Ferdinand Mulet and Marian Szrecsk6, Yugoslav subjects. The patrol arrested them both and handed them over to the administrative authorities. Deserters and persons having crossed the frontier without a permit entered the barracks, but they only remained there during their examination. In every case, they were handed over within twenty-four hours. Occasionally, the patrol kept such persons at the barracks for the night, when, owing to the late hour, we could not hand them over to the proper authorities.

(8) Have you anything further to say ?

No. (Signed) Stephen Vrzv.Aru, "aspirant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen DoB6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colonel.

Annex 9v.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Of the examination of "Adjudant" John Pap, former Commandant of the Somogyszentmik16s gendarmerie station, in connection with the charges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, drawn up in Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln.I934, of December 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal

Hungarian Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarme~e, and Colonel Emeric Sz.Utsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmene.

When were you Commandant of the Somogyszent­(I) ·miklos gmdarmerie station (between what dates) ?

From August 15th, 1928, to June 2.1st, 1931.

(z) Do yott remember whether, during this period,

M~Y Yttgoslav natio~als-i.e., persons _of foreign

11aJiomzlity-stayed ~n yOttr area, parttcularly at

Bagola?

No foreign subjects stayed there. In the area in question there is no such place as u Bagolai­uszta" or "Bagolai major", but only " Bagolai erdoslak" (forest lodge-plot No. 21); no ~·ugoslav subject was ever seen there.

(J) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in j'Otlr area ?

No, I never saw any such persons.

(4) Were MlY persons of foreign nationality arrested or reqttested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over?

As far as I remember, no.

(5) Did you know or hear that refugees belongi1~g to the Croat terrorist organisati01' " Oustacha" had crossed the frontier ? Were they lodged at Bagola it~ your area ? Did they carry out military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area ?

I never heard of it, because no such persons ever stayed in my area.

\6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with the help of Htlngarian gendarmes md retttrned after committing terrorist acts ?

I know nothing of the matter and have never heard of anything of the kind.

(7) Were y01t ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign tt.ationality ? Were any s1tch persons brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever?

No.

(8) Have you anything jmther to say ?

No. (Signed) J ohn PAP, "Adjudant ".

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Dos6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Colo11el.

Annex 9 x.

OFFICIAL RECORD

0! the examination of " Adjudant" Vendel Busa, Commandant of the Gelse station, in connection ~lth the c~arges brought in the Yugoslav Memorandum against the Hungarian Gendarmerie, }ann up m Budapest on December 26th, 1934, in accordance with Order No. 587/csf.eln.1934.

0 ecember 22nd, 1934, issued by the Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie. The charges have already been set forth.

Present:

General vitez Stephen Dob6, Attache to the Inspector of the Royal Hungar!an Gendarmer~e. and Colonel Emeric Sziitsy, Aide-de-camp of the Inspector of the Royal Hunganan Gendarmene.

-68-

(1) When were yot~ Commandant of the Gelse station (between what dates) ?

I have been Commandant of the Gelse station since October 1st, 1928.

(2) Do yot~ remember whether, dt~ring this period, a1ty Y1,goslav nationals-i.e., persons of foreign ·nationality-stayed at Gelse in your area on plot marked No. I in the land register?

No, I rem_em~er !lothing of the kind. I. did not meet a':ly Yugoslav subj~cts either at Gel where my station IS sttuated, nor elsewhere m my area. Inctdentally, my station is not a fro 1~· station. n ttr

(3) Did you see any persons wearing uniform in your area?

No, I saw no such persons.

(4) Were any persons of foreign nationality arrested or: requested to prove their identity by the frontier patrols ? If so, to what authority were they handed over?

No persons of foreign nationality were arrested or called upon to prove their identity by my station; hence the latter did not hand over any such persons to the competent authoritits.

15) Did you. know or hear that refugees bel01Jging to the Croat terrorist organisation "Oustacha " had crossed the fr01ttier ? Did they stay at Geise. in your area ? Did they carry m1t military exercises with firearms and bombs in your area ?

No Yugoslav subjects ever lived at Geise, so that there can be no question of miliwy ~ exercises. ,

(6) Did you know of any emigres having crossed the frontier with th.e help of Hungarian gendarmes and returned after committing terrorist acts ?

No Yugoslav subjects having stayed in my area, such acts could not have occurred.

(7) Were yoH ordered to arrest emigres ? Did the gendarmerie station detain any persons of foreign nationality ? Were any such persons brought to the station barracks for any other reason whatever?

No, I did not receive any order of t he kind, nor did the station detain any persons of foreign nationality for any other reason.

(8) Have you anythi1tg further to say ?

No. (Signed) Vendel BusA, Adjudmzt.

Closed and duly signed by the Committee without observation, after being read over.

(Signed) vitez Stephen Dos6, General. (Signed) Emeric SzOTSY, Col~,zel.

Annex 10 a. Royal Hungarian State Police.

General Commissariat of Budapest. Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Nagykanizsa, on December 24th, 1934, at the office of t he People's Savings Bank.

Present: The undersigned.

We informed the witness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We warned h.i~ that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance "1

- 6g-

. conscience, and t~at he mig~t be required to. confirm his deposition on oath. We further h15 d him that to g~ve false ev1dence was a purushable offence. warn~ the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(I) Name: Louis Bentzik. (2) Age: 47· (3) Place of birth : Nagykanizsa. (4} Domicile: Nagykanizsa, Csengeri-u., 4· (5} Civil status: Married . (6) Religion: Catholic. (7} qccupation: Company director.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together with the witness's reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

"Since January 26th, 1933, the house situated at No. 23, Horthy Mikl6s-ut., Nagykanizsa, bas been the property of the Savings Bank, of which I am director. Since the above date, the bouse bas continually been advertised as to let. In the autumn of 1933, an iJ1dividual named Emile Horvath called; he stated tbat he was a farmer at J ankapuszta and had rented the said bouse. At the same time, be stated that he ~ad given up the lease of J ankapuszta and wished to live in the house at Horthy Mikl6s-ut ., No. 23, until he had settled his affairs at Jankapuszta and found a new lease.

" He accordingly moved into the house. I am unable to say exactly how many persons lived there, or who they were. But I can affirm that the house was not overcrowded, for had that been the case I should have known. Indeed, the house in question is in one of the most frequented streets, and bad the number of tenants in the house in question been out of proportion to the accommodation, it would have attracted my attention as well as that of the inhabitants of the neighbouring houses.

• As far as I am aware, four or five persons, most of them women, lived in this house at the time when the lease was taken over. Later the number of tenants was continually reduced, first 10 three, then to two, and the remaining inhabitants stayed only to take care of the property left in the house. They finally left it at the beginning of October.

"That is all I am able to say."

Duly signed after being read over.

Done as above.

Drawn up by:

(Signed) P USZTAI.

Royal Hungarian State Police. General Commissariat of Budapest.

Criminal Section .

(Signed) Louis BENTZIK.

Annex 10 b .

OFFICIAL REcoRD oF WITNEss's D EPOSITION .

Dra\\11 up at Nagykanizsa, on December 24th) 1934, in the hall of the People's Savings Bank.

Present: The undersigned.

We informed the wit ness summoned to attend of the object of the enquiry. We warned him that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth according to his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. W~ further warned him that to give false evidence was a punishable offence. .

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the followmg statement:

(r) Name: Dr. J oc;eph K reisler. (z) Age: 69. (3) Place of birth : Nagybajom. (4) Domicile : Nagykanizsa, s. Csengeri-u. (5) Civil status: Widower. (6) Religion: J ewish . (7) Occupation : Advocate.

t (The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Proc~dure mu~t be ;varned hat they are not bound to make a statement. This warning, together wtth the wttness s reply thereto, must be mentioned in the official record.)

- 70-

"The house situated at No. 23, Horthy Mikl6s-ut. at Nagykanizsa belongs to the p 1 Savings Bank. I am the Vice-President of this financial institution. eope's

"I am well aware that in the autumn of last year the Savings Bank leased the above h to a certain Emil Horvath who had rented Jankapuszta. He required accommodation rse transitional period, as he said that he wanted to wind up his farming business at Jankapuszt or a was seeking a new lease. a and

" I do not know how many persons lived in this house, bul I can affirm that the accommod f in question, which consists of a few small rooms, was not sufficient for a large number of ten a Ion so that it is absolutely impos<;ible that the said house should have been overcrowded. 1 an~s. visited this house during the term of the lease, but I was informed that only a few personss~~er there at the beginning of the lease, and it is also by hearsay that I can say that the numbeye~ tenants in the house in question continually decreased owing to departures. Finally th 0

remained only one or two persons to take care of the property left behind, and even tho~ w:re away finally at the beginning of October. · nt

"That is all I am able to say."

Duly signed after having been read over.

Done as above.

Drawn up by the Commissioner of Police:

(Signed) PUSZTAI.

Royal Hungarian Police Headquarters, Kaposvar.

C.I. Section.

Annex 11 .

REPORT.

(Signed) Dr. Joseph KREISLER.

Kaposvar, January Ist, 1935.

We have the honour to report that the house No. 26, Fo-utca, Kaposvar, belongs to the Kaposvar Economic and Industrial Savings Bank. M. J oseph Spitzer, Director of the Bank, showed us the register of tenants who, since 1931, have lived, or still live, in the house:

Madame Ferdinand Ulrich, widow, maiden name Gisella Peteri, born at Kaposvar in 1887, confectioner. She has lived in the house for eighteen or twenty years with her two daughters.

Stephen Csertan, born in 1878 at Vajszl6 (Comitat Baranya), bank messenger. He haslivedin the house since 1930 with his \vife, maiden name Anne Horvath.

Madame Francis Hevenyi, maiden name Julia Dombi, daily help, born in 1888 at Kaposkeresztur. She has lived in the house since July 7th, 1933.

Ernst Uzinger, tailor, born in 1888 at Somogyjad, married to Gisella Okszenhoffer. They lived in the house for from eight to ten years, until J uly sth, 1933· .

Stephen Henczer, printer, single, born in r8g6 at Tab. He has lived in the house smce September 12th, 1932.

All these persons also lived previously in Kaposvar. There are, in addition, several shops in the bouse: those of Joseph Kerber, shoemaker; St~phen

Polga r, shoemaker; Francis Samogyvari, butcher and pork-butcher; Francis Osvald, \~do~. grocer; and Sylvester Bertalics, tailor. These persons have only their workshops or shops m the house, and have for some time lived in other houses at Kaposvar. . .

We have the honour to add that we are sure that no Croat refugees have either lived m or frequented the house No. 26, Fo-utca, Kaposvar.

Date as above. (Sigtted) Stephen BANHIDI,

(Signed) Francis VERO, Detectives.

-JI-

Annex 12.

R a1 Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

oy 3873/pol.

1934· NOTE VERBALE.

Referring to Notes verbales Nos. II32 of October 28th and n76 of November 8th last the Royal Ministry for Fo~eign Affairs has the honour to inform the Royal Yugoslav Legation 'that the Hungarian authonties have no ~nowled&e of a_n:y _Yugosl_av emigres. known to the Royal Hungarian Gove~ment as engaged m terro':s.t actt.vtttes ~gamst the Kmgdom of Yugoslavia being at present m Hung3:ry. T~e. Royal Mm~stry ts convmced t~at all the Yugoslav emigres who might come under th1s defimhon are outs~de Hungary. No bst ~f the persons at present staying in Hungary and kno~ to the Hunganan Government for the1r separatist and terrorist activity can therefore be comp1led.

On the other band, as regards the separatist and terrorist emigres who were at one time resident in Hungary but are now in foreign countries, it was the Royal Legation itself that was ood enough to draw the Royal Hungarian Government's attention to the activities they had ~ried on during their stay in Hungary. The Royal Ministry, therefore, does not believe a list containing only the names of t he latter could be of use to the Royal Legation.

In view of the foregoing, and being desirous of meeting the above request as far as possible, the Royal Ministry is prepared to go much farther than it was asked to do. The Royal Ministry, accordingly, has the honour herewith to put at the disposal of the Royal Legation a Hst of all Yugosla~ nat_ionals natives of Cro~tia w~o have entered Hungar:y ~ince I9I9 an? ar~ at present residing m th1s country, together w1th a hst of those who, after restdmg for some hme m Hungary, left this country between I931 and I934· The Royal Ministry trusts that these lists, which are complete and correct in accordance with the relevant information in the possession of the Hungarian Government, contain the particulars that the Royal Legation desired to obtain.

Budapest, November 21st, 1934· [L . 5.]

To the Royal Yugoslav Legation, Budapest.

1934 List of Yugoslav Nationals Natives of the former Croatia-Slavonia,

who have migrated to Ht~.ngary since r9r9.

Size of Immigrated Place of No. Name family Occupation in residence

I. Abar (Abarevics) J anos I day labourer I926 Zalatarnok 2. AraJica Andras I day labourer 1929 Megyefa 3· Babies Simon pilot 1932 Mohacs 4· Balla J anos agricultural labourer 1929 TekJafalu s. Balla Vendel agricultural labourer 1928 TekJafalu 6. Balogh Ferenc day labourer I927 Budapest 7· Banics Ferenc agricultural labourer 1933 CsengOd 8. Barics Lukacs 3 farmer I92I Zakany 9· Barna Gergely I stretcher-bearer I925 Szeged

10. Bartol Erzsebet nun I93I Budapest II. Blaskovics Ferenc business employee I93I Kecskemet 12. Bleszits Mik16s 2 business man I92I Szentendre 13. Bobinacz Illes domestic servant I9I9 Pees 14. Bodo J 6zsef 2 farmer I922 Golle IS. Bogolin Jcinos 3 miner 1920 Vasas 16. Boies Peter labourer 1929 Rakosszentmibaly IJ. Brett Ferenc J 6zsefne, charwoman 1930 Nagyteleny

nee Bonacsin Vilma 18. Broder Ferenc labourer 1933 Szolnok 19. Bucenac Antal miner 1929 Tatabanya 20. BezerMi Ferencne, widow, no occupation I934 Balaton ben~ny

nee Cechmeister Ilona 2I. Hrasztnik Ferencne, widow, I93I Budapest

nee Biichfing Anna 22. Cerovac F rigyes furrier's apprentice 1923 Budapest 23. Corz Gyorgy 3 coachman I922 Kaposujlak 24. Crnyakovics J6zsef 3 day labourer 1921 Bolhas zs. Csanics Helen I day labourer 1924 Budapest 26. Csencsits Terez nun 1926 Budapest 27. Csonka Antal chimney-sweep's 1924 Szeged

28. Azlen Istvanne, widow, apprentice

Hajduszoboszl6 charwoman 1924 nee Danielk6 Ludmilla

-72-

Size of I mmigrated Place of Xo. Name family Occupation in residence 29. Dikan Lajos pilot 1932 Budapest 30. Divjak FUlop shoemaker's apprentice 1933 Szekszard 31. Domagoj Lovro civil servant 1933 Ortilos 32- Draskovics I van 3 foreman 1919 Nova 33- Draskovics Natale I boatman 1922 Budapest 34- Klampfer Miksane, widow, no occupation 1927 Budapest

1tk Durai Maria 35- Gregorecz Ferencne, widow,-

nee Duranits Maria no occupation 1934 Zsira

36. Erdosi Hug6 tailor 1932 Budapest 37· Erdosi Janos I blacksmith 1924 Otvosk6ny 38. Emcsak Ljubica charwoman 1929 Budapest 39· S;ifar J anosne, widow, charwoman I928 Vajszl6

nee Feher Zsuzsanna 40. Florian I van farmer I925 Berzence 4!. Fi.irbas Terezia charwoman 1932 Miskolc 42- Gladek Erzsebet domestic servant I925 Budapest 43· Gorupec Viktor waiter 1933 Szirak 44· Graczner J anos miner 1919 Egercsehi 45· Graef Ferenc 4 mechanic 1923 Baza 46. Greszer Margit municipal employee 1933 Pees 47· Grobenski Angelko agricultural labourer I92I Zcikany 48. Gr6sz Karoly I day labourer 1922 Sikl6s 49· Guba Istvan garden boy I933 Szir:ik so. Gyerjek Matyas I farmer 1921 Orfalu sr. Habulka J 6zsef 3 miner 1920 Egercsehi 52. Hadra J anos agricultural labourer 1919 Kasad 53· Farkas Istvanne, widow, charwoman 1929 Pees

nee Hamarics Anna 54· Hellebrandt Istvan chauffeur 1924 Magocs 55· Herba Ferdinand shoemaker 1919 Budapest s6. Hering Ferenc 2 blacksmith I9I9 Budapest 57· Hermanec X6zsef farmer 1933 Vajszl6 s8. Hidegheti gnes pensioner 1933 Szegvci.r 59· Horvath Antal napszamos 1921 Pankasz 6o. Horvath Lajos agricultural labourer 1919 Nagyhars:iny 6I. Horvath Le6 I director 1932 Budapest 62. Horvath Lukacs 3 farmer 1928 Szeremle 63. Horvath Mihaly 3 farmer 1926 Szentgaloskez 64. lfsics Vince 4 wheelwright 1920 Szigetvar 6s. J agaczicz J elka domestic servant 1929 Budapest 66. J aksi J 6zsef I domestic servant 1931 Kaposv:ir 67. Jasik Mihaly day labourer 1930 Balatonboglar 68. Jazbinsek Alajos 5 miner l:923 Vasas 6g. Jursics Anna chanvoman 1930 Budapest JO. Kaiser Peter 2 no occupation 1926 Baja 71. Kaller Terez charwoman 1925 Budapest J2. Pal Imrene, widow, nee laundress 1923 Budapest

Kaponai Magdolna 73· Karaszi Sandor day labourer 1922 Davod 74· Kardos Ferenc 3 farmer 1923 Szeged 75· Kaszun Mikl6s 3 farmer I923 Bacsbokod 76. Kaufmann Felix merchant 1932 vma.ny 77· Keller Anna charwoman 1932 Mezotur 78. Keller Kalatin nun 1924 Balatonlelle 79· Keppe Pal day labourer 1923 Csepel 8o. Kerekes Istvan 4 blacksmith's apprentice 1923 Szeged 8I . Kerek J ulianna charwoman 1920 Szigetv:ir 82. Kubik Antalnc, widow, small farmer 1932 Davod

nee Keresztes Fani 83. Kersner David private person 1921 Pees 84. Keszel Apollonia no occupation 1933 Budapest 8s. Kiss Emo head cellarman 1919 Rakospalota 86. Kiss J anos 2 day labourer 1919 Rakospalota 87. Klier Ten~z domestic servant 1919 Csumipuszta 88. Klobuczar Olga charwoman 1932 Magyar6var 89. Kokity Orner farmer 1926 Deszk go. Koll<h Matyas 2 coachman 1921 M urakeresztur 91. Konkoli Tamas farmer 1922 Berzence 92. Reiner Matyasne, widow, no occupation I925 Budapest

nee Kolin Krisztina 93· Kordics Lorinc chauffeur 1928 Marcali 94· Korove Erno I business man 1924 Pestujbely

-73-Size of Immigrated Place of

Name family Occupation in resjdence ~0·

J{osec Lip6t miner Pees 3 I920 95· Kostelac Ferenc painter 1933 Vajszl6 if>. Kovacs Ferenc I no occupation I930 Kerekegyhaza 97· Kovacs Pi.l baker I930 Pees ~· J{rpez Boldizsarne, charwoman 1931 Ujpest 99·

11ee Kovacs R6za

100· J{risztbauer Regina charwoman I919 Unycs6k

101. Kubik Andras small farmer I932 Davod

102. Kab6k Janosnc, widow, servant 1931 Szeged nie Kucora Anna

103· J{u]mer Sandor gr6f 2 property owner 1933 Budapest

104· Kummer Ferenc 9 miner 1923 Kirald Kutron Arpad mechanic 1930 Oroshaza 105. La'k6 Pal I small farmer 1928 Kolked ro6. J R T

107· Lack oza ta charwoman 1932 Pees xo8. Bagola Istvanne, widow, no occupation 1931 Nagykanizsa

nee Lapat Maria occupation 1926 Rakosszentmihaly 109· Kranjec Ferdinanrlne, no

widow, nee, Lasser Ten!z JIO. Lazetta Mikl6s business man 1925 Budapest III. Laszlo Maria servant 1930 Budafok JI2. Leszkosek Ferenc 2 day labourer I930 Tomorkeny II} Lesnik Julia domestic servant 1933 Csongrad II4· Levai Mihi.ly 3 day labourer 1922 Szoreg 115. Likits Milits I day labourer I932 Mende n6. Linberger Dona factory worker 1925 Debrecen IIJ. Lukacsics Gabor day labourer 1922 Bekescsaba n8. Lurin Ivan gardener ? Berzence II9. Lukesz J 6zsef miner 1923 l\l6r 120. Luksics Gyorgy farmer 1925 Porokszentkiri.lv 121. Mayer Margit no occupation 1923 Kispest 122. Majnarics Draga no occupation 1928 Domb6var IZJ. Makovic Gyorgy farmer 1934 Jaszapati 124. Mallinger Janos shoemaker 1927 H6dmezovasarhely 125. Mandlousek Karolina nun 1925 Budapest 126. Maries Mihaly 3 coachman 1922 Mozonszolnok 127. Marijan Szrecsko Customs officer 1933 Bazapuszta 128. Matesz Gaspar I labourer 1920 Tolnanemedi rzg. Matkovics Szaniszl6 architect 1920 Budapest 130. Matyasecz Maria servant I927 Csurg6 131. Mate Ferenc I farmer 1920 Ki.ilsosard 132. Mercsa J 6zsef 2 locksmith 1920 Budapest 13J. Mesz6 J 6zsef 3 agricultural labourer 1928 DencsMza 134· Mihalec I van farmer ? 6rtilos I35· Mikolics Marton 4 miner 1919 Vasas 136. Mokler Slavk6 agricultural labourer 1931 Mez6kovacsluiza 137· Moljak Frany6 butcher 1930 Csanytelek 138. Mulat Ferdinand 3 miner 1933 Baza 139· Nagy Ferenc farmer 1931 P6csa 140. Nagy Karoly butcher 1932 P6csa I<ji. Nemeth Lajos joiner 1919 Szekesfehervar I<JZ. Nemeth Mihaly sv.rineherd 1922 Gerde 143· Xiedermayer Anna no occupation 1927 Balassagyarma t 144. Novakovics Julia charwoman 1921 Szigetvar 145· Novakovics Marton 3 labourer 1921 Berzence 146. Novogradecz Imre 2 miner 1919 Pccsbanyatelep I47· Novogradecz Irhre 3 miner 1919 Pecsbanyatelep 148. Opancsar Matyas I joiner 1920 Pees 149· Orban J 6zsef aine I farmer I927 Bataszek 150. Orban J 6zsef jeune 4 farmer I927 B<Haszek rsr. Ore J6zsef locksmith 1934 Bekescsaba 152. Gr6f Orsich Ferdinand I secretary 1930 Budapest 153. Oszvald J anos farmer 1931 Martonvasar 154. Pavics Ilia day labourer 1929 Kistolmacs 155. Peksity J 6zsef saddler 1926 Kiskunmajsa rs6. Penics Alajos 3 day labourer 1920 Hosszuteteny 157· Penics J6zsef 3 farmer 1921 Zador 158. Peruvics Antal day labourer 1930 Melykut 159. Petter Istvan agricultural labourer 1930 Toponar 16o. Peterka Matyas shoemaker 1925 Saregres 161. Petrin Antal engineer 1929 Budapest 162. Piller Lorinc glass-blower I920 Budapest 16J. Pintar Balazs 2 labourer 1919 Pees

-74-Size of Immigrated Place of No. Name family Occupation in residence

164. Pintarics Istvan waiter I932 Pestszenterzsebe I65 . Plessinger Am:ilia domestic servant I933 Budapest 1

I66. Podogorcsek Maria cook I926 Budapest I67. Port Istvan 4 miner I92I Vasas I68. Posep Ferenc I miner I92I Somogy I69. Progu.vecki Milan 2 farmer I92I Berzence I70. Rab6czki Gizella domestic servant I924 Pees I7I. Biro J6zsefne, widow, charwoman I932 Pees

nee Raith Melania I72. Rebernak Paula maid I93I Budapest I73· Rengel Ferenc labourer I92I Hosszupereszteg 174· Rezsek Istvan locksmith 1924 Budapest I75· Ribar J eno labourer I933 Letenye I76. Rig6 Julia no occupation 1932 T:irnok I77· Ritlop J 6zsef 1 carpenter 1931 Redics I78. Scheibel Karolyne, widow, charwoman I922 Budapest

nee Duzicska Terez 179· Szabo! Tamas 2 farmer I922 Ortilos t8o. Safran Antal 3 miner I920 M ecsekszabolcs 181. Schakovanja Milan apprentice I923 Budapest 182. Samardzia Dujo servant I929 Baja I83. Seib Janos I newspaper vendor 1932 Budapest I84. Sesina Gyorgy no occupation I93I Budakalasz I85. Skoda Alajos 4 miner 1920 Pecsbanyatelep 186. Skofi.ca Maria 1 servant 1920 Budapest 187. Skrinjaric Ferenc farmer I93I Also sag r88. Sestar-Matick Maria chambermaid 1920 Budapest 189. Sturbej Antal labourer 1920 Vasas 190. Svehar Pet er 4 miner I9I9 Varalja 191. Szemes Gyorgy I blacksmith I920 6csard 192. Szemes Matyas I day labourer I920 Szentdienes 193· Szeitz Antal servant I9I9 Racalmas 194· Szobonya Borb:ila nurse 1928 Budapest 195. Szovnik J6zsef 4 miner 1920 Hosszuheteny 1¢. Szapaszojevics Radojka I servant 1922 Baja 197· Sztranycik Janos 5 agricultural labourer I926 Deneshciza I98. Schakl Katalin nun 1932 Budapest I99· Schilli Maria 4 small farmer I932 Baja 200. Schober Maria servant 1926 Budapest 20I. Tozan Apoll6nia charwoman 1928 Budapest 202. Thesz Benedek 3 day labourer 19I9 Ha j duboszormeny 203. Tomazin J 6zsef I miner 1924 Budafa 204. Torok Istvan 4 farmer I920 Berzence 205. Turcsics Ilona servant I920 Budapest 206. Ullaba Matyas 3 miner 1920 Pe{;sbcinytelep 207. Valitz J 6zsef miller's apprentice 1934 Csepel 208. Vancsura I van farmer 1923 Berzence 209. Vank6 Anna pensioner I93I Csepel 2IO. Weidl Lyerka charwoman I932 Szeged 211. Wolf Marton mason I933 Baja 2I2. Vervega Antal blacksmith I925 Budapest 2I3. · Veternik Mana cook I924 Budapest 214. Vicsics Lajos blacksmith I9I9 Erdobenye 215. Vincze J6zsef 2 agricultural labourer 1928 Magyarboly 2I6. Vivod J 6zsef I agricultural labourer 1928 Kolked 21J. Vuics J 6zsef swineherd 1921 Pisk6 218. Vukanovity Narancsics barber 1924 Bekessamson

Miklos 2I9. Vukovics Istva.n 3 day labourer I924 Nemeti 220. Vukovics Marton no occupation 1930 Goromboly 221. Vurodin Istvan 2 coachman I9I9 Budapest 222. Wagner Adolf chauffeur 1933 Villany 223. Zagar J ozsef I day labourer I930 Rcikoscsaba 224. Zabar Ferenc I baker's apprentice 1921 Budapest 225. Za.her Balazs 3 carpenter's apprentice 19I9 Salg6tarjcin 226. Zelender J 6zsef 2 farmer I923 Haromfa 227. Zettl Istvan I baker's apprentice 1929 6csa 228. Zifcsics Janos coachman 1930 Nagykanizsa 229. Zork6 Katalin no occupation 1926 Debrecen 230. Zorn Antal 4 rope-maker 1922 Beremend 231. Zsigits P:il 2 agricultural labourer 1928 Baja 232. Zsinkovics Dragomir joiner's apprentice I920 Csepel . 233· Zsurics Antal joiner I93I NagykanlZsa

L

-75-

3873/pol. ----1934

List of Yugoslav Nationals, Natives of former Croatia-Slavonia, who m1:grated and left Hungary between 1931 and 1934.

to Hungary,

~o. Name Occupation Resident at

-1• Altltammer Julia charwoman Debrecen

2. AranY Ferenc no occupation Vac

J. Arok Karo!y factory worker Buda pest

4. Bauer Mate mechanic J ankapuszta, afterwards Nagykanizsa

. Bavec Pia charwoman Budapest ~: Berec J\ujo ? J a nkapuszta

1. Benedil.:t ~mil school-teacher Jankapuszta s. Biljan Balazs Csev

9. Birlel Peter tailor's apprentice Budapest

10. Birli Aranka charwoman Szekesfebervar

11 . Bogojevic Brank6 Leoti 17. Bogumil FiilOp confectioner Jankapuszta,

afterwards Babocsa

rJ. Bezdan R6za chanvoman Szabadszallas

14. Bombaj Gyorgy fisherman Nagykanizsa 15• Bregar Ferenc night watchman Felsogalla 16. Brenner Anna charwoman Gyor lj. NevolicsFerencne, charwoman Petszenterzsebet

1vidow, tlie Csap6 Julia

18. Cud en J 6zsef miner Felsogalla 19. Csicseries Izabella charwoman GyongyOshalma 10. Csizmarovics Kisdobna

Dragutin (Somogy m .) 11. Curie Maria chanvoman Budapest 11. Sztimakovics

Zvoinimirne, nee charwoman Ujhartyan

Dorner Margit 13. Dederi Marton glass-blower Tokod %1• ))Qrnsta.dter Ma- domestic servant Riese

ria 25. Decmann Adolf mason's apprent. Banhida 26. Detschmann 1st- day labourer Banhida

van 27. Fridrich J 6zsa maid Budapest 18. Ferb<ln Janos day labourer Budapest 79. Ferkovies Ferenc joiner's apprent. Pees JO. Fischer Erzsebet charwoman Bacsbokod

mar. Mes Gyorgyne Jr. Gaj Vjekoszlav • blacksmith Jankapuszta,

afterwards 6rtilos

32· Gosztenesik Lu-kacs

miner Egeresehi

33· Gredicsek Andras Jankapuszta 34· Berger Samune, charwoman Csepel

n/6 Grifaton Magdolna

35· Grosz Igoac miner Nagybatony 36. Gujic Angela nurse Budapest 37· Hasenbilchel Er- domestic servant Budapest

zsebet Liza 38. Horvath Emil 2 farmer J ankapuszta 39. Huskic Hasszan gardener J ankapuszta 40. jakovac Ivan a farmer Jankapuszta.

afterwards

41. Klisanic I van Hajdusamson

quarryman Jaszapati 42. Kokola Barbara charwoman Budapest

(Betti) 43· Kolar Rufold joiner Jankapuszta,

aftenvards

44· Ko,·acsies Anna nun Bares

Ujpest

1 Probably identical with Raic Ivan. t Identical with Gustave Percec. 3 Probably identical with Mraz Ivan.

Since Left for Date of departure

Aug. 28th, 1913 Destin. unknown May 6th, 1931 June-zznd, 1932 Abroad January 12th, 1933 April2rst, 1930 Destin. unknown May roth, 1933 1933 Abroad February 1934

1922 Austria l\'lay 1St, 1933 May 1933 Abroad ?

? Abroad End of 1933 1931 Destin. unknown March 3rd, 1932 1930 Abroad 1932 1931 Yugoslavia July 25th, 1932 Aug. 7th, 1932 Yugoslavia September 22nd, 1932

? Abroad June 1934

1929 Abroad February 17th, 1931 1933 Disappeared October 1934 1903 Abroad November 1932 1931 Abroad March 1933 1929 Abroad October 1931

19l7 Abroad December 1933 1931 Yugoslavia December qtb, 1932 October 1931 Yugoslavia October 1932

Nov. 2nd, 1912 Destin. unknown September 24th,1932 1927 Abroad August 1933

Jan. 1st, 1910 Abroad January 1934 April 19th, 1933 Abroad 1933

July 21St, I 934 Yugoslavia July 24th, 1934 1908 Netherlands September 1932

July 1st. 1930 Germany July toth, 1932 1907 Abroad June 1934 1914 Destin. unknown January-zJst,I932 Feb. 28th, 1931 Abroad April 21st, 1931

1933 Disappeared September 1934

1897 Abroad 1934

Abroad March 1934 1933 Abroad July 1933

1914 Abroad August 1st, 1934 Oct. 16th, 1916 Belgrade November 9th, 1932 1928 Destin. unknown May 1933

1931 Abroad E nd of 1933 about end oh931 Abroad ? end of 1931 Abroad December 1932

Oct. 29th, I 932 Austria April 24th, 1934 191 7 Yugoslavia 1931

1933 Abroad June 1934

1928 Abroad December 1932

-76-

No. Name Occupation Resident at I Since Left for D :-:----._ ate of depart ure Koose Lujza charwoman Budapest J930 Destin. unknown ----45· September 1932 46. Kozuch Elizabet domestic servant Kesztbely July 6th, 1933 Graz (Austria) November lst

47· Kruhak Mirko farmer Jankapuszta ? Abroad End of 1931 ' 1933 48. Kralj Mijo mechanic J ankapuszta February 1933 Disappeared July 1933 49· Latkova Ferenc miner Pecsba.nyatelep Abroad ? so. Labud Istvan agent J ankapuszta, 1933 Abroad June 1934

afterwards Sik16s

51. Macic Rudolf domestic servant P ees 1920 Abroad February 1934 52. Madjeric Marjan farmer J a nkapuszta, End of 1931 Abroad Ja nuary 1933

afterwards Hajdu samson

53· Matisits Antal joiner Budapest Nov. 23rd, 1928 Abroad Mar~h 22nd, 1933 54· Marus Ferenc Kerca (Vas m.) Jan. 24th, 1929 Yugoslavia Apnl z4th, 1931 55· Urschel Frigyesne, nurse B udapest September 1919 Destin. unknown November 12tb, 1933 nee Mersch Kata-

Jjn j6. Mesaric Maria charwoman Budapest Sept. 14th, 1929 Czechoslovakia August 3rd, 1933 57· Micek Ivan ? J ankapuszta ? • Abroad End of 1933 58. Mihalits J 6zsef shoemaker Sopron July 1932 Yugoslavia July 5th, 1932 59. SchwabFerencne, daily help Bacsalmas Aug. 23rd, 1930 Yugoslavia July 15th, 1932

widow, t'ee M6-zer Katalin.

6o. Nemec Marton Jankapuszt.a Beginning of Abroad Spring of 193~ 1933

6r. Papledinac J 6zsef Baja 1928 Destin.unknown l932 62. Patak Simon mechanic Jankapuszta, 1933 Abroad June 1934

afterwards Babocsa

63. Pauer Mikl6s saddler's apprent. Szombathely rgzo Abroad 1932 64. P ekl;ir Maria domestic servant G&\6116 Sept. zrst, 193r Graz (Austria) 1932 65. Petrak Mark fisherman Jankapuszta, 1933 Abroad June 1934

afterwards Vajszl6

66. Petrik Stefanja maid Bekescsaba 1930 Yugoslavia October 29th, 1932 6]. Petrovic !stan Jankapuszta 1931 Abroad April 1934 68. Pirat Brank6 agent Letenye Disappeared October 1934 69. Potocnik Anton servant Und (Sopron m.) Dec. 1oth, 1932 Abroad May 23rd, 1933 70. Pogorelec J elka dancer J ankapuszta ? Abroad September 1933 ] I . Ricze Maria servant H6dmez6vasar- 1929 Abroad March 1932

hely ]2 . Ricza Ferenc locksmith's appr. Baja 1918 Abroad February 1934 n Raczk6 J akah miner Nagyb<l.tony 1903 Abroad August 1934 74· Rezborcsek maid Budapest July z8th, 1928 Abroad August rst, 1933

Matild 75· Roham Gyorgy 1 chauffeur Jankapuszta, Disappeared September 1934

afterwards from

76. Safar J 6zsef miner Nagykaruzsa Nagykanizsa

Jankapuszta, afterwards Villany 1933 Abroad June 1934

77· Scheidenschweif charwoman Budapest 1925 Destin. unknown February 15th, 19:p. Katalin

78. Schauta Karola teacher Nagycenk Dec. zznd, 1931 Abroad August 15tb, 1933 79· Sarota.r ilona nun • Eger-Szom ba- 1929 Abroad August IJtb, 1934

So. Sekirica Dragee thely

farmer Jankapuszta, End of 1931 Abroad May 1932 afterwards Debrecen

81. Setka Ante business man Budapest March zoth,193o Destin. unknown May 4th. 1932 82. Skarica Per6 tailor Jankapuszta, 1933 Abroad J une 1934

afterwards

83. Stetner Albert Nagykanizsa

Budapest 1920 Destin. unknown 1931 84. Staic Lukacs quarryman thorn March rst, 1921 D estin. unknown July roth, 1934 85. Suscha Olga language teacher Budapest Jan. rst, 1929 Poland July zznd, 1933 86. Szebdrey Janos t business man Budapest 1934 Disappeared October 193·1 87. Weiner Evelin servant Bony had 1930 Destin. unknown May 17th, 1932 88. Bavec Ferencne, charwoman Budapest June 23rd, 1922 Abroad May rst. 1933

nee Verson Johanna

89. Ternes Hermann Jankapuszta Beginning of Abroad Spring of 1934 1933

90. Troha Mihaly day labourer Baja 1912 Destin. unknown July sth, 1932 91. Vevar D6ra maid Szeged Nov. 12th, 1926 Yugoslavia May 17th, 1931 92. Vodenks:h artist's pu pi! Budapest 1920 Abroad 1932

Erzsebet 93· Volavcak Agnes servant Budapest April 8th, 1919 Abroad Autumn of 1932 94· Valdec Lajos rope-maker Muraratka 1922 Abroad May 1932 95· Trau Fra nciska chambermaid Budapest Destin. unknown 96. Zagorac Misko dentist J ankapuszta 1933 Abroad April 1934 97. Zagar Keresztely miner Tatabanya May 29th, 1932 Destin. unknown August 6th, 1932 98. Zarko J6zsef 3 farmer J ankapuszta December 1931 99. Zgonecz Fran- maid Pusztalfoldvar May 1931 Abroad 1932

ciska 100. Zrinjskj Fa! fisherman Jankapuszta, 1933 Disappeared October 1934

afterwards Berzence

t Probably identical with Pospisil. 2 I dentical:with Servazi Vjekoszlav. s Committed suicide June 1933.

-77-

Annex 13.

NoTE ON THE SuPERVISION OF FoREIGNERS IN H uNGARY.

(a) What are the dttties of foreigners who e·nter Htmgary, as regards their Sttpervisiott; and

(b) What _a~tio1~ must, 01' may, be take-t£ by the administrative a·uthorities atzd organs resp01zsible for their supervtSfOt' .

The supervision of foreigners is governed by Law V, 1903, Law XXVIII, 1930, amending the revious law, Ordinance No. 10o,ooofB.M., of 1930, con~ernin~ the _application of these two laws,

Pnd by Circular No. 101,000/B.M., of 1930, supplement mg this ordmance. a These rules apply in their entirety to all foreigners without distinction as to nationality, language or legal status.

Crossing the Frontier.

In conformity with the above-mentioned rules in Law VI, 1903, and in the ordinance concerning the application of this law, foreigners may not cross the frontier unless they are in ossession of the travel documents prescribed by the national regulations and by international

tonventions. The frontier may only be crossed at specified places of passage. In long-distance traffic (to the exclusion, therefore, of frontier-zone traffic). the document prescribed is the passport , which must be provided with a visa if the foreigner is undertaking a journey for which a visa is necessary.

Any foreigner entering the country without proper travel documents or crossing the frontier at a place other than a place of passage is guilty of a police offence and may even be punished with imprisonment by the competent police authority of first instance.

The authorities and organs responsible for the supervision of the frontier traffic must take steps to ensure that the frontier be crossed only by persons who have been duly identified and are in possession of travel documents entitling t_hem to cross the frontier.

Declaration of D omicile.

Every person receiving guests is bound to notify within twenty-four hours the arrival and departure of every foreigner received by him for any period, however short. If the foreigner is not the guest of any person (if, that is, he proceeds to his own dwelling or house), he must make the declaration himself.

The declaration must be made on the forms of declaration of domicile placed at his disposal, ularge and small communes, to the secretary of the c<lmmunal Mayor's office (of the communal btrict); in any place within the jurisdiction of the Royal Police, to the competent police commis­ilriat, police department, or police station.

The form of declaration of domicile must be filled in and signed in accordance with the foreigner's papers and declaration, by the person receiving him as a guest or, if he is not being received as a guest, by the foreigner himself.

The form of declaration of arrival must also be signed by the foreigner. Every foreigner is bound to produce the counterfoil of the form of declaration of domicile

attesting the declaration of arrival, whenever so requested by Government officials or agents. The managers of hotels, inns or other similar premises must keep a general register numbered

and countersigned by the competent authority, containing the names of the foreigners so declared. Within the jurisdiction of the State police, the officer in charge of the reception of declarations

~ransmits each day to the police authorities all forms of declaration of domicile received, adding, if necessary, his report (information) concerning any observations (or police offences) .

In communes in which there are no State police, the secretary of the communal Mayor's o~ce (communal district) t ransmits, without delay, to the head of the district, all forms of declara­t~on of domicile, adding, if necessary, a report containing his observations and, at the same tune, advising the competent commanding officer of gendarmerie of the arrival or departure of the foreigner.

~he authorities enquire into the information supplied on the forms o( declaration of domicile and, if necessary, take proceedings against the foreigner .

These forms of declaration of domicile enable the authorities to keep up-to-date the register of foreigners arriving within their jurisdiction during such time as they are still unaware whether the f?reigner is only intending to remain in the country temporarily or intends to take up his defimte residence therein.

Th~ police authorities and police and gendarmerie officers are responsible for seeing that no f?r~Igner shall remain in the country without having fulfilled the obligation of declaring his domicile. . The police authorities of the first instance are bound to inspect, at least once a year , hotels, l?DS and dwellings of every kind, and also workshops (or places in which work is being done) Situated in their administrative area, wherever there are more than two fore igners employed.

Temporary Stay.

The authorities make a distinction between foreigners who are staying in the country temporarily and those who intend to take up their definite residence therein. . A foreigner who only intends to stay t emporarily (for a period ftot _exceed!ng six mont.hs) m th~ country may remain therein for three months as from the date of his crossmg the frontier, pbrOVlded he complies with the obligation to notify his domicile, in all communes (or towns) of t e country.

Any foreigner who desires to remain in the country for more than three months but more than six months, as from the time of his crossing the frontier, must declare thls int~o:.ror in person or through his representative at law, to the competent authority before the elm~ ton, the first three months. ··t'try of

The police authorities may accept or refuse this declaration. A foreigner whose declaration has not been accepted by the police authorities must leave the

country within fifteen days as from the date on which refusal is notified to him, othen\ise h may be treated as having committed a police offence that may involve his deportation. e

No legal remedy is allowed against the decision of the au thority that refuses to grant a penn·t for a temporary sojourn. In practice, however, appeal may be lodged with the Central Ofti 1

for the Supervision of Foreigners. ce

Permanent Residence.

A foreigner who desires to reside in the country for a period exceeding three or six months as from the date on which he crossed the frontier must, within fifteen days as from the date of his arrival, notify this intention in person to the police authority having jurisdiction over the place of his residence and must ask for a permit of residence.

The request must be accompanied by the photograph of the foreigner, of his wife, if livin with him, and of the members of his family over fifteen years of age but not subject to the obligatio~ to declare their domicile individually; he must, moreover, prove:

(r) His identity, nationality and, if necessary, his commune of origin (domicile at law); (2) That he is in possession of a valid document of travel; (3) That he is in a position to provide for himself and his family on a permanent basis·

and, if necessary, ' (4) He may be required to produce a certificate of good conduct.

A permit of residence is not granted to a foreigner:

(r) In respect of whom one of the reasons for deportation has been proved (a fore~ may be deported if he cannot satisfactorily prove his identity, nationality, antecedents, llianS

of subsistence for himself and family, or whose stay in the territory of the country is prejudici!l to t he interests of the State, safety or public order);

(2) If, a medical examination having been ordered, he is found to be suffering from a disease that may be harmful to public health;

(3) If any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs I and 2 above apply to any I member of his family, living with him but not subject to the obligation to make an individual declaration of domicile.

During the period of validity of the permit of residence, the foreigner is authorised to reside permanently in the commune (or town) mentioned in the permit and to stay temporarily in any part of the country. .

A foreigner to whom the police authorities have definitely refused to grant a pernut of residence, or from whom they have withdrawn the permit, must leave the country within the time-limit fixed by the final order, otherwise he becomes guilty of a police offence which may involve his deportation. A foreigner thus obliged to leave the country may not stay in the country for any period within the next twelve months.

The police authorities of first instance may, by means of a final order, refuse to issue or prolong a permit of residence. The interested party may appeal against this order to the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners.

Deportation.

The police authorities of first instance may expel from the territory of the country any foreigner:

(a) Who does not satisfactorily prove his identity, nationality and antecedents; (b) Who does not prove that he bas means of subsistence for himself and his family; (c) Whose stay in the territory of the country is prejudicial to the interest of the

State, safety and public order.

The order of deportation contains a statement of reasons. Appeal against this order may be lodged with the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners. . .

A deportation order is also effective against the wife and members of the family stil_l Hf stalll pupiUari. Deported persons may also be prohibited, for a given period or in perpetuity, frorn returning to the country. Finger-prints must be taken of all foreigners and members of thetr family over fifteen years ,()f age, who have been prohibited from returning to the country for a period of three years or more. e

A person against whom an order for deportation has been issued and who fails to leave th country within the specified period may be forcibly deported.

-79-

Obligation to Report in person at Stated Intervals.

A foreigner who is suspected of activities harmful to the State or to public safety and order ho cannot be deported, or whose deportation cannot be enforced, either because he has

butd '~nite nationality or because the neighbouring State from which he illegally entered Hungary e to take him back, may be obliged by the police authorities to report in person at regular

A foreigner obliged. to repo~ in .person a~ regular intervals may not leav~. the commune town) assigned to hun for his re~u;lence ~t~out the c_onsent of the a~thonhes.

(or The order issued by the authonties requmng a foreigner to report m person at regular is also accompanied by a statement of reasons.

In most cases, the foreigner is obliged to report in person once a month and on each occasion must prove that he possesses definite means of subsistence and has a declared domicile. The authorities are bound to keep watch on the moral and political conduct of a foreigner obliged to report at regular inte.rvals.

Authorities for the Supervision of Foreigners and Central Office.

Authorities of first instance: (a) In the districts, the head of the district, having as his agent of public safety the

officer commanding the Royal Gendarmerie, and as his administrative agents, the mayors of the communes;

(b) Within the jurisdiction of the Royal Police (apart from the city of Budapest), the police commissariats (or police stations) ;

(c) For the city of Budapest, the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners.

Appeal against the measures and decisions of the authorities mentioned in paragraphs (a) (b) may be lodged with the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners. The Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners takes a final decision in the name of llinister of the Interior in respect both of cases submitted to it in appeal and all Budapest

coming within its direct jurisdiction. Moreover, the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners, which is in fact Section VIII (b)

the Ministry of the Interior, exercises general supervision over the frontier authorities and other · of first instance. It keeps constant watch over these authorities and issues the

instructions for searches and enquiries on the spot. It may even take decisions on of principle.

The Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners keeps a register of all foreigners residing me country and foreigners who have been deported therefrom.

Budapest, December 27th, 1934.

Hungarian Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

No. 52/1934.fk.eln.

Annex 14 a .

ENACTMENT.

By an Order dated December 19th, 1934, the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior an enquiry to be instituted preliminary to disciplinary proceedings against Emeric Captain in the Royal Hungarian Police, appointed to the police captaincy of Nagykanizsa,

Dr. Lajos Bokor, Captain in the Royal Hungarian Police, employed at the Budapest Prefecture Police, there being presumption of their having committed a disciplinary offence under

Regulation No. 2500/I920.VI.a.M.M., §I, paragraph (a), and the Prefect of Police NJ>"n~nn.~rl them from their duties. The Budapest Prefect of Police was instructed to take such

as the enquiry might show to be necessary and the Disciplinary Council of the Budapest of Police was empowered to pronounce the actual disciplinary sentence.

Th~ enquiry having been concluded, the findings submitted and communicated to the accused therr observations thereon having been received, the Disciplinary Council of the Budapest

of Police delivered the following judgment:

The Disciplinary Council finds that Emeric Gajdan, Captain in the Royal Hungarian Police, at Nagykanizsa, and Dr. Lajos Bokor, Captain in the Royal Hungarian Police, domiciled

- .. ,,au''"' , were guilty of negligence in the accomplishment of their official duties, a disciplinary . coming under the Disciplinary Rules, § I, paragraph (a), and, consequently, under

~ ·~·•'u"" Rule § 30, paragraph (/), orders their dismissal. may be lodged against this judgment within fifteen days as from the date of its

. ; the said appeal to be addressed to the Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior

P s~bmttted to the Supervisory and Disciplinary Cases Section of the Budapest Prefecture olice. Copy of the decision is communicated: (r} to Emeric Gajdan, Captain of Police ; (2) to la]os Bokor, Captain of Police; (3) to the Provincial Prefect of Police; (4) to the Hea~ of Chentral.Office for the Supervision of Foreigners and (5} to Dr. Geza Rajczy, Counsellor of Pohce, t e official having ins tituted the proceedings.

- Bo -

Reasons.

In the autumn of 1932, at .a date not yet determined, the head of the District of came to the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners in Budapest, and, as the bead Csurgo office was absent, made to Police Captain Dr. Lajos Bokor, Rapporteur, whom he knew of the the following communication: For some time past he had noticed that, at the Jankap~~~~aUy, within his area, in addition to persons of Croat nationality who were regularly occupied a hal'lll other persons-who seemed to him to be Croat political refugees-also stayed for ri t ~rt, various length. Thinking that, if his surmise were correct, these persons might be fuai~·esods rA the authorities, or persons in whose case the application of the ordinary rules for the t>super/?rn of foreigners would appear to be inadequate, he asked the Central Office for the Supe ~~on of Foreigners to instruct him whether he should, if necessary, apply more rigorous measu~'OU control. fS of

Dr. Lajos Bokor told the head of the district that he would make a report to the head of th office concerning what he had heard; at the same time, he assured the head of the district th e with regard to the foreigners who passed through J ankapuszta, no special measures were nece~:· Police Captain Bokor said these words in the form of instructions issued to the head of the dist .· · on his own responsibility. net

Police Captain Bokor did not report what he had heard to his Chief. The result of th'· omission was that the head of the Office for the Supervision of Foreigners had no knowled 13

either of the observations or the statement to the head of the district, so that he was unab1e to take t11e necessary steps to ensure that the stricter supervision which seemed to be required ~ applied to these foreigners.

This dereliction of duty was not, however, Police Captain Bokor's only offence, since he furthfr committed a serious offence against the regulations in that, in the guise of orders, he reassured the head of the District of Csurg6, saying that he need not look into the matter or take any particular steps with regard to these foreigners. Dr. Lajos Bokor, as Rapporteur of the office, was 001 authorised to issue such directions and in so doing he exceeded his authority.

II. When the Croat emigres had left J ankapuszta, as a result of the steps taken br the Hungarian authorities, several of them went to Nagykanizsa and there, for some time, they'Jirfd at No. 23, Hortby Mikl6s-ut. In this house, there were generally four or five emigres "ith their families who had not made the declaration prescribed by Decree No. IOO,ooo/1930 BJL §J.

The police captain's office had not observed the appearance of the emigres at Xagykanizsa nor the coming and going of individuals who were not always the same, notwithstanding thdatt that No. 23, Hortby Mik16s-ut., which the emigres had selected as their residence, is in one ol the most frequented parts of the town.

At the police captain's office at Nagykanizsa, the direction and supervision of thesenict for the census and supervision of foreigners were entrusted to PoHce Captain Emeric Gajdan, deputy chief of the police captaincy, who acted personally and on his own responsibility ail! official having power to do so.

Police Captain Em eric Gajdan is therefore guilty of a serious dereliction of duty in that he was unaware of the installation of these emigres on the premises, their departures and arrivals, took no steps to oblige them to make the statutory declaration and did not repor t these circumstanetS to his superiors .

In the light of the facts ascertained, the Disciplinary Council finds that Emeric Gajdan, ~s well as Dr. Lajos Bokor, Captain of Police, have committed the disciplinary offence defined m the enactment and is therefore bow1d to declare them guilty. .

With respect to the penalty to be inflicted, the Disciplinary Council regards as an aggravatmg circumstance the fact that it was owing to the serious dereliction of duty on the part of accused that the Croat bnt'gres staying in the territory were able to evade the effective supervision of .the authorities, a circumstance which has involved Hungary in grave complications of foreign pohcr.

Done at the meeting of the Disciplinary Council held in Budapest on January 2nd, 1935·

(L.S.] (Signed) Dr. Tibor FERE~CZY, Prefect of Police, .

Preside1tt of the Disciplinary CQuncll.

Annex 14 b.

The Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie acting in his capacity as the competent Commmtding Officer.

No. U.IJ2/34· I.-J.

In the penal case of Alexander Dese6, Gendarmerie Commandant, formerly in command of the Csurg6 Gendarmerie Area,

I find:

That Alexander Deseo, Gendarmerie Commandant, is guilty of the dereliction of duty~~: m the Code of Military Justice, § 133, paragraph 8, in that, although be was aware t a'

-81-

ank puszta, a locality withi~ his ar~a, a number of Yugoslav emigres were living together, J di~ not report this fact to .his supen~r ~~cer commanding th~ gend~nnerie ~strict, in that he h~ed to inspect and supei'Vlse the achvthes of the gendarmene stations subJect to his orders f amely the discharge of their duties in regard to the supervision of foreigners- and finally :-nthat be did not t~e the n~cessary ~teps. to ensure that his subordinates were fully Ill ainted with the duhes of the1r seJVlce m this respect. acquTberefore, in accordance with the Code of Military Penal Proceedings, § 138, paragraph 2, nd § 2 and with Law III of 1930, § 4, I sentence Gendarmerie Commandant Alexander Deseo

: 0 (tbirty) days' ordinary imprisonment. 0 3 I also propose that Gendarmerie Commandant Deseo be transferred to another gendarmerie

distriCt. Reasons.

The duties of officers commanding gendarmerie areas mentioned in the enactment are defined b Circular Order No. 1626g2/VI-b.1925, of the Ministry of the Interior. y The enquiryhas shown and Gendarmerie Commandant Alexander Deseo bas himself admitted,

that he did not fulfil these duties although, on his own admission, be knew that, at Jankapuszta, a number (thirteen to fifteen) of Yugoslav emigres were living together.

As Gendarmerie Commandant Deseo's dereliction of his duties specified above constitute the offence defined in the enactment, a decision in accordance with the enactment had to be taken.

This decision is final. Budapest, January 2nd, 1935.

(Signed) vitez SziNAY, General, Inspect& of the Royal H1mgarian Gendarmerie,

acting in his capacity as competent Commanding Officer.

Annex 14 c.

The l11Spector of the RoyaJ, Hungarian Gendarmerie acting in his capacity as the competent Commanding Officer.

~0. U.I32/34· In the penal case of J ohn Czinka, gendarmerie cadet, formerly in command of the gendarmerie

~~at Zakany,

I find: That John Czinka, gendarmerie cadet, is guilty of the dereliction of his duty of guard defined

in § 106 of the Code of Military Justice and of the dereliction of duty defined in § 133, paragraph 4, of the Code of Military Justice in that, having been in command since December 30th, 1930 until May rst, I933, of the gendarmerie station of Zakany, be failed to collect accurate information concerning the identity of the Yugoslavs settled at Jankapuszta, a locality within his area; to prepare a list of the names of these Yugoslavs; to enquire into their personal character and antecedents; to watch over their stay in the said locality and their departure therefrom; to report to his superiors, as in duty bound, the settlement there of a fairly large number of these persons; and to report the incident when the Yugoslavs at J ankapuszta refused to continue to work so that he was obliged, on the request of the farmer, to send a patrol to this puszta . . Therefore, in accordance with the Code of Military Penal Procedure, § 38, paragraph 2, and

~th.Law III of 1930, § 4, I sentence gendarmerie cadet John Czinka to 30 (thirty) days' rigorous unpnsonment.

Moreover, as these derelictions of duty were committed at an important frontier station, I have ordered that gendarmerie cadet J ohn Czinka be transferred from his present post at Szulok to another station, further removed from the frontier.

Reasons.

The. duties of officers commanding a gendarmerie station mentioned in the enactment are defined m § 59 of the Gendarmerie Service Regulations, in § 43 of the Instructions sent to the Gendarmerie Intelligence Sections and in Circular Order No. 162692jVI-b.I925 of the Ministry of the Interior.

The enquiry has shown and gendarmerie cadet John Czinka has himself admitted that be did { 0J fulfil these duties. He has stated in his defence that, in patrolling the Jankapuszta area, he t~ ed to have enquiries made, in conformity with the above-mentioned provisions, concerning

e Yugoslavs settled in this locality . . d' As th~ gendarmerie cadet's dereliction of his duties specified above constitutes the offences m IcaTt~d m the enactment, a decision in accordance with the enactment had to be taken.

h1s decision is final. Budapest, J anuary 2nd, 1935.

(Signed) vitez SziNAY, General, Inspector of the Royal Hungariatt Gendarmerie

acting in his capacity as comtpetent Conmtandif'g Officer.

-82-

Annex 14 d.

The Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie acting in his capacity as the competel!/ Commanding Officer.

No. U.I32/34· l.-3·

In the penal case of John Ferencz, gendarmerie cadet, in command of the gendarmerie station at Za.kany,

I find: That John Ferencz, gendarmerie cadet, is guilty of the dereliction of his duty as guard defined

in § ro6 of the Code of Military Justice and of the dereliction of duty defined in § 133, paragraph 4 of the Code of Military Justice in that, as commanding officer since May Ist, 1933'

of the gendarmerie station at Zakany, he failed to collect accurate information concerning th~ identity of the Yugoslavs settled at Jankapuszta, a locality within his area; to prepare a list of the names of these Yugoslavs; to enquire into their personal character and antecedents· to watch over their stay in the said locality and their departure therefrom; to report to his superi~rs as in duty bound, the settlement there of a fairly large number of these persons. '

Therefore, in accordance with the Code of Military Penal Procedure, § 38, paragraph 2, and :-vith _Law III of 1930, § 4, I sentence gendarmerie cadet John Ferencz to 30 (thirty) days' rigorous 1mpnsonment.

Moreover, as these derelictions of duty were committed at an important frontier station 1 have ordered that gendarmerie cadet J ohn Ferencz be transferred to another station, distant fr~m the frontier.

Reasons.

The duties of officers co~1manding a gendarmerie station mentioned in the enactment are defined in § 59 of the Gendarmerie Service Regulations, in § 43 of the Instructions sent to the Gendarmerie Intelligence Sections and in Circular Order No. 162692/IV-b.1925 of the Ministry of the Interior.

The enquiry has shown and gendarmerie cadet John Ferencz has himself admitted that be did not fulfil these duties. According to his defence, though he organised patrols at J ankapuszta more frequently than he would have done in normal circumstances, he did not cause enquiriesto be made in accordance with the provisions mentioned above concerning the Yugoslavs settled in this locality.

As the gendarmerie cadet's dereliction of his duties specified above constitutes the offences indicated in the enactment, a decision in accordance with the enactment had to be taken.

This decision is final.

Budapest, J anuary znd, 1935. (Signed) vitez SzrNAY, General,

Inspector of the Royal Hungarian Gendarmerie acting in his capacity as competetu

Commanding Officer.

Annex· 15. No. zojpres.VII-B.

1935· SOJOURN OF POLITICAL REFUGEES IN HUNGARY.

To all police authorities of first instance.

In virtue of the authorisation conferred by Law V of 1903 on the residence of foreigners in Hungary, relating to the regulation of the sojourn of political refugees, we hereby decree as follows:

Article I. - The police authority of first instance- in Budapest, the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners-shall be required to make enquiries without delay, employing all the legal means at its disposal, with a view to tracing the political refugees who have arrived or are already residing in its administrative area, and to take without delay, in regard to them, the measures laid down in the present decree.

Article 2. -Special care shall be taken to ascertain the identity, nationality and antecedents of political refugees.

Enquiries shall be made by the authority with a view to establishing the identity of such persons and ascertaining their personal and material position for the last ten years. In the ~ourse of these enquiries, foreigners and, should occasion arise, the personal acquaintances of foreJgllers, residing in Hungary, shall be beard, use being made, if necessary, of photographs.

While the proceedings are in progress, foreigners shall be detained, should this measure be required as a political safeguard or for the maintenance of public order.

Article 3· - The right of asylum in Hungary may not be enjoyed by political refugees:

(a) Whose identity, nationality and antecedents cannot be satisfactorily established; (b) Who are incapable of earning their own living or do not possess the wherewithal

to maintain themselves and their families; (c) ~ose pre~nce in the ~oun~ry is dangerous or prejudicial to th~ State, particularly

from the pomt of Vlew of secunty, mternal and external peace, or soc1al or public order; (d) Who fail to comply with the measures of surveillance and have been punished for

disobeying t hose orders.

Such political refugees shall at once be deported by the authority. The effect of deportation shall ex tend to the foreigner's spouse and any members of his

familY who are not ~arning t?eir own living. Deportee~ shall be ordered never to return or not to return for a specified pen od.

A copy of the final order, accompanied by the paper referred to in Art icle 8, shall be trans­mitted within two days to the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners, even if the foreigner has not lodged an appeal.

The foreigner shall be required to leave Hungarian territory within the time-limit specified in the final deportation order, validly issued, unless the authority has not stipulated that the order sha11 be carried out immediately . If the foreigner does not leave within the specified time-limit, he shall be removed by force.

Article 4· - If, in the course of the enquiry with a view to establishing the political refugee's identity and the investigations into his case, the police authority of first instance has not ordered him to be deported under Article 3 above, it shall transmit the file, together ·with the registration­paper referred to in Article 8 and a reasoned proposal, to the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners, with a view to the establislunent of the refugee's judicial antecedents and the fixing of the place where he is to reside. This place shall be fixed by the latter authority, no other authority having the right to do so.

Article 5· - Political refugees may not be sent to parts of the country where, in accordance \\Jth the existing regulations, foreign deserters are forbidden to reside (e.g. , places near the frontier).

No exception may be made to this rule by the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners, except in cases deserving of very special consideration.

Political refugees may not settle anywhere in a body.

Article 6. - The police authority of first instance may order political refugees to be placed mder supervision from the outset of the proceedings.

The authority shall supervise the conduct and all the acts of the foreigner placed under police supervision.

A person placed under police supervision:

(r) May not leave the commune (town) or quarter where he has been told to reside, without the permission of the authority;

(2) Must report in person to the police authority at the times fixed by the latter (in communes other than the chief towns of districts, at the gendarmerie station or town hall}; the foreigner shall not be required to report more than twice a day, but must report at least once a week.

The police authority may also:

(r) Require the foreigner placed under supervision to report in person, twenty-four hours in advance, any change of address which he proposes to make in the place where he has been told to reside;

(2) Forbid him to leave his domicile at certain hours of the day; (3) Forbid him to visit public places and to take part in demonstrations and meetings; (4) Forbid him to send telegrams or use the telephone, and place his correspondence

and parcels under police supervision; (5) Forbid him to maintain relations with persons other than his regular circle, without

the supervision of the police authority.

The final order requiring the refugee to be placed under police supervision shall be re-examined at the end of three months from the date of its entry into force, and every three months there.afte~, by the police authority of first instance, which shall modify the conditions of supervisiOn tf necessary.

Police supervision and the modification of the conditions of supervision shall be provided ~r by the authority in a final order, which shall be transmitted by that authority to the Central haflice for the Supervision of Foreigners, even if, when the said order came into force, the refugee

d the right of appeal. A copy of the final order shall be banded to the person concerned.

Article 7· - No permits may be granted to political refugees authorising them to po~sess, furchase .or sell firearms, ammunition or explosives. Political refugees shall_ also be forbtd~en 0 carry mstruments or possess substances which may serve for the destructiOn of human life.

The police authority shall be free to order domiciliary searches at any time, should this m be considered expedient in order to ascertain whether the prohibition stipulated in the pre~ure paragraph is being complied with. eVJous

Article 8. - The police authority of first instance shall draw up a list of the political refu residing in i_ts_ a~inistrative area, while the Central Office shall draw up a list of all the poli~: refugees restdmg m Hungary.

For this purpose, the police authority of first instance shall make out two copies of th registration-paper provided for in § 22 of Decree No. 101ooo/B.M. of 1903, and shall affix t e each of these copies two photographs of the foreigner, one full face and the other in profile 0

A copy of _t~e registrat~on-pape~ shall ~e transmit~ed ~thin two days _to the Centrai Office for. the SupervJston of Fore1gners, With a VJew to the msert10n of the parttculars in the central regtster.

No further entry shall be made in the central register if the political refugee moves from the area of one police authority to that of another. Changes in the particulars entered in the registers shall, however, be communicated to the Central Office for the Supervision of Foreigners whenever they occur.

If the fo:eigner _mo~es. in!o _the area ~f another police a_uthority, his file s~all be transmitted to the authonty havmg Junsdichon over his new place of restdence, together With the registration­paper which has been kept by the authority of his former place of residence.

Article 9· - Should the competent authority consider a foreigner's status as a political refugee to be doubtful, the question shall be submitted, on the proposal of the authority concerned, to the Minister of the Interior.

Article IO. - Political refugees:

(r) Who fail to comply with the administrative measures provided for in Article 6· (2) Who infringe the prohibition laid down in Article 7; ' (3) Who endeavour to mislead the authority by false statements-

shall be guilty of an offence and punished in virtue of the present decree by imprisonment fora period not exceeding 15 days.

In the case of the above-mentioned offences, action shall be taken by the authorit};s specified in Article 59 of Law XXX of 1929, except in the area of the city of Budapest, llilfR the authority of first instance shall be the Police Commissariat of the gth District of Budapst.

Article II. - As regards such questions relating to the supervision of political refugeesa; may not have been regulated by the present decree, the provisions of Decrees No. 1ooooofB.M. of 1930 and No. 1orooojB.M. of 1930 shall apply.

The present decree shall come into force on the date of its promulgation.

Budapest, J anuary 2nd, 1935. (Signed} Ferencz vitez Keresztes FISCHER.

R.H. Honved Command of the town of Pees.

Annex 16.

Reference: Housing of Yugoslav refugees in Hungarian barracks.

To the Royal Hungarian Minister of National Defence, Budapest.

Pees, December 29th, I934·

I have the honour to inform you that I have carried out the enquiry which I was instructed to make, and find that the Frederick Barracks at Pees has never been used for the purpose of housing refugees from Yugoslavia, either before or after 1931.

Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

No. R.P.I84-1931.

(Signed) NEMETH, General.

Annex 17.

NOTE VERBALE.

With reference to the interview which His Excellency the Yugoslav Minister had a few ~ays ago with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Royal Ministry has the honou.r to communtcate the following information to the Royal Legation:

- ss-

The Peremarton f?-ctory is en~aged exclusively in the production of explosives intended for neral use in the vanou~ 1.ndustnes of the coun~ry. Any member ?~the population requiring

~osives, whether for mliDllg or forestry operations, etc., or for legihmate trade, obtains them frO!ll this factory.

Since there are certain regulations restricting the sale of these products, it is obvious that the rson in question obta~ed the packet by theft or by giv_in~ false information to the seller. As ryear bas nOW elapsed SIDCe the product WaS purchased, 1t IS no longer possible to ascertain the

exact facts. This l\1inistry will not, however, fail to draw the attention of all those concerned to

this incident, and will se~ that t~e competent authorities are instructed to exercise stricter supervision over the trade m question.

Budapest, March 3rd, 1931. [L.S.]

To the Royal Yugoslav Legation, Budapest.

Annex 18.

To the Prefecture of the Royal Hungarian State Police, Budapest.

The Industrial Explosives Company, Ltd., an establishment which is officially entered in the Budapest Commercial Register, was formed in April 1922 for the purpose of manufacturing industrial explosives, explosive powders and slow-combustion fuses.

In 1929, our firm extended the field of its manufacture by setting up a sulphuric-acid factory and a phosphate-manure works.

In reply to your enquiry, we have the honour to inform you that no explosives have been Mien from the works during the last ten years.

Under a Government decree, we can only supply or deliver explosives to commercial firms or private persons holding a "purchasing licence " which complies with the legal regulations and is still valid; these licences are issued by the Police Prefecture or by the head of the district in which the parties concerned reside.

The quantity and nature of the materials that can be purchased are stated in the purchasing licence.

Generally speaking, our Budapest head office gives the factory instructions regarding the issue of explosives on the "order sheet". For each order, the customer receives a certificate, a copy of which is attached to the order sheet. The certificate shows the exact address of the customer, ~he quantity and nature of the explosives ordered, the date of delivery, the way in which the mvoice is to be made out and the purchase price paid, and the particulars appearing on the purchasing licence--viz., name of the authority which issued the licence, date and number of the licence and, if necesSary, a warning regarding the impending expiry of the licence .

. Buyers who come to fetch the explosives in person (usually licensees living in the netg~bourhood) may also obtain explosives on a valid purchasing licence; in each case, they receive a certificate bearing the same particulars as the certificates issued to Budapest purchasers.

AU deliveries are notified daily to our Budapest head office; these reports give the following part~culars: order number, number and article of the Budapest register, particulars regarding the consignee (name, address, post office, railway station), kind of transpor t (railway, fast or slow goods train, lorry), quantity and nature of the explosives, nature of packing, number and marks of cases and the numbers of the delivery documents (order form, despatch voucher, etc.) .

. ~ur Budapest head office records all deliveries of explosives in a special register, which, in addt.hon to the above particulars regarding the explosives, also shows the data concerning the official P\trchasing licences. This register is inspected by the Budapest police.

To each package containing explosives, the State Explosives Monopoly attaches two gummed bands ~rom the State Printing Works, and each case bears, further, an official sealing slip, differing accor~g to the weight of explosives contained in the case. Both the sealing slips and the bands are stahonery of which a strict account is kept. . . Daily reports on manufacture and deliveries are sent to our Budapest head office, which, tn Its turn, reports the same particulars to the Royal Hungarian Ministry of Commerce .

. The amount of explosives must always correspond to that recorded by the bands and se~~ng slips used, this being checked by means of repeated inspections by the competent authonhes.

T~~ quantity of raw material used for manufacturing expl.osi~es must correspc:md to the quantities of explosives manufactured. The latter are stored daily m th~ m.anner ~ted to. the nature of such articles. The amount of explqsives in stock is entered daily m a special regtster

-86-

showing the quantities and lcinds. As a further check, a separate explosives stock-book is ke t up-to-date by each store-room connected with the works. P

The clerks, assistants and labourers employed in the works, and all the other staff ha. usually a long record of service; their reliability has been frequently tested by the comPete'~ authorities, and they are entered in a special register. n

The strictest supervision is exercised over our employees, not only personally, but also in respect of the amount of explosives manufactured. Individual searches are instituted and made for explosives, and these repeated searches have so far given only negative results.

In the factory itself, the most rigorous supervision is exercised day and night. Entry is only possible by one door.

Apart from day and night shifts of foremen, there are also clerks always on duty. Tbe gendarmerie detachment at the works makes a regular round of inspection, not only of the factory-workers' settlement, but also of the factory premises, and keeps an eye upon the store watchmen.

The stores are underground structures of reinforced concrete, with two doors, the outer door being made of reinforced concrete. The structure of the stores is therefore satisfactory as regards protection from fire and burglary.

In view of the above facts, we think it impossible that explosives could leave the works illegally; even should that occur, it is certain that any irregularity would be promptly detected by our system of supervision.

The strictest supervision is exercised in every way at the works. Nobody is admitted to the premises without a special permit. Permit-holders are entered in a register and a monthly report on them is made to the competent authorities in the form of a return.

As regards the concerns (mines, quarries, road-construction, etc.) which use the explosives after they have been regularly delivered, there is no such supervision. It is therefore likely that the explosives illicitly obtained come from concerns or private persons using explosives.

Several cases have occurred of explosives being lost during demolition operations. Our head office at Budapest, V. Hold-u., 25, can supply full particulars.

There is no systematic supervision over the use of explosives by certain concerns and prirC!Ie persons. Hence there is nothing to prevent explosives from being obtained by third ~ employed in these concerns as a favour or for a consideration.

Peremarton Works, December 26th, 1934. Industrial Explosives Company, Ltd. :

(Signed) JUlius BoGISICH,

Works Manager.

Annex 19.

OFFICIAL RECORD

Drawn up at Nagykanizsa on October 26th, 1934, of the examination of vitez J6zsef Ferenczfaly (Metzger), captain, retired, residing at Nagykanizsa.

Vitez J6zsef Ferenczfalvy (Metzger)-bom at Ferenczhaloz on August 17th, 1893, evange~cal. married to Magdolna Voll; father: Jakab; mother: Katalin Brandtner-in reply to the questions put to him, made the following statement:

" I am not a member of the Croat 'Usta5a' organisation, but, having been born and having lived in territory transferred to Yugoslavia, I sympathised with the Croat refugees in Hungary-:­that is to say, whenever I met such a refugee, I was glad to talk with him, an<;l felt pity for his unhappy lot. Apart from that, I have not, and never have had, any other dealings with Croat refugees.

" I do not belong to the 'Usta5a' organisation. At the same time, I am aware that th.at organisation is widespread, not merely in Croatia, but also in Bosnia, Herzegovina and D~atia. I learned of the existence of that organisation while I was still living in YugoslaVIa. The organisation is made up of communal groups. In each commune there is a confidential agent, who keeps in touch with the Central Committee through a liaison officer.

"It was while they were still in Croatia that the Croat refugees subsequently in Hungary joined the association and took the oath. That I learned from the Croats themselves. I al~ learned from the refugees that the • Usta5a • had 40,000 members in Slavonia alone. I do no know how many members it has in the other parts of Yugoslavia, but the number must be very large.

" In order to clear up my relations with the refugees, I further wish to state that from October 28th, 1918, to April 1920, I was imprisoned at Zagreb, Bjelina, Proska, Viokovce, Es~ and Ujvidek, because I had refused to join the Serbian army. At that time, Dr. Ante Pave c,

dvocate, was assisting prisoners from outside, and in this way I, too, received from him ~e aettes and other similar gifts. Having escaped from prison, I went first to Austria and c~~vards to Hung~ry. I settled. do·w!l at Vizvar, where I married. Vizvar is quite close to ili Hungarian fronher , so that, willy-nilly, I was bound to be aware of the ftight of the Croats. I ~sted refugees with advice, but never bad any other dealings with them. Whenever I met tbern, however , Croat refugees reciprocated my friendly attitude towards them.

,. I can only explain the fact that the Yugoslav newspapers persist in representing me as b ving had more serious dealings with the organisation of Croat refugees, on the assumption t:at Yugoslav spies must have made inaccurate reports about me. The Serbian newspapers are full of absolutely fictitious statements about me, in which there is not one word of truth.

,. Georgieff (Tschersczemsky) Kerin, Kalemen, was never at Jankapuszta, or even in Hungary. Such, at least, is what I have been told by the Croat refugees, who confided in me very freely.

,. As far as I am aware, refugees never entered Hungary in large bodies; they escaped in couples, or singly. It is, indeed, impossible to cross the frontier in groups without attracting attention.

"Jn reply to a specific question, I further declare that I do not know the above-mentioned Georgiev, and that I had not even heard his name until I learned it from the newspapers after the outrage; it was at that time that the refugees told me that they did not know him and bad never heard of him before.

" I have nothing further to add. The official record being correct, I have duly signed it." Done on the above date.

(Signed} NAGY,

Higher Police CotmsellQr.

)linistry for Foreign Affairs and Ecclesiastical Affairs.

No. 19841-26-I.

Annex 20.

(Signed) vitez J6zsef FERENCZFALVY,

Captain (retired) .

With reference to its "'tate verbale No. 103/46/I, of October 23rd last, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Ecclesiastical Affairs, having received certain additional information from Police Headquarters, Sofia, has the honour to inform the Hungarian Legation as follows:

The report from Police Headquarters, Sofia, that Georgieff-Tchernozemski left Bulgaria for Hungary in 1932, was based upon information derived from various sources. Investigations have been made, but have not as yet enabled Police Headquarters to ascertain under what name, with what passport, at what point and at what time, Tcbernozemski crossed the frontier. The Bulgarian police, moreover, do not know and cannot say whether the above-named person ever stayed in Hungary.

To the Royal Hungarian Legation, Local.

Annex 21 .

Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

No. I2II/po1. 1934·

NoTE VERBALE.

~ .. In reply to the Royal Legation's note verbale No. 197/34, dated March 13th, 1934, the Royal ~ finistry for Foreign Affairs has the honour to inform the Legation as follows: T . The contents of the above-mentioned not-e verbale have caused the ~oyal Ministry keen surpris~. Ho Judg~ from several passages in the not~, the Royal Yugoslav Legation sees fit to reg~d cert.arn un~anan civil and military authorities-which are not, however, named-~ havmg tac1tly ~~ved at the preparation of the terrorist activities carried out in Yugoslav terntory by Yugosl~v enugris residing in Hungary. The Royal Legation even makes the accusation that " the terronst

-88-

activities of Percec and his accomplices are proceeding under the eyes and with the knowled of the Hungarian civil and military authorities ". ge

This Ministry is astonished to find that Hungarian authorities can be accused of such cond when the Hungarian Government has always done everything in its power to keep the few Yug~ct, emigres staying in Hungary under supervision, in spite of the fact that its efforts in this direc/v have been frequently hindered by the intrigues of agmts provocateurs and other persons. IOn

The most careful examination of the facts mentioned by the Royal Legation has reveat nothing to substantiate that accusation. The Royal Ministry has no doubt that from time tot~ incidents have occurred which were in reality due ~o the fact that the Hungarian Government'e agents, who are now accused of the conduct descnbed above, were successfully tricked by th s villains in question- which would surprise no one conversant with the unscrupulous method~ t e which these people are well known to have recourse. :. 0

The Royal Ministry cannot, therefore-, allow any such charge to be brought against Hungarian Government officials, and strongly protests against the accusation made in the aforementioned note v~bale. It is also s';lrprised to find that the g~od intentions o~ the Hungarian authorities can be questioned on the basts of statements and testtmony as unreliable as those quoted in the nok verbale.

As heretofore, the Royal Hl.Ulgarian Government is always anxious to assist in maintainin neighbourly relations with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. As evidence of such an attitude th~ Royal Ministry has the honour to inform the Royal Legation that, some considerable time b~fore the receipt of the note verbale presented by the Legation, the Hungarian Government took the necessary steps to ensure that the Yugoslav political refugees and emigres left Jankapuszta a farm which they had leased some time previously. As a result of this precedent of govemmeniaJ interference in matters of private law, the Hl.Ulgarian Government laid itself open to considerable difficulties, and did so solely qut of consideration for the Yugoslav Government, the reason being that it realised that the presence of refugees, etc., near the frontier was unduly alarming public opinion and the Press in Yugoslavia.

It has probably not escaped the attention of the Royal Legation that the man Edward Premec, the author of an attempt on the lives of certain Yugoslav citizens, was sentenced by the Kaposvar Court to the maximum penalty that the law provides, which is sufficient proof that the Hungarian Government does not and will not tolerate the preparation of criminal acts in Hungarian territory.

Needless to say, the Hungarian Government will not cease to grant the right of asylu:n to political emigres who respect the law, but, in order to give still further proof of its determinarioo to establish and maintain neighbourly relations with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, it is prepmd to accede to the Royal Legation's request as set out in the note verbale in question, and to e:qt\ from its territory all such Yugoslav emigres as have violated their duty to respect the hospitality which they enjoy in Hungary.

The Royal Hungarian Ministry does not think it necessary to deal here with the not very reliable testimony quoted in the note verbale in question, or with certain fantastic charges to be found in the Podgorelec pamphlet. As regards the persons mentioned and criticised in the twle verbale, it was ascertained, in the course of the enquiry carried out in accordance with our 1wle verbale No. 830/pol., dated March 15th last, that certain of them had indeed made short stays in Hungary, although the Hungarian authorities never succeeded in securing any proof of unlawful conduct on their part. It was further ascertained in the course of the enquiry that all those persons have since left Hungarian territory and are at present elsewhere.

The Yugoslav etnigres still in Hungary will remain under the supervision of the authorities. It is the Royal Ministry's opinion, however, that such supervision can never be completely effective unless the Royal Yugoslav frontier authorities are guided in the performance of their duties by the spirit of the Belgrade Protocol of October Ist, 1929 (which would imply cl~se co-operation with the Hungarian frontier authorities and the arrangement of regular special conferences between the frontier authorities of the two States); and unless, furthermore, ~e Royal Yugoslav Government is in future prepared to fall in with the requests addressed to.It by the Hungarian Government for the joint examination of the various incidents at the frontier between the two countries. The Royal Ministry is of opinion that such joint examination wo~d be the most convenient means of obtaining reliable information regarding the activities of cert3;ID circles likely to disturb the neighbourly relations obtaining between Hungary and Yugoslavia.

The Royal Ministry hopes that the foregoing will satisfy the Royal Legation t~at the Hungarian Government is sincerely desirous of mainta.ining neighbourly relations w1th the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Actuated by the same spirit, the Royal Ministry requests the Royal Legation of Yugoslavia to be good enough to prevail upon its Government to take measures to improve the conditions at present obtaining at the Hungarian-Yugoslav frontier, and more particularly :

To consent to the re-application of the stipulations of paragraph (e), Article 5, Annex A, of the Commercial Treaty between the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Hun&a.ry, signed at Belgrade on July 24th, 1926, with a view to remedying the very serious position of persons owning land on both sides of the frontier;

To take steps, with the same end in view, to eliminate the unnecessary waste of ~e and money caused by the Royal Yugoslav authorities' delay in affixing visas, as prescnbed by the Protocol of Belgrade, to the frontier-card~ of such persons; . .

To enter into negotiations with the Hungarian Government with a view to mcreaSIJlg the number of Customs roads across the Hungarian-Yugoslav frontier; and, in the last place.

To introduce appropriate changes into the regulations regarding the use of nreanns

by the Royal Yugoslav. Fr~mtier G'!ards, with a view to red\lcing the number of fatal accidents oecurring at the frontier m question.

Budapest, April 26th, 1934·

To the Legation of Yugoslavia in Budapest.

Annex 22 a .

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Jankapuszta on December 24th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

[L.S.]

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and was warned that be was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that false evidence was an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Ladislas Schlosser. (2) Age: 35 (father, Charles; mother, Eva Koller) . (3) Place of birth: Szombathely. (4) Domicile: Nagykanizsa, R6zsa-ut., 9; at present, Jankapuszta. (5) Civil status: Bachelor. {6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Carrier and farmer.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have been duly warned that I may have to confirm my deposition on oath. "At present it is my father, Charles Schlosser, and I who run the Jankapuszta property.

This property comprises 245 cadastral arpents. I took over the lease on October 1st, 1934. from the heirs of Julius Szajbely. . • I have known the property for about ten years. In February 1931, I heard that the owner

wished. to let it. That same summer we entered into negotiations with the owner's agent, M. Julius Hajdu, barrister, domiciled at Nagykanizsa, because we wished to acquire the leasehold. About one week later, M. Hajdu informed us that further negotiations on our part were useless, because the property bad already been leased to one Emil Horvath, who had made a more attractive offer than we had.

" Previous to this and before Emil Horvath acquired the leasehold, it was at this farm that I used to buy the farm produce I required. As a result of my occupation- ! am a carrier- ! used for several years to transport the raw alcohol from the J ankapuszta distillery to the Nagykanizsa alcohol refinery; in 1931 and 1932 also I transported raw alcohol products from Jankapuszta to Nagykanizsa. Consequently, I visited J ankapuszta very frequently. I also knew personally t~e tenant Emil Horvath. I also knew and saw at Jankapuszta that Croat refugees were working t ere. I even conversed with some of them. I affirm categorically that I have J:lever seen the ~oat r~fugees working there carrying rifies or revolvers. If they had possessed any I should have

own 1t , because I was often with them. I know that Emil Horvath had two or three farm guulards anned with revolvers. These carried their revolvers openly. The revolvers, so far as I co d see and judge, were of an old pattern. "

Emil In reply to the Prefect of Police, who asked how many Croat refugees were staying with Horvath and whether these wore a uniform, the witness replied as follows:

1 bo" Although I was fairly frequently at Jankapuszta, I never saw more than ten to fifteen Th urers whom I knew to be Croats. I never saw them wearing a uniform or anything like one.

ere were one or two labourers who wore shirts with a closed collar, but they were wearing civilian caps. Generally speaking, I can say that they wore very threadbare and very poor peasant clothing.

-90 -

"At present, no Croat is staying at my farm at Jankapuszta. All left several month " I have nothing further to add." 5 ago,

The official record, having been read over and found correct, was signed.

Done on this day's date.

(Signed) Dr. GozuANY,

Prefect of Police.

Annex 22 b .

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Ladislas SCHLOSSER.

. OFFICIAL REcORD OF WITNESS'S D EPOSITION.

Drawn up at Nagykanizsa on December 25th at the Nagykanizsa Prefecture of Police.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of tbt enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but tbt truth, to the best of his knowledge and in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to make a deposition on oath. I warned him that he would be committing a cl'imiml offence if he gave false evidence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Andrew Schlosser. (2) Age: 31. (3) Place of birth: Szombathely. (4} Domicile: Jankapuszta. (5) Civil status: Bachelor. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Farmer.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

"We- my father, Charles Schlosser , my brother , Ladislas Schlosser , and !- have, since October rst , 1934, been lessees of the Jankapuszta estate from the heirs of the late l\1. Szajbely. Before we acquired the leasehold, I sometimes visited the property. For instance, I went to Jankapuszta last winter when the tenant of the J ankapuszta distillery had hired me to transport alcohol to Nagykanizsa by road. Since we had already heard last year that the property'~ to let and as we intended to rent it, and as, last year, we had even entered into negotiations on this subject with M. Julius Hajdu, barrister at Nagykanizsa, representing the Szajbely heirs, I went to J ankapuszta this summer to see what the conditions were and what crops could be gro\\-n.

" Last winter, when passing through the property, I met a few Croat emigres who were working there as agricultural labourers. When I visited the place in the summer of 1934, their numbers had diminished-there were only about five or six of them. At the beginning of October, when we took up our residence on the property, there were only three or four, who had remained in order to hand over the farm equipment to us.

" I affirm categorically that the Croats staying at Jankapuszta wore grey or brown scout shirts with a closed collar. The costume did not resemble a uniform. I myself wear this dress when working on the farm because it is very convenient and practical.

" I also saw two or three Croats living on the property who had revolvers, but these men were acting as farm guards and carried a revolver to ensure their personal safety.

" In reply to a question, I further state that, according to my information, therewasnothi~ to complain of in the conduct of the Croats living on the property; they were quiet and peace labourers exclusively engaged in agricultural work.

"This is all I can say." Signed, after reading over, with the observation that the word "last " was inserted ?,efore

the word '' winter", page 2, line 7 (of the official record), and that the word " summer was

-91 -

1 ced by " winter " at the beginning of the second paragraph of the second page (of the official

rep ad) These rectifications were made before the official record was signed. recor ·

Date as above.

(Signed) PUSZTAI,

Prefect of Police.

Annex 22 c.

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Andrew SCHLOSSER.

OFFICIAL REcoRD oF WITNEss's DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Jankapuszta on December 23rd, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and was warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he wou.ld be gu ilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement.

(1) Name: Julius Schlesinger. (2) Age: 53· (3) Place of birth: Turna. (4) Domicile: Jankapuszta Distillery. (S) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Jewish. (7) Occupation: Director of the distillery.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

• I have duly noted the above warning. " I have been Director of the Jankapuszta Distillery since October 1st , 1933. • The distillery is situated on the Jankapuszta estate at a distance of from So to 100 paces from

the dwelling and farm premises of the Jankapuszta farm itself. • I categorically assert that, since then, no persons carrying arms have dwelt or stayed at

]ankapuszta. I declare that at the Jankapuszta farm there were not more than five or six Croat refugees.

· The persons living there were employed on the work of the estate-i.e., agricultural work. There were others who acted as farm guards. I saw one or two men in possession of an old pattern revolver, but it is not true that all the Croat refugees were provided with arms .

. ~ I have never seen any men in uniform on the land belonging to the farm, nor any men in uniform visiting it.

"It is not true that Jankapuszta was closed territory. All were free to enter the farm land and pa~ through it. Carters were continually bringing potatoes and other products to the distillery and takmg away raw alcohol from the distillery to the Nagykanizsa Refinery.

" This is all I know."

Done on this day's date.

(Signed) Dr. Goz111ANY,

Captain of Police.

(Signed) Julius ScHLESINGER.

-92-

Annex lld.

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at J ankapuszta on December 23rd, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: George KOdmenecz. (2) Age: 37· (3) Place of birth: Poganyszentpeter. (4) Domicile: Sandorhaza (J ankapuszta). (5) Civil status: Bachelor. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Agricultural agent.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warntd that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have duly noted the above warning. " I am in the employment of Dr. John Ruszak, landed proprietor, as agent. " Since 1928, I have been managing the estate of 380 cadastral arpents known as Scindorhciza.

This estate is situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Jankapuszta. My employer 's dwelling is really on the J ankapuszta estate.

" I visited the Jankapuszta estate every day and thus have been personally acquainted for about the last twelve years with all farm labourers who have worked there or are still employed there. I am also aware that, in the past, Croat refugees stayed and worked at the farm in the employment of Emil Horvath, the former tenant of the property.

" There were frequent changes in staff, as is normal in the case of agricultural labourers. I never saw more than eight to ten men on the puszta. All these were engaged in agricultural work and wore ordinary civilian clothing. I categorically deny that there were ever any uniformed men at J ankapuszta.

"It is also inaccurate to say that the farm labourers employed at Jankapuszta, either Croat refugees or others, were in possession of firearms. Emil Horvath had a few farm guards provided with old pattern revolvers. There were, however, never more than three or four of these.

"I knew the former tenant, Emil Horvath, personally; about a year ago, I saw him for the last time. Since then, he has never appeared on the Jankapuszta estate.

" In 1928, the date of my arrival, the J ankapuszta farm buildings were in exactly the same state as at present. Nobody has made any alteration to the buildings.

"The Croat refugees who lived here were, during their stay in this locality, farm labourers; hard-working, peaceful and good-natured individuals.

" This is all I know."

The official record, having been read over and found correct, has been signed.

Done on this day's date.

(Signed) Dr. GoZMANY,

Captain of P?lice.

(Signed) George K6DMENECZ.

(Signed) TtNYI,

Clerk (Drafter of the Official Record).

-93-

Annex 22 e.

R ya1 Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, 0 Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL REcoRD OF WITNEss's D EPOSITION.

Drawn up at Belezna on December 25th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and warned that be was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of his knowledge and in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to make a deposition on oath. I also warned him that he would be committing a criminal offence if he gave false evidence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: John B6di. (z) Age: so. (3) Place of birth: Belezna. (4) Domicile: Belezna. (5) Civil status: Married. (6} Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Agriculturist, Mayor of the Commune.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be informed that they are not bound to make a statement. This information and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

• I have duly taken note of the above warning. · Since 1927 I have been Mayor of the Commune of Belezna. Jankapuszta is also in the

V.nnmune of Belezna. • Jankapuszta' is only a local name, the true name of the estate as shown oolhe map of the land and cadastral register being • Sandorhazipuszta ' . As Mayor, I have tilm-almost every year- bad occasion to visit Jankapuszta, and have known Emil Horvath p:rsooally. Emil Horvath employed from ten to fifteen agricultural labourers of Croat origin, whom I also knew. I have often talked with them. I have never seen them carrying arms. These Croat emigres seemed to be poor and were wearing threadbare clothes like the other peasants. Some were wearing old shirts with a closed collar, which could not be called uniforms even by the greatest stretch of the imagination.

" I am aware that there were on the estate three or four farm guards who carried revolvers; but these, as far as I know, held a licence issued by the competent authority.

• Anybody could enter J ankapuszta at any time. Alcohol was carried between the Janka-puszta and Nagykanizsa distilleries over the estate by outside carters.

• I have nothing further to add."

Duly signed after reading.

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. GOZMANY, Captain of Police.

Annex 22 f.

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) J ohn B6or.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Present: The undersigned.

~he witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enqurry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in accordance with his conscience, and that be might be required to confi;m his deposition ~n oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, be would be guilty of an offence nder the Criminal Code.

-94-

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Dr. John Ruszak. (2) Age: 52. (3) Place of birth: Als6dombovar. (4) Domicile: J ankapuszta (permanent domicile: Budapest, 45, Vaczi-utca) (S) Civil status: Married. · (6) Religion : Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Landowner.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warn~ that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply the must be mentioned in the official record.) reto

" I have taken due note of the above warning. "Since 1922, I have been the owner of the' Sandorpuszta ',a farm consisting of 380 cadastr 1

arpents. My estate is contiguous to the farm known as J ankapuszta, which is shown in the Ian~ register as 'Sandorhazipuszta '. In December 1926, I bought ror cadastral arpents of tb J ankapuszta property with the far~house situate thereon. I knew Emil Horvath personall ; he being my neighbour. At Horvath 's place, there were some Croat emigres working on the f~ as agricultural labourers. Hungarian labourers were also working there; they bad been employed there for the last ten years. The Croat labourers were constantly changing, as is always the case with casual labour. When most numerous, there were about fifteen or sixteen of them. I knew some of the Croat emigres personally. They were weary and disheartened men. They wore ordinary peasant clothes. There were one or two who, when working, wore military shirts literally in rags. They did not wear military caps. They were peaceful and honest folk who neve; caused me any trouble.

" I have never seen any firearms among the Croats employed at Jankapuszta. I know that there were two or three farm guards who carried revolvers quite openly, but I do not know whether these were Croat emigres or Hungarians.

" Jankapuszta was then an entirely open estate, as it is now. Everybody could pass throuah it. The carters who carried the raw material for the distillery were men from Fityehciza, Belez::a and Murakeresztur and they moved freely about the Jankapuszta property.

"As far as I know, the Croat refugees left Jankapuszta this summer, but at what date I cannot say for certain.

" I have not seen Emil Horvath since the summer of 1933. "That is all I know."

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. GozMANY, Captain of Police.

Annex 22 a.

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Dr. John RuszA.K.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Pr€sent: The undersigned. The witness. attending in response to a summons, was informed of the object of the enquiry

and was warned that she was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the ~th, to the best of her knowledge and in accordance with her conscience, and that she might be reqUII'ed to make a deposition on oath. I warned her that she would be committing a criminal offence if she gave false evidence.

In the absence of the other v.itnesses, the witness then made the following statement: . (r) Name: Madame J ohn Ruszak; maiden name : Marie Schock. (2) Age: 41. (3) Place of birth: Maramarossziget. (4) Domicile: Jankapuszta. (S) Civil status: MaTried. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occ1.1pation: Wife of the owner.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be infonn~ that they are not bound to make a statement. This information and the witness's reply there must be mentioned in the official record.)

-95-

" I have duly noted the above warning. , AbOut eight years ago, my husband bought a small part of jankapuszta and the five-room !ling. Another property owned by my husband, known as Sandorpuszta, is adjacent to J anka-

d~a My husband has owned this property for about nineteen years. During the last eight years P b ve.spent every summer at Jankapuszta in the farm house. I know that the part of Janka­! ;ta which does not belong to my husband was let to a tenant, one Emil Horvath, at the beginning Pf193I. I also know that at Horvath's place Croat political refugees were working as agricultural fabourers. In addition to the Croat emigres, Emil Horvath also had Hungarian agricultural

1 bourers who bad been working for years past at Jankapuszta. On the Jankapuszta estate there a-ere fifteen to twenty Croat refugees, all doing various kinds of farm work. I affirm categorically ~at Emil Horvath's labourers were simple and peaceful labourers, whom I saw working on the farm day after day. I know positively that the Croat refugee labourers never carried arms. Emil Horvath had three or four farm guards who carried revolvers, but I also know that they were in

ssession of a licence to carry firearms. I am aware of this detail, because I heard the servants ~y that the farm guards had received a licence to carry arms. The Croat emigre labourers wore ordinary peasant clothes. I did notice here and there a workman wearing a coat resembling a worn-out military blouse, but none of them wore military caps. They all wore ordinary civilian headgear.

"Outsiders have always had access to the Jankapuszta farm. It would, indeed, have been impossible to prevent it, because carters from Fityehaza, Belezna and Murakeresztur were continually transporting raw alcohol to Nagykanizsa from the distillery which was situate right in front of my house, and their carts were bound to pass through Jankapuszta. My husband's agricultural labourers were also obliged to pass through Jankapuszta to go to Murakeresztur.

"That is all I can say."

Signed after reading.

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. GOZMANY, Captain of Police.

Annex 22 h.

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Madame John RuszAK, nee Marie ScHOCK.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Jankapuszta on December 24th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and was warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Andrew Galambos. (2) Age: 31. (3) Place of birth: Garakony. (4) Domicile: Surd. (S) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Protestant, Augsburg Confession. (7) Occupation: Mayor's Clerk.

{The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that the:y are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

::I have taken due note of the above warning . ., I have been Mayor's Clerk to the commune of Surd since September 13th, 1927.

. ~h~ commune of Belezna is within my area, as also the property known as J ankapuszta, whrch rs rtself situate within the Belezna commune. In the exercise of my duties, I often had to ~0 to J~kapuszta. I know that a number of Croat emigres were emP,loyed at the farm, but can tate,With absolute conviction that I never saw more than five or SLX per~ons f;bere. . . t The Croat refugees wore ordinary civilian dress. I never saw a man m umfor~; nor rs It rue that the estate was ever closed to outsiders. Everybody could have access to It.

-¢-l

"No complaints were ever made against the Croat emigres. No person ever submitte<l report to me on the subject. Consequently, I can conscientiously declare that the perso ~y question gave the impression of being peaceful and good-natured people. ns Ill

" I know that the tenant employed farm guards who carried r.evolvers of an old pattern head of the District of Csurg6, as the competent authority, had issued to the tenant four li~ The to carry firearms. Apart from these few individuals (one or two), I have never seen anyone~es a revolver. I have never seen any arms of another or larger kind. ~

" This is all I know."

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. GozMANY, Captain of Police.

Annex 22 i.

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section .

(Signed) Andrew GALAMBOS.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Murakeresztur on December 23rd, I934·

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry and was warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposiOO!J on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an affeoce under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, t he witness then made the following stateme.nt:

(r) Name : Anthony Szeiverth. (2} Age: 45· (3) Place of birth : Csaktornya. (4) Domicile: Murakeresztur. (5} Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Mayor's Clerk.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they a re not bound to make a statement . This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be ment~oned in the official record.)

" I have taken due note of the above warning. " I have been Mayor's Clerk in the commune of Murakeresztur since May 1920. " J ankapuszta is in the immediate neighbourhood of my commune and a shooting of mene

adjoins the farm. " The owner of the ' Scindorh ciza' farm, Dr. John Ruszak, a landowner, is personally known

to me. I therefore often visit him in his h ouse. Dr. John Ruszcik's house is on the Jankapuszla property. The farm buildings and dwelling of J ankapuszta are situated IOO paces from Dr. Ruszik's house. I have seen several individuals employed at Jankapuszta, of whom I heard it said that they were Croat emigres and were earning their living as farm labourers.

" I have never seen any persons wearing uniform or any other dress resembling a uniform. The persons in question wore ordinary civilian clothes. When shooting, I sometimes came across, on the estate, a farm guard carrying a revolver or automatic pistol. But there were never more than two or three of these farm guards.

" In addition to Croat emigres, there were Hungarian agricultural labourers who had been living at J ankapuszta before Emil Horvath's time and who are still there. .

"Since the beginning of October last, there has, as far I know, not been a singleCroatbmgrl at J ankapuszta.

" This is all I know."

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. GoZMANY, Captain of Police.

(Signed) Anthony SZEIVERTH.

(Signed) Mathias TENYI, Clerk (Drafter of the Official Record.}

Annex 22 j.

1 Hungarian State Prefecture of Police. Roya Budapest.

Criminal Section.

OFFICIAL REcoRD oF WITNEss's DEPOSITION .

Drawn up at Jankapuszta on December 24th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned. The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the

elquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the t ruth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ~ accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oatiL He was also warned that, if he gave fa lse evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

Jn the Rbsence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Stephen T6th. (2) Age: 35· (3) Place of birth: Fels6rojt. (4) Domicile: Jankapuszta. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Agricultural labourers' foreman.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

• I have taken due note of the above warning. · Since the beginning of April 1927, I have been uninterruptedly employed at Jankapuszta

as agricultural labourers' foreman. " When Emil Horvath became tenant of J ankapuszta in 1931, I continued in his service.

\\llen Emil Horvath was already established on the estate. Croat emigres used to come and ask bi.n to give them work. Emil Horvath engaged them as agricultural labourers. The Croats did aot come all together, but at different dates. They stayed for a while and then passed on, others raking their place who also worked as agricultural labourers on the estate. At the time when they were most numerous, they were about 20 or 22. They wore at work and elsewhere the ordinary clothes of agricultural labourers. There were some (one or two) who wor~ a military coat in rags, but they only wore it when at work because they also possessed good civilian clothes. I have never seen any of these people wearing a military cap. The Croat workmen bad no arms at all. If they had had any, I as their foreman would certainly have noticed it. We had at the farm four farm guards who carried revolvers, as they were entitled to do under a licence to carry arms issued by the competent authority; we needed these farm guards to protect the agricultural produce.

'' Jankapuszta was an entirely open estate; anybody could have access to the farm and to the agricultural labourers' dwellings. It would, moreover, have been impossible to prevent outsiders from entering the Jankapuszta property, because outside carter.s continually came and went carrying raw alcohol from the Jankapuszta distillery to Nagykanizsa.

"I know nothing further."

Date as above.

(Sigtud) Dr. Gozill.NY,

Captain of Police.

Annex 22 k .

Royal Hungarian State Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

Criminal Section.

(Signed) Stephen T6TH.

OFFICIAL RECORD oF WITNEss's DEPOSITION.

Drawn up at Jankapuszta on December 24th, 1934.

Present : The undersigned. The witness attending in response to a summons was informed by me of the object of the

enquiry and was\varned that he was bound to tell the' truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his de .. on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a poffSJ.lton under the Criminal Code. n o en~

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Adolph Weisz. (2) Age: 68. ~ (3) Place of birth: H6dmez6vasarhely. (4) Domicile: Nagykanizsa, 45, Kircily-utca. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Jewish. (7) Occupation: Independent means.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warn that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply there~ must be mentioned in the official record.) 0

"I have duly noted the above warning. . . " It was my daughter's husband, ¥a!tin Mendloyits, do~iciled at Nagykanisza (No. .

Ktrcily-utca), who became lessee of the distillery. Havmg been mstructed by Martin .Mendlo~f· to s?pervise the work, I have been visiting the distillery regularly since the spring of 1932. I kne:. Emil Horvath and his associates personally, since I was constantly in relation with them. The agricultural labourers were always changing. Others came in the place of those who went The imi~res ~ere weary, ragged peop,le. They did not wear any uniform. Most of them wer~ clothed m ordmary and worn peasant s clothes. There were some who wore a Serbian military blouse in rags, but this could not be called a uniform, because all wore civilian caps. The farm had in its service two or three farm guards who carried revolvers of an old pattern.

" From the distillery, managed by my son-in-law, outside carriers were constantly transporting raw products to the distillery at Nagykanizsa. Outside carters also delivered wood and coal to the J ankapuszta factory. The path followed by the carters crossed Jankapuszta. It is therefore absurd to say that Jankapuszta was closed to outsiders.

" The agricultural labourers finally left Jankapuszta during the summer of 1934. " I have nothing further to add."

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. GozMANY, Captain of Police.

(Signed) Adolph WEISZ.

Annex 23.

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up at the Prefecture of Police, Vienna, on October 23rd, 1934, constituting ~e deposition of Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Ivan Percevic, born in Vienna, May 21st, r88r, havmg his domicile, according to his own statement, at Ogulin, Croatia, Roman Catholic, married, present address: 7, Karolinengasse, Vienna, IV, who made the following statement:

" It had been my intention to go with my wife, at the end of September 1934, to visit friends at Desenzano, on Lake Garda. In consequence of the sudden death of Lieutenant (retired) Ste~an Duic, at Carlsbad, I postponed that visit until a later date. The remains of the deceased, which had been transferred from Carlsbad to Graz, were to have been buried there on October rst, 1934 On October rst, 1934. I was therefore holding myself in readiness to leave for Graz in order to be present at the funeral. On September 30th, 1934, shortly before I was to leave, I was informed by Aulic Councillor Loidl, living at an address (number unknown) in Reisnerstrasse, Vienna, III, that the funeral had been postponed from October rst to October 3rd. In the afternoon of October 2nd, 1934, I left, in the company of my wife and General (retired) Sarkotic, for Graz, where I stayed with my brother-in-law, Colonel (retired) Gustavus Pifil, at Graz-Egg~nberg. On October 3rd, 1934, after the funeral, we returned to Vienna. We had intended leavmg for Lake Garda on October 5th, 1934. My wife, however, developed a high temperature as theres_ult of a previous attack of influenza and we were obliged to postpone our departure. On t~e mo~~g of October 7th, 1934, we left by the Stidbahnhof, Vienna, for Venice, via Villach-Tarv1s, arnvmg at our destination at 7 o'clock the same evening. We spent the night at the Station Hotel, an~ continued our journey to Desenzano the following day. We remained at Desenzano. unt October 21st, staying in the villa of one of our acquaintances. On the 9th, we learned by wuel~ of King Alexander's tragic death at Marseilles. On the 21st, my wife and I left Lake Gard~ an arrived at 5.30 p.m. at Venice, where we again spent the night at the Station Hotel. We contmued our journey on the 22nd, arriving at Vienna, Stidbahnhof, at about II p.m. . .

"During my stay in Italy, I did not see either Ante Pavelic or any other Croat nationalist. The last time I spoke to Ante Pavelic was at the beginning of May 1934, during a visit to Italy. Of all the other persons mentioned in connection with the Marse.illes outrage, the only one kno~~ to me personally was Eugene Kvaternik, the son of Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Slavko Kvatemik.

-99-

f rner schoolfellow of mine. I do not know the other persons mentioned in connection with the a u~ge pe~tr~ted at. Ma!seilles against King Alexander. !he only person whom I know by 0 is zvomrrur Posp1schtl. I know that he was concerned m the attack on the journalist Toni s::gel in Zagreb. !he at~e~pt on Schlegel's ~fe was made by Mijo Babic in 1929. The statement

de by Mijo Kralj, Bab1c s alleged accomphce, to the effect that he had applied to me for rnaistance some eigbt.een mont~s. ag?, ~uring his. imp~sonment .at Klagenfurt, and that I had ass roached the Austnan authonhes m his ~ehalf, 1s entirely devotd of fo':lndation. I do not know ~f.P0 KralJ. and I have never approached e1ther the Austnan or Hunganan authorities on behalf JJI) ' f th t " of any person o a name.

(Sigtz-td) Dr. HERMANN. (Sigtled) Ivan PERCEVIC.

* * * OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up at the Prefecture of Police, Vienna, on November 7th, 1934, in the presence of Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Ivan Percevic, born in Vienna, May 21st, 1881, having his domicile, according to his own statement, at Ogulin, Croatia, Roman Catholic, married, at present residing at 7, Karolinengasse, Vienna, IV, who made the following statement:

• The report printed in the Prager Presse of November 4th, 1934, under the heading ' Percevic theOrganiser ',to the effect that I had designated the three authors of the outrage by the drawing of lots at Nagykanizsa, is entirely untrue. I have never drawn lots, and I was not at Nagykanizsa on September 24th.

• I am, on the contrary, in a position to call witnesses to prove that during the whole of the month of September I did not leave Vienna for so much as an hour, and that more particularly 00 September 24th I was present at a tea in my own apartment, which was attended by ladies of the best Viennese society."

(Signed) Dr. HERMANN. {Signed) Ivan PERCEVIC.

* * • OFFICIAL RECORD {continued).

Drawn up on Novemper 21st, 1934, at the Prefecture of Police, Vienna, recording the deposition ol Ivan Percevic.

The latter made the following statement:

"I am accused of having got into touch with Pavelic and Percec in 1929, immediately on their arrival in Vienna, and of having established relations with the Macedonians; these allegations call for correction.

" I made Dr. Ante Pavelic's acquaintance in Zagreb after the collapse of the monarchy. What could be more natural than that, when he came to Vienna, he should seek me out as a fellow­countryman ? I knew Percec during the world war, when be was serving as an officer on actiye service in the former Austro-Hungarian army. He also came to see me whenever he was in Vienna, but not with Pavelic. I did not bring Pavelic and Percec into touch with Macedonian circles. Pavelic established contact with the latter himself by undertaking the defence, without a fee, of some Macedonian students who were on trial for high treason at Skoplje in 1928. When the young Macedonians who were studying in Vienna learned, through the Yugoslav Press, that Pavelic was in the city, they s9ught him out and invited him to proceed to Bulgaria as a proof of their gratitude for his defence of their fellows. Pavelic accepted this invitation and left for Bulgaria in the company of Percec. . " It is alleged that, after the expulsion of Pavelic from Austrian territory, I assisted Percec m collecting the emigres still in Vienna, and that I organised their activities. These allegations are absolutely false. The emigres in Austria were never organised. In any case, they were very few in number and, as fellow-countrymen, naturally saw something of each other, though ~ot very much. It is also untrue that there existed at that time two groups of emigres, the one illegal and terrorist, and the other legal and engaged in propaganda. The truth is that no group was ever founded.

"~t is also untrue that the newspaper Cric was originally edited by Branimir Jehlic, with the ass1stance of Luka Ferdilio and Neumann-Furjakovich, and that I gradually possessed myself of the ~ditorship. The Cric was not edited by Branimir Jehlic, but by Perccc, who had been a prof~tonal journalist in Zagreb. It is true that in 1930 and 1931, Luka Ferdilio collaborated ~r ~tune in the Croat edition of the paper, before his confinement in a lunatic asylu~. Neum.ann-

UT]akovich never had any share in editing the Cric; be confined himself to supplymg occasional trans~ations of Slav articles, at the usual rates of pay. Branimir J ehlic merely sent the paper OCCastonal articles.

"It is untrue that I gradually possessed myself of the editorship of the paper. It is, ~o~eve.r, a fact that a postal box at the Siidbahnhof was indicated on the wrapper. Ivan Kodamc IS still the owner of that box.

- tOO -

" !t is also a fact that Percec had a large apartment, consisting probably of four bedr and the usual offices, and that the sisters Jelka and Marie Pogorelec also lived there. I a 00lllS aware that meetings of terrorists were held in Percec's apartment. I myself never aid m not than twenty visits to the three apartments in which Percec lived during his stay of appfoxim {~e two years in Vienna. I was never present at any political or terrorist meeting. a e Y

" It is true that I made the acquaintance of Kremzier, Simunovic and Hranilovic at Percec'· apartment, but I never met all three of them together, either at Percec's or anywhere el· ~ Seletkovic I do not know personally. se.

" I t is not true that I was often invited to Percec's house; during my two years' stay in Vienn I was only invited to his apartment on two occasions, once for dinner and once for tea. I a a, not aware that Kremzier acted as courier. m

. " I t is not true that I &ave money to Croat emigres, though I occasionally gave pecuniary ass1stance to needy compatnots.

" It is not true that I was Pavelic's representative in the Croat emigres movement in Austria even after ~ercec had left the co~t:y; I have, ind~ed, never belonged either to an organisatio~ of Croat em~gres or to any Croat pohttcal party. It IS also untrue that General Sarkotic's birthdav was celebrated at the ' Savage' Restaurant, Favoritenstrasse, Vienna, IV. Even had there been such a celebration, it could not be regarded as anything more than a personal tribute to an old general of the former Austro-Hungarian army.

" Marie Pogorelec, the sister of Jelka Pogorelec, fell ill in Hungary, after leaving Austria and only returned to Vienna for medical treatment. Percec told me that she was so feckl~ that he would not think of sending money for her support to her directly, and asked me to allow the money to be sent to me, so that I might hand it to her myself. Percec therefore sent me the money, which I always passed on to Marie Pogorelec. She asked Kodanich, however, to find her work in the despatch department of the Gric, so that she might have something to do. Bm Kodanich found her unsuitable for such work, and only employed her for a short time.

" It is also untrue that I assisted the Croat emigres in Hungary to keep up correspondence with their native country and that I used my friends' addresses for the purpose. I cannot understand how such letters can have been seized in Yugoslavia . I have no recollection ofhal'ing acted as a go-between in the con·espondence between Percec and Jelka Pogorelec on the one hand and Marie Pogorelec on the other; the latter, moreover, only stayed in Vienna abou\ two months.

" I deny having supplied funds for the editing and distribution of the Gric and that I paid Kodanic's expenses. The particulars said to have been supplied by Andrew Gredicek at the Belgrade Prefecture of Police are complete falsehoods in so far as they concern myself. The first time I saw Gredicek was in 1932 at Court II in Vienna , where he was being detained pending expulsion. I sought him out because friends had asked me to look after him. His defence was undertaken by an advocate named Lefford, of Vienna. The second and last time I saw Gredicek was during the summer of 1933 at J ankapuszta, where I had been invited to attend the harvest celebrations. Neither on that nor on any subsequent occasion did I give Gredicek instructions: he did not receive instructions from any other persons in my presence. It is alleged that on November 26th, 1933, Percec gave Gredicek, Pospisil and Petrovic instructions to shoot the ban Perovic on December rst, 1933, and also to carry out another outrage. I know nothing of any such instructions and regard it as impossible that they could have been given, as Percec had left J ankapuszta long before. I also deny having gone to J ankapuszta with Sremski, no person of that name being known to me; nor did I , as Gredicek is alleged to have stated, read a judgmem of Pavelic's to Gredicek, Pospisil or Petrovic.

"Nor did I go to Jankapuszta with Metzger, whom I knew as a captain in the active army during the war.

" I subsequently learned through the Press that Petrovic had, of his own accord, gon~ to the authorities in Yugoslavia and made a statement to the effect that he had received instructions at J ankapuszta to make an attempt on t he lives of Serbian generals on December rst, 1933-Fearing, however, that such an attempt might endanger the lives of innocent persons, be decided not to proceed with it. According to the Press, be was condemned to death by a Yugosla~ co~rt during the summer of 1933, his sentence being commuted to imprisonment for life. It IS satd, however, that he was released and taken into the service of the Yugoslav police. So far as1 know, my name was not even mentioned during his trial.

" Equally unfounded are the statements made by the man Artukovic, who was arrested in Paris, to the effect that I had been the chief of the Croat terrorists in Austria, that I ha~ had daily meetings with Artukovic, Kodanich and Kvaternik during Artukovic's stay in V1e~a, that I had introduced Artukovic to Singer and asked him to lodge with Singer and Kvaternik. As, so far as I know, no group of Croat terrorists ever existed in Austria, I cannot hav.e been the chief of the Croat terrorists in Vienna. As I have said, I made Artukovic's acquamtance at Fiume at the end of 1932 and I again met him just before Christmas 1933 in Vienna, where he called on me, giving the name of Dr. Arnaut. On that occasion, he told me that be ~ad been in Vienna for a few weeks, though he could not give me bis address, which must remam secret; Later on, I met him and spoke to him in the street, the last occasion being, I think, in Budapes after J anuary 6th, 1934. I never asked Artukovic to put up Singer and K vaternik in his apartroen;. in the first place, because I did not know Artukovic's apartment, and, in the second place, beca~se the last occasion on which I saw K vaternik was during the autumn of 1933, when he w~ pa~g through Vienna on the way to Berlin. I never had a meeting at Brescia with Artuko.VIC, eJt ~ alone or accompanied by Pavelic. I never visited the' Oustacha' camp, either alone or w1th Pavelic

-101-

r anyone else. Artukovi~ never asked me to procu!e him a.passport or a f~lse passport. I never 0 sed my influence to obtam a passport for ArtukoVlc, nor d1d I ever send htm a passport. I also d having met Pavelic, Budak, Percec, Jehlic and Lieutenant-Colonel Duic at the • Oustacha' eny at Vischettu in Italy. There is no 'Oustacha' camp at Vischettu, a locality which is in any :~oropletely unknown to.me. Th~ statements mad~ by Peter Gruber to the Yugoslav autho­rities are devoid of foun~lahon: I dtd _not t~e J?art m February 1931, together with Gruber, Pavelic or other Croats, tn a conversation whtch 1s stated to have taken place at Udine iu the Hotel Maltes or any other house. I did not ther~ receive sums of money for propaganda purposes. I ant unaware whether Gruber ever went to Udine or whether he received any instructions there.

1 doubt it, as Gruber claimed to be a Serb and did not therefore enjoy the confidence of the Croats. It was generally known that he was a member of the 'Orjuna ' organisation, which was financed and supported by the Belgrade Government (Organisation of Yugoslav Nationalists), and that n that capacity he had committed various acts of terrorism against Croat s and was suspected of having organised a successful attempt on the life of a young Croat at Osijek.

• It is not true that Gruber at my instigation or with my consent proceeded to Geneva, there to prepare his visit to Bulgaria. I was completely unaware that Gruber had been in Geneva, and I only learned of his journey to Bulgaria to visit the Macedonians a few days before he left, when be came to see me, and on leaving showed me his railway ticket to Bulgaria. He told me that the Macedonians had invited him to a conversation. I did not give him any letter of introduction to persons in that country. During my holiday I learned from the Press that he was in Bulgaria. When he came to see me in the autumn of 1931, he told me that he was not entirely satisfied with his journey to Sofia, where he had been somewhat coldly received. There is also no truth in his statement that, during his stay in Bulgaria, I sent a congratulatory telegram to the Macedonians.

·Gruber's statement that I became the chief of the Croat movement after 1931 is devoid of foundation. Nor was I the chief of Croat emigres in Hungary, as during the period of almost three years to which his statements relate I only visited J ankapuszta on four occasions, when my visits were invariably of very short duration.

• As to Gruber's assertion that I was the real publisher of the Gric and that I was in touch with supporters of my ideas outside the country, I wish to deny that part of his statement which relates to the Gric. It is, on the other hand, a fact that, as previously, I kept in touch with those who sympathised with my ideas or merely with fellow-countrymen living abroad. But our intercourse remained within the limits usual between acquaintances and friends. I have already slated that I had no dealings whatsoever with terrorists. I admit having occasionally spoken to Pecnikar during his stay in Vienna. He was studying at the Vienna Higher School of Inter­l'21ional Trade. I never heard that Pecnikar was a terrorist or that he had any share in terrorist artiri ties.

• I only spoke to Singer or saw him on two occasions during his short stay in Vienna. I had no conversation with him either regarding terrorist acts or politics.

·The allegation that I had persons designated by lot with a view to an attempt on King Alexander's life at Marseilles is a lie, as I have not been in Hungary since April 1934. I again wish to emphasise the fact that, throughout the month of September, I was not absent from Vienna even for as much as an hour. I can further produce several witnesses who will confirm that I was not absent from Vienna for a single day throughout September 1934.

• It is not true that I was a member of Pavelic's committee and that as such I was present at the meeting at which the attempt upon the King of Yugoslavia's life was decided upon. I was never a member of Pavelic's committee and I never took part in a meeting at which an attempt upon the life of t he King of Yugoslavia or anyone else was decided upon.

• I did not receive instructions from anyone to leave for Italy at the beginning of October. I had already received an invitation to leave at the beginning of September 1934 for Lake Garda I was obliged to postpone my journey on account of the unveiling of the War .\1em~rial in Vienna on September 8th and 9th, which, as a former Austrian officer, I did not wish to nuss. Then my wife fell ill. After her recovery we had intended leaving for Italy on September 29th, 1934. Our departure was again postponed by the sudden death of Lieutenant­CoOclonel (retired) Stevo Duic, a friend of my youth, so that we were unable to leave Vienna before . tober 7th, 1934. My journey was therefore postponed for a whole month through unforeseen

Ctrcumstances.

·As I am unwilling to implicate friends whose hospitality I have enjoyed in a case with which they haye not the least connection, and being moreover persuaded that such a proceeding would ~.nothmg to shed new light on the secret history of the Marseilles outrage, I refuse for the time

tng to supply any particulars concerning them. " I do not possess a second passport and still less a false passport. "Were there any truth in the-entirely false-statement that all the ' Croat leaders ' including

mys.elf had been invited to go to Italy, I would certainly not have taken my wife with me. I would obv!o~!Y h.ave had no reason to leave Desenzano if I had had on my conscience even theslig~test COrnphc1ty m the Marseilles assassination or if I had had any share whatsoever in the preparations ~;an~ knowledge of what had been planned. I had, moreover, always been hostile to acts of

rronsm and especially to attempts at assassination. Fr "1 categorically deny the statements made about me by Mijo Kralj. . who was arrested in

ance, to the effect that I had succeeded Percec in the command of the emzgres at Jankapuszta, ~~ that, as their spiritual, if not military leader, I had paid frequent and perhaps even mon~y VISits to Jankapuszta to give instructions to the persons living there. As I have already satd,

-102-

I have in the course of the last two years only paid four visits to Jankapuszta, the last OCCa. being at Easter 1934, and I always went as an invited guest. I also deny having worked f 510n transfer of the camp from Jankapuszta to Nagykanisza. Since April 1934, I have not ~r ~e Hungary. en I!!

"Equally devoid of foundation is Mijo Kralj's assertion that I arrived at Nagykan· September 24th, 1934, that there I collected fifteen Croat terrorists whom I divide~ on three groups, and that, from among the members of these three groups of five terrorists I sel~~ the three persons now in custody in France on a charge of complicity in the Marseilles outr by drawing lots \vith black and white balls. At that time, I was, in point of fact, neithe age Nagykanizsa nor in Hungary, as I have already stated on several occasions. I have also repeat~! stated that I bad no share in the preparation of the assassination. Y

" As will appear from the previous official record, I was in Vienna on September z4th 1 on which date I entertained a number of people at my own private address. If necessary' ~~34, persons who are still in Vienna might be beard as witnesses. I can, moreover, call witn~ ~ establish my alibi for the days both prior and subsequent to that date. 0

"As I have already stated for the purpose of a previous official record, the only one of the persons mentioned in connection with the King's assassination whom I know is Eugene Kvaternik the son of Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Slavko Kvaternik, an old schoolfellow of mine. As regar<h the other persons mentioned in connection with King Alexander's assassination at Marseilles they are not known to me personally under either their real or assumed names. The only perso~ I know by name is Zvonimir Pospisil. I am aware that he had a share in the assassination of the lo~alist ':!'oni Schlege~ by. Mijo ~abic in 1929, but when Mijo ~ralj, who ~s sai.d .to have been unphcated m the assassmahon, clanns to have appealed for my assistance dunng his Imprisonment at Klagenfurt some eighteen months ago, and asserts that I used my influence with the Austrian authorities on his behalf, he is entirely mistaken. Mijo Kralj is unknown to me. I have never used my influence on behalf of any person of that name with either the Austrian or the Hungarian authorities. Nor do I know any person named Gavra Novanovic, or a former Hungarian captain named Lackovsky.

" I only saw Stephen Marusic for a few moments in Germany in 1931. He was the secrela!y of a Croat relief society in Belgium. During a certain period, I exchanged a number of letters with him regarding relief matters. Since 1932, however- that is, before he left Belgium-! had discontinued all correspondence and other dealings with him. I have not the slightest ideaof Marusic's whereabouts since 1932 or at the present moment. In short, il wish to stare as categorically as possible that I did not play any outstanding part in the Croat Movementan:l that I had nothing to do with the Marseilles outrage, notwithstanding the testimony of the pe~ arrested in France or now in Yugoslavia, and, more particularly, of Peter Gruber, Jelka Pogorrlft, Andrew Gredicek, etc.

" It is my personal opinion that the persons arrested in France, who apparently know me by I name, have only mentioned me in order to cover the real instigator. I also believe that the persas l now in Yugoslavia have been compelled to give evidence against me, as ever since the Pet11 Gruber business, a systematic campaign has been proceeding against me in Yugoslavia. Peter Gruber was, indeed, unsuccessful in the organisation of an attempt upon my life in October 1931".

{Signed) Dr. STURMINGER. {Signed) Ivan PERCEVIC.

* * *

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up on November 23rd, 1934, with Lieutenant-Colonel Ivan Percevic, who made the following statement:

" As regards the allegation that letters from me were found at the home of Branimir Jelic, in Berlin, I wish to make the following statement:

" I kept up a private correspondence with Branimir Jelic, with whom I am acquainted, as our ideas regarding the movement for the liberation of the Croats were roughly identical. I~~· however, decidedly hostile to terrorist methods, as I have already stated on severa~ oc~sJon~. I am unaware of J elic's ideas on that question, although I used to correspond With him on questions of general politics and more particularly on Croat affairs, and although, moreover~ I used to send him reviews which, I thought, might be of interest to him. I also 'vr?te to~ describing the views of other Croats, as I kept in touch, though on the main on a social f<>?tJng, with many of my fellow-countrymen. If any of my letters included the assertion that 'hberl) could only be won at the price of bloodshed '- which I do not recollect, as it is alread~ somE years since I wrote those letters-it could only have been in quoting a Serbian saying; 1t ~·as, indeed, frequently said in Serbian circles and written in Serbian newspapers that a peop; including, therefore, the Croat people-could only win freedom through blood and th~t pac m was merely a sign of weakness. The Serbs are indeed proud of having conquered t~e1r fre1on: - that is to say, the aggrandisement of their kingdom- by wading 'in blood'. It IS clear ro~ the tone of my letters that I was writing to him as one friend to another and not as the h~th of an organisation or as someone playing a leading part in a movement. I am reproached Wl .

having spoken in my letters of attacks upon railway trains prepared, according to the Yugosl~h Press, in Austria. But that was only natural, as great interest was taken in these outrages:: ill in Yugoslavia and Austria and also abroad. As a Croat, I was especially keenly interest

- I03-

these attacks, and I .was all.the more sh~ked by them as the Austrian authorities used them as etext for molestmg me m common Wlth others of my countrymen living in Austria. I was

3 P~nced that these attacks had n.ot been c~mmitted by Croat emigres. con • I have no very clear r.ecollect~on of remtttances of money mentioned, it is said, in certain letters; it is true that from tun~ to bm~ .I sent ~oney to~· J elic .and others, but this was merely to oblige, ~ I was not myself m a pos1hon to g1ve pecuruary ~s1stance. to the Croat Movement. These rem1ttan~es are acco?Jlted for by the fact that I ~ometrmes rece~ved money from certain of my compatnot~ supportmg the movement f~r ~roat hberty who destred to remain unknown. Bot I merely. rece1ved ~uch funds for retrans!llisslO~ to other persons I owe my popularity in Croat circles m the ~am to the reports published m the Yugoslav Press. The diversity of the urrencies will, I beheve, suffice to prove that the sums received really were gifts.

c I deny that the whole correspondence between Jelic and Pavelic passed through my hands. I also exchanged letters with Marko Filip Vujeva and other compatriots, but I also used to correspond with persons other than Croats. The fact that, when my home was searched on October 23rd, I934, no trace was found either of correspondence or anything else of even a slightly suspicious character is to be explained by the private nature of my correspondence and by the fact that I was in the habit of throwing away the letters which I received from my friends after reading them. Had I kept up a correspondence as head of the movement or as one of its officials, I should certainly not have failed to keep either the letters themselves or copies.

"As regards assumed names, I may say that since rgrg Pavelic has been known first as 'Adam' and later as' Lino '. I cannot now remember who was known as' Effendi' and' Aga '. All that, indeed, goes back some years. It would appear that the persons who used those names were not very important. I can no longer say whether ' Sorello ' was the same person as Mikovic. As regards my alleged activities in connection with the Gric, I have already explained the real position. I cannot understand how a paper bearing the heading and stamp of the Gric, together \\ith roy own name, can have been found at Branimir J elic's address. The signature 'Ivan Percevic 'on the photostat copy of that letter is not in my handwriting. I do not know by whom my signature was forged or who could have made unauthorised use of it. I do not believe that it could have been Dr. J elic. In any case, it seems to me somewhat illogical to have placed my name on an • Attestation ' intended to be shown to third parties when the heading of the news­paper gave Ivan Kodanic, the painter, as publisher, proprietor, poly-copyist and responsible editor. As regards the receipts for postal matter addressed to me and found in Berlin, these can oolyrefer to letters and reviews which friends were in the habit of sending me until very recently. As regards the receipt from Klagenfurt, I can only explain its being found in Berlin by the fact that someone passing through Klagenfurt posted a letter to me and took the receipt on to Berlin. \never corresponded with anyone living at Klagenfurt.

(Signed) Dr. STURMINGER. (Signed) Ivan PERCEVIC,

* * *

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up together with Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Ivan Percevic, who made the following statement:

"I wish to add to my previous statements that I was on friendly terms with Dr. Pavelic, M. Percec, M. Jelic and certain other Croats who passed through Vienna and that I therefore also exchanged letters with them. Thanks to my social position, I enjoyed their confidence to some extent, although I was never a member of any organisation or party. I cannot say how far these gentlemen informed me of political matters. In any case, I have the feeling that I was not completely initiated. It was impossible for me to give Dr. Jelic orders or instructions, or myself to receive orders from M. Pavelic, for the simple reason that my relations with him and also with Jelic were not those of a superior to a subordinate. I have moreover stated on several occasions that I never belonged to any organisation whatsoever. It is quite clear from the to~e of the letters that all I could give them would be advice, but never orders. I also informed Pavelic that I was on friendly terms with J elic.

"As regards the money remittances received at my address or sent by me to other addresses. the facts are as follows: . "From 1929 on, the Yugoslav Press, on several occasions, mentioned my name and my

VIenna. address (7, Karolinengasse, IV). In these articles, I was spoken of in connection with the arnval of Pavelic and Percec in Vienna and my apartment was mentioned as the headquarters of the Croat lmigres. From that time on, I received letters from Croat emigres all over the wo.rld and from persons who were completely unknown to me even by name. I should li~e. to poiDt out that approximately one-third of the Croat people, some 1,500,000 people, are l~vmg abroad; they have, that is to say, emigrated, more particularly to America. These letters conta~ned, ~ot only other letters for Pavelic or other Croat leaders whose address was unknown to the wnters, ~talso funds either in cash or in the form of cheques. When such sums reached me-tbe a'!loun.ts

~~re generally small- ! remitted them at first to Pavelic in person, as long as he re~amed m Ienna, and subsequently when be had left I wrote asking him what I should do wJth them.

Pa li ' ' A th n1 r ve c then requested me to send the money to him or to oth~r C~oats. s ese sums o Y eached me from time to time, I did not feel bound to keep anything m the nature of an account. 1 found these remittances rather a nuisance, first, because they gave me work, and, secondly, because I did not very much care for handling money without any form of check. I am not m

- I04-

a position to specify the total amount which I thus received, as the remittances reached m irregular intervals. Certainly, the funds which passed through my hands did not represe et at total which could have been of any importance to the Croat Movement. n a

" I never had anything to do with the management of the newspaper Gric. I too am opinion that Kodanic was merely a name (a man of straw) and I regard it as probable that Perceof who was a journalist by profession, continued editing the paper from Hungary after being forbidd c, to reside in Austria. The note which was found in my apartment and which bore the beam:n and stamp of the Gric, and what appeared to be my signature, was not written by me. The expe~ will have little difficulty in satisfying themselves that the signature was forged. I cannot tell you who the probable author of this forgery can have been.

" It is also untrue that journalists from all over the world either living in or passing through Vienna received information through me. On many occasions, journalists applied to me for my opinion on certain Yugoslav events or public persons, and whenever I was in a position to supply them with particulars I did not fail to do so. Nevertheless, I never conducted propaganda through the Press, nor have I ever carried on propaganda against Yugoslavia; I confined myself to a simple statement of the facts.

"As regards my dealings with Artukovic, Singer and Kvaternik, I may again repeat that I knew Artukovic at Fiume in t he autumn of 1932 and that I was never at Brescia in his company. Artukovic ~a~e to see me in Vienna in December 193$· I again sa~ ~im by c~ance in Budapest at the begmmng of January 1934 and, for the last tJme, when I vistted lum m the hospital at Marko Dosen, where he was lying ill. I have never corresponded with him.

" I also met Singer on several occasions withou t his ever speaking to me of his activities or terrorist schemes.

"As I have already said on several occasions, I have known Kvaternik since his childhood, and the last occasion on which I spoke to him was in the autumn of 1933 when be was leaving for Berlin. ·

" I did not give the names of these three persons-viz., Artukovic, Singer and Kvaternik­to the police, as I did not know that they were wanted or had committed any offence.

" Like M. Furiakovich and M. Pierro Pierotic, I only knew Colonel (retired) Nesic of the former Austro-Hungarian army in a social way. As far as I know, these gentlemen took not th~ least interest in politics. I am not in touch with the ' Tomeslav ' Students' Association, though I know a few of its members. So far as I know, Joseph Mrnic plays no part in political or terrorut organisations. As I have already said, I visited Andrew Gredicek in the prison of a Vienna coun on learning through friends that he was being detained with a view to extradition. The last time I spoke to him was in August 1933, when I was staying at J ankapuszta. On that occasion, I met Pavelic there and naturally Percec also. It was the latter who had invited me. PE'rcec bad never warned me that Pavelic would be there too. I was not wearing the uniform of the 'Oustacha' for the simple reason that I did not possess one. In any case, I do not belong to that organisation. The people at Jankapuszta did not wear uniform, but were dressed in ordinary peasant costumt. Anyone could enter Jankapuszta without hindrance. So far as I recollect, even identity paper) were not required. In any case, it would have been impossible to insist on such papers, as the people at J ankapuszta lodged in houses in the immediate vicinity of the distillery and in a house belongmg to a neighbouring farm. The distillery and the house in question did not belong to the property leased by Percec and were inhabited by persons unconnected with it. I do not know who the owner of Jankapuszta is or was. Percec had merely rented it. It was only through J elka Pogorelec's pamphlet that I learned that Percec had lived there under the name of Horvath.

" As to my visits to Jankapuszta, I may say that, on the first occasion, I went there to se: Percec and to advise him as a friend to break with J elka Pogorelec. I had indeed learned that hJS relations with Pogorelec were being resented in emigre circles. I did not pass the night at Janka­puszta and only stayed there for a few hours. My impression is that, at that time, ten Croat emigres were employed there as labourers.

" On the second occasion, I went to Jankapuszta on Percec's invitation for the h;u:ye;t festival during the summer of 1933. I met Pavelic there and, as I have already said, Gredtc~k.

" At the end of October or the beginning of November, I visited J ankapuszta for the thtr? t ime. I went there to advise Percec to withdraw from Jankapuszta, since Jelka Pogo~elec~ publications had made his position untenable. I did not speak to him as a superior as I did ~ot belong to the organisation. I confined myself to advising him as a friend who had known htm since the war.

" In the first half of April, I made a fourth journey to Jankapuszta. At that time, I 'ras making a stay of about a month in Budapest. One of my acquaintances, M. Bencze, living on the R6zsadomb in Budapest, told me that he had heard that Jankapuszta was to be wound up: M. Bencze, who was himself the owner of a property or farm, requested me to go to Jan~apuszta to find out whether the report was true and, if so, whether the assets to be liquidated mcluded breeding-stock which might be picked up cheap. Being anxious to oblige him, I left for Jankapuszt~ and spoke with Percec's successor, whom everyone dignified with the title of captain. I do 110

know his name. I had met him on a previous occasion in Pavelic's company. I promptly retur~4 to Budapest, and my stay at Jankapuszta on that occasion only lasted a few hours. I only passe< the night there twice, once during my second and once during my third visit. ..

" I do not know any other emigres or 'Oustacha!' camps. It was only through Yugosl~,· ne~~ papers that I learned the names of other alleged camps, without ever being able to verify th -reports. .

" It is true that Dr. Jelic stayed with me for twenty-four hours during his short visit to VIe~n~ and that he was arrested ' wegen Reversion ' in my apartment at the request of the Yugo a authorities.

-105-

«As 1 have already said, I have kept no letters or copies of letters. That is why no corres-dence was found in my apartment on the numerous occasions when it was searched by the

poli e I also wish to say that I have no bank balance or strong box at a bank in Austria. Apart ~~ ilie persons mentioned above, I did not go to see any other emigres in Hungary. fr • 1 did not take part in any meeting in .1931 either at Udine or in any other place in Italy with Gruber, Pavelic, Percec and Servaci. I onl~ know Servaci by name. It is a fact that I was . Italy during the autumn of 1931. I met Pavehc at Verona and from there I went to Oberbozen ror a holiday. _I am, indeed, acquainted with a ~ert3:~ ' B~go ', but h~ is not th~ same person as Servaci; he is mdeed a fellow-countryman of mme hvmg m Yugoslavta. That IS why I do not know his name.

• As regards the alleged forged 1,ooo-dinar notes, the case has been very thoroughly examined, . 50 far as it concerns me, by t he Austrian authorities. On that occasion, it was proved beyond ~y possibility ?f doubt that there was not the slightest foundation for the suspicions cast on me in Yugoslavta.

"r had no dealings with Macedonians. I do not know Hadju Trajovic and Wlada Georgieff either personally or by name. Kosta Georg Nikoloff I met a year or two ago in Vienna in the Bulgarian Pavilion at the Autumn Fair. The second occasion on which I saw him was last spring, when he greeted me in a Vienna cafe where we had met by chance.

" I cannot give you any fuller information either to clear up the Marseilles assassination or to help to trace its authors or their accomplices. I myself was shocked and deeply moved by this outrage. New accusations notwithstanding, I persist in assuring you that I was not in any way connected either with this crime or its perpetrators."

(Signed) Dr. STURMINGER. (Signed) ivan PERCEVIC.

Annex 24. ~o. Fon.2S/I934·

Ri.PORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ROYAL HU~GARIAK MINT CONCERN ING Til E ALLEGATIONS IN THE YUGOSLAV REQUEST.

To the Minister of the Interior.

The Royal Hungarian Prefecture of State Police of Budapest informs me that the complaint br_ought before the League of Nations by Yugoslavia contains the assertion that the Royal Hungarian Mmt has struck coins for the use of Croat emig,es.

The complainant State has endeavoured to lend colour to its complaint by referring to the statement of the Yugoslav expert that the coins in question clearly possess the characteristic features of the products of the Royal Hungarian Mint.

The Prefecture of Police has also asked me to submit a report to Your Excellency on this matter.

In view of the foregoing facts, I venture to give you the following information: Apart from the legal currency of Hungary, Bulgaria and Egypt-the currency of these two

last_-named States having been struck and supplied by our workshops under a regular order obtained b~ mternational competition, our tender having been the most favourable-the Royal Hungarian ~lmt in Budapest has never struck or produced coins for any other foreign States, for nationals of foreign States, Qr for other entities. No employee of the Royal Hungarian Mint has any know­le?ge of coins having been struck for Croat emigres, and no employee of th<> Royal Hungarian Mmt has seen such coins or a depiction of them.

In support of her complaint, Yugoslavia merely adduces the statement of her expert. As regards that expert opinion, I should like to be allowed to make the following observations: T~e striking (moulding) of coins, medals or plaquettes can be divided into two groups of

operations-namely, the m odelling, and the st, iking in the proper sense of the term. The models are made by well-known artists, who are skilled in modelling small objects.

Consequently, a numismatist or a sculptor with a knowledge of the mod~Uing of s~'!"ll obj~cts may be able to discover who bas made the model of a coin or plaquettP, 1f the arttst s destgns and style possess marked individuality. :;~ . The manufacture-striking or pressing-of coins, medals and plaqu~ttes constitute~ an entrrely separate series of operations. These are mechattical optrali011S earned out by marhtnery under the supervision of engineers.

These operations are performed by every mint. All mints have a t all times endeavoured to use the most up-to-date and perfect machinery

for this purpose.

- Io6-

The advantages of the new machines are, on the one hand, a higher output, and, on the a reduction in the cost of production, the articles produced being just as perfect as those :er, out by the old machines. · ed

Mints in general, including the Royal Hungarian Mint, do not manufacture these high-capa 't machines themselves but obtain them from a factory. CJ Y

The machinery used for striking coins may be, and has been, acquired, not only by theRo Hungarian Mint, but by other mints and private establishments engaged in the manufacturyal i.e., the striking or pressing-<>£ coins, medals and plaquettes. e-

It is well known in technical circles that such machines can be and are to be found not onl in the possession of the Royal Hungarian Mint, but also in similar establishments bel~nging t~ other States.

The work done by the machines is determined by identical factors, and consequent) the products turned out by those machines will also be identical. Y

In these circumstances, no reliable expert can ascertain or assert that a coin, medalorplaquette has been manufactured by some particular mint, unless the stamp of the mint appears on it.

The resemblance of any decoration can never be attributed to a particular mint, but depends solely and in every case on the artist who has modelled the coin, etc.

Consequently, the statement made by the Yugoslav expert cannot be regarded either as the opinion of a reliable expet t or as evidence.

Budapest, December 27th, 1934. (Signed} Frigyes KAHLE,

Ministerial Counselkr, Director of the Royal Hungarian Mint.

Annex 25 a.

Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Hungarian Army (HonvM).

OFFICIAL RECORD.

Drawn up in Budapest, at the office of the Second-in-Command of the Honved Army (I, Disz.-ter. 17, mez7-anine floor, No.4). before the Commission appointed by His Excellency the Commander­in-Chief of the Honved Army, on November 30th, 1934, in regard to the examination of M. vitez Julius To6kos, Colonel, retired, concerning reports which have appeared in the Yugoslav Press.

Present, in addition to the above-named: Waldemar Vogt, General of Infantry, Chairman of the Commission; vitez Ferencz Szombathelyi, Colonel, member of the Commission; Lajos Szurmay, Lieutenant-Colonel, drafter of the record; Roland Utassy, Captain, technical adviser.

r. Colonel T ookos, have y<nt been, either directly or indirectly, in tottch with Croat emigres residing it~ Hungary?

I employed one Croat emigre as an agricultural labourer, but cannot remember his na~e. Nor do I remember the names of three friends of his who came to see him when they were passmg my farm , and who were also employed in the neighbourhood. This may have been in the autumn of 1931.

2. 1/ so, with whom and whett? What were the object and extent of these relations ?

In the autumn of 1931, a person named Nikolaj, who was permanently settled with his wife at Debreczen, came to see me there; he asked me whether I would not employ a Croat refugee ~n my farm. As I had myself taken refuge abroad during the commune, I felt sorry for refugees 1_n general, and as I also thought I should find him an honest and cheap worker, who, in view of his position, would appreciate his job, I agreed to employ him on my farm. I thus got into touch with one Croat emigre and his friends, who were also working in the neighbourhood of Debreczen, and who, as I have just said, came to see him.

It was impossible for me to have any intercourse with this person, as I do not know ~roat~an and he did not know any other language; I could not, therefore, have discussed politics wtth him-

-107-

M dealings with him were confined to what was strictly necessary, and required the help Y dictionary which I bought for the purpose.

of a Owing to the difficulty of ~omm~icating with him, and as I was also dissatisfied with his work,

1 dismissed him after about stx or eight weeks. He then found employment on the farm of vitez ctras Huszar, a Protest:mt ~to~. . .

An Neither before nor smce this mcident have I bad any other dealings with Croat emigres.

3- 1/ no political relations existed between you, to what chance occurrence do you attribute the fact that yotlr name has been mentioned in the Y ugo-slav Press and grotmdless suspicions have been formulated against you ?

I have no idea. I have heard it said that the person whom I bad employed threw up his job with the Protestant pastor, vitez Huszar, and returned to Croatia, where he may have mentioned the fact that be had been in my employ. .

4. Has your deposition been correctly recorded ?

Have you anything else to add ?

My deposition has been correctly recorded. I should like to add that I have never been to Jankapuszta, and it is therefore untrue that

1 acted as mediator in the dispute among the Croat emigres.

The official record was then read over, closed., and signed.

Done on the above date. (Signed) vitez JUlius To6Kos, Colon~l (retired},

as the party interrogated.

(Signed) Waldemar VoGT, General of Infantry, Chairman of the Commission.

(Sig1Jed) vitez Ferencz SZOMBATHELYI, Colo1Jel, Member of the Commissio".

(Signed) Roland UTASSY, Captain, Member of the Commission.

(Signed) Lajos SzuRMAY, Lieutenant-Colonel, Drafter of the Record.

Annex 25 b.

Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Hungarian Army (Honved).

OFFICIAL REcoRD.

Drawn up in Budapest, at the office of the Second-in-Command of the Honv~ Army (I, Disz.-ter. 17, mezzanine floor, No. 4), hefore the Commission appointed by His Excellency the Commander-in-Chief of the Honved Army, on November 30th, 1934, in regard to the examination of M. vitez Andras Huszar, Protestant pastor, concerning reports which have appeared in the

Yugoslav Press.

Present, in addition to the above-named: Waldemar Vo~t, General of Infantry, Chairman of the Commission; vitez Ferencz Szombathelyi, Colonel, member of the Commission; Lajos Szurmay, Lieutenant-Colonel, drafter of the record; Roland Utassy, Captain, technical agent.

I. ~astor H uszdr, have you been, either directly or ~n-directly, in touch with Croat emigres residing in Htmgary?

. My dealings with them were confined to the employment of three Croat refugees on the estate which I received as a member of the Order of the Brave and which is situated in the neighbourhood ofDebrecen. One was named Fragcc, another Ivek, but I cannot remember the name of the third.

2· lf so, with whom and when ? What were the object and extent of these relations ?

In the autumn of 1931, a man named Nikolaj, who had settled with his wife ,at Debrecen, came to see me; be asked me whether I was willing to employ Croat refugees on my farm. As I

- ro8 -

thought they would be prepared to accept low wages and work hard, and would appreciat the job in view of their precarious position, I agreed to employ them. Their wages were 10 pen 0e

._, month , in addition to board and lodging. At the end of some two months, Fragec ran aw! sper was followed by his companions a few weeks later. The total length of time they remained with and may have been about three months. I do not know whe~e they wen_t after they ran away. me

As we were unable to speak to each other, we were obhged to use Signs, and our intercourse w confined exclusively to agticultural matters. Any political discussion between us was thusobviou f impossible. s)

3· If no political relatiOtJS existed between you, to what chance occurrence do yme attribute the fact that your name has been mentioned in the Yugoslav Press and groundless SttSpiciOtJS have been formulated against yot~ ?

I have no idea. I heard that, after they had run away, the persons I had employed returned to Croatia, and it is possible that they then mentioned my name.

4· Has your deposition been correctly recorded ? Have you anything else to add ?

My deposition has been correctly recorded. I should like to add that I have never been to Jankapuszta. My acquaintance with Croat

refugees has been confined to the three persons mentioned; it is therefore untrue that I had regular dealings with Croat emigres or helped to settle a dispute that had arisen at J ankapuszta.

The official report was then read out, closed, and signed.

Done on the above date. (Sig,ned) vitez Andras Husz.AR,

To the Prefect of Police.

as the party interrogated.

(Signed) Waldemar VoGT, General of Infamtry, Chaimum of the Commission .

(Signed) vitez Ferencz SZOMBATHELYI, Colone~. Member of the Commission.

(Signed) Roland UTASSY, Captain,

Member of the Commission.

(Signed) Lajos SzuRMAY, Lieutenant-Colonel. Drafter of the Record.

Annex l6.

The Yugoslav Government, in its memorandum to the League of Nations, asserted that the Budapest police had issued passports to certain Yugoslav emigres. We have made an enquiry into this matter, and I have the honour to report the results.

We have carefully examined all the particulars given in the Yugoslav memorandum. We will begin with those contained in Chapter V. .

Paragraphs t and 2 of this chapter charge the Budapest police with having issued identlly and travel papers for the Macedonian revolutionaries D1mitrie Salev, Gligorije Atanasov, and Dr. Branimir J elic. .

It has been established during the enquiry that, at the time in question, the above-ment~oned persons did indeed receive identity and travel papers from the Budapest Prefecture of Police.

The Prefecture of Police was authorised to issue them be~ause the Hungarian Government had accepted the recommendation of the League of Nations (document C.ss8(b).M.zoo.I927· VIII of November 22nd, 1927) advising the issue of such papers in all States Members of the Lea~e. Under this recommendation, it is the right, if not the duty, of the authorities of the ~c~dlllg States to give an identity and travel paper to any person domiciled within the jurisd1ct10n of the authority concerned and not able to obtain a passport in his own country for the reasons mentioned in the recommendation.

Paragraph 3 asserts that the Budapest police issued a passport, No. 400768/83720, on J un~ 2ed3rd, 1934, for Stjepan Peric, while paragraph 4 states that Andrija Artukovic likewise rece1v a passport, No. 404509J3I4546, dated February sth, I934. from the Budapest police.

Since the enquiry, which was carried out with the utmost care, showed definitely that ~e names of Peric and Artukovic are not to be found in the card index of the passport servtce. although photographs of the two passports in question are reproduced on pages 32 and 33 of the

- tog-

oslav memorandum, it is ~bvious that they are either complete or partial forgeries, or that yuge deception has been practised by some pers?n unknown and has led .to the apparently legal ~tlle of two passports. The latter assumption 1s based on the facts whtch came to light in the iSSU uiry-i.e., that the registry numbers of the files, as shown on the photographs of the passports e~~eric and Artukovic, really belong to the files of other persons, and concern other dates. 0 The number 83720, which is seen on the passport of Peric, belongs to the file of M. Paul

director of a joint-stock company, the file having been opened on December r6th, 1928; ~~stry number of the passport of Artukovic is that of the file of the widow of Michel Abraham, ~ e 14546, dated May 3rd, 1934. The fact that the passports of Peric and Artukovic bear •

0: ~ry numbers belonging to the files of other persons and concerning different dates leads

re~e conclusion that the unknown authors of the forgery, when filling in the printed application­tonus changed the written numbers, so that those forms, if they have not been stolen, are to : fo~d in the archives elsewhere than in their proper place; or, if they have been stolen, no

1 ace of them remains either in the archives or in the card index.

r In these specific cases, the passports may have been obtained fraudulently in the following manner: the applicants submitted false identification and nationality papers and, once they bad obtained passports, stole the file or had it stolen, or, by changing the number of the application fonn caused it to be filed in some place in the archives where it could not be found.

This is the most perfect method of hoodwinking the passport authorities; it is, at the same time the most dangerous method for those authorities, because passports obtained in this manner are f~rmally valid but fundamentally false.

Naturally, when conducting the enquiry, we were not content merely to note that the registry numbers given were in reality those of other names; by rearranging the figures forming those numbers, we have endeavoured to discover the files of the incriminated passports by devoting considerable time to looking through several hundred thousand files. This fruitless labour suggested the idea that the forgeries had possibly been committed on the passports themselves. In order to clear the matter up, we sent the photographic copies of the passports to the criminal police laboratory, hoping thus to obtain further information which would assist our enquiries.

The expert opinion forms Annex B to the present report. With regard to the allegations in paragraph 5 and in the following and last paragraph, we

proceeded with equal thoroughness, but were unable to obtain any definite results, especially as the photographic copies of the false passports were not supplied to us. The same remark applies to the passport of Percevic, mentioned by M. Yevtitcb, Minister {or Foreign Affairs, in his speech in the Council on December roth .

Lastly, we have carefully examined the specific assertions contained in Chapter X of the \~oslav memorandum, to the effect that Mijo Kralj and his accomplices, who were arrested lc;'oeing concerned in the Marseilles crime, were travelling with Hungarian passports, made ttr in the names of J6zsef Sever , Istvan Ingar, and J anos Bombay. In full consciousness of our responsibility, we declare, on the basis of tbe results of the ,enquiry, that we have never made out passports in those names.

An enquiry which leaves no shadow of doubt has established the facts that :

(a) The existing system of issuing passports presents certain defects, which we have analysed in this report;

(b) The practice followed in the passport service has not in all cases prevented malpractice.

Lastly, there is no doubt that, apart from the inadequate system which has hitherto existed, pesire Vilmanyi, a.ssistant head of the passport office, may also be held responsible for malpractices; mdee?, according to the results of our enquiry, he has neglected to draw the attention of his supenors to the technical difficulties.

I therefore respectfully submit that disciplinary action be taken against the person in question on account of the negligence of which he appears to be guilty.

Budapest, December 23rd, 1934.

Annex 27.

(Sig·ned) Dr. Emeric HE1l~NYI,

Assist.ant Prefect of Police.

(Originally Annex A to Annex 26.)

RESOLUTION 0; THE L EAGUE OF NATIONS A SSE11BLY, ADOPTED AT THE A SSEM BLY'S EIGHTH

ORDINARY SESSION, ON SEPTEMBER 26TR, 1927.

The Assembly:

. Expresses to the Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit its satiSfaction for the work accomplished in the course of the year;

- qo-

Is gratified that the third General Conference on Communications and Transit has acbi successful results on all the items of its agenda and bas contributed to the establishment of cfved relations between the Organisation for Communications and Transit and the States non-mem:r of the League; s

Invites the Advisory and Technical Committee to take in band at an early date the stu of the questions raised during the Conference's debates on the Committee's work; dy

Approves the provisions of the new Statute for the Communications and Transit Organisati for the application of which the Assembly's consent is necessary (No. I of Article 13, paragraph~ and z); r

Attaching special importance to the collection and utilisation of information on communicatio urges the Members of the League to facilitate the collection of the information necessary to ~· Organisation for Communications and Trans~t, in conformi.ty with th~ .res~lutions 3:dopted by th! Conference, and trusts that, wb~n undertaking the collection and utilisation of this informatio the Advisory and Technical Committee will effect a constant improvement in the co-operation, between the Organisation and the experts and administrations of the various countries, particular!~ of the non-European countries, whether Members of the League or not;

And invites the Members of the League to consider favourably the recommendations adopted by the Conference with regard to identity documents for persons without nationality.

* * * League of Nations. c.ss8(b).M.zoo(b).rg27.vnr.

Recommendations su.bmitted by the small Committee and adopt.ed by the Second Committee of the Conference 01~ September 2nd, I927.

The Conference,

Recognising the advantage of an internationally accepted system of identity and traYellin• documents for persons without nationality or of doubtful nationality: 0

Adopted the following recommendations on September 2nd, 1927:

Recommmdation I. It is recommended :

That travelling facilities be accorded, by the issue of a uniform type of document, to per~ who are without nationality or of doubtful nationality in consequence of the war or for c~ arising directly out of war, the non-delimitation of frontiers, or a conflict of laws, pending the international settlement of this matter;

That such facilities, wherever granted, take the form of the issue of a single model documen, identical with the international booklet type of passport recommended in the report annexed to the Final Act of the Passport Conference, signed at Geneva on May r8th, 1926, except as regards the following points:

(a) The title on the cover will be: " Identity and Travelling Document " ; (b) A diagonal black line one centimetre in width will be printed in the left top comer

of the cover; (c) At the foot of the first page, the following two statements will be printed one below

the other:

"r. The holder of the present document is not qualified to obtain a n~tio~ . . . passport " (the blank will be replaced in the document by a printed indication of the country which bas issued it-e.g., Austrian, French, German. Hungarian, etc.).

"z. Information which the authority issuing the identity and travelling document may consider necessary."

(d) In the indications concerning identity and journey, the expression" actual residence • will be substituted for the word " domicile ".

(e) On the fourth page, below the statement as to the countries for which the doc.ument is valid, will be printed in conspicuous characters the words: " The holder is autho~~d t~ return to . . (name of country which issued the document) during the valldJty 0

the present document".

It is understood, however, that each country shall, when issuing the docwnent, have the­right to strike out, in exceptional cases, the reference to the return. It is further understood that countries adopting the present recommendations will continue to accept, under the same­conditions as heretofore, the document valid for the journey but containing no mention of ret~ habitually issued by Governments which shall make a declaration to this effect t(} the Secretana of the League of Nations.

Recommendation II. It is recommended :

(r ) That the Government which bas issued an identity and travelling document shall b~ entitled, if it thinks fit , to extend the validity of the document through its officials at horne 0

-III-

. resentatives abroad; that it should be able in the same way to renew the document or tts repe a new one when the original document has expired, on the understanding that the said pdre~y and travellin£? document may always be withdrawn by the territorial authority of the ten ·h· edtt · country whtc tssu , . . . . .

(2) That the authonhes of the country m which the holder of the tdentity and travelling d()CUlDent happens to be ~ay: if ~he docume~t h~s expired, pre~are a new one;

(3) That the authonty tssumg a new tdentity and travelling document should withdraw the document which has expired.

Recommendation I II. It is recommended : (I) That the period of validity of an identity and travelling document should, in principle,

be six months ; . (2) That, save in certain SJ?Ccial or e~ceptional cases, this document should be valid for all

countries or for as many countnes as posstble; (3) That each Government should be left free to adopt such provisions as it may consider

necessary for the visaing of the document in question, though every endeavour should be made to grant visas under as simple and favourable conditions as possible;

(4) That in the matter of charges levied for the issue of an identity and travelling document and the granting of visas, the provisions set out in the Final Act of the Passport Conference at Geneva of May r8tb, 1926, should be observed, unless special circumstances warrant their modification.

Recommendation IV.

It is recommended that documents issued before the entry into force of the foregoing provisions to persons without nationality or of doubtful nationality should remain valid until the said documents have expired.

The Conference invites the attention of Governments adopting the foregoing recommendations to the following points:

I . The issue of an identity and travelling document does not entitle the holder to claim the protection of the diplomatic and consular authorities of the country which issued it and does not confer on these authorities a right of protection. .

2. Neither the issue of the identity and travelling document nor the entries made thereon can determine or affect the actual status of the holder, particularly as regards nationality, as ~document, though based on presumptions worthy of consideration, cannot prevail against t't¢1Y established status.

3· The above-mentioned four recommendations in no way affect the laws and regulations it the different countries governing the conditions of admission to, and residence and establish­ment in, their respective territories. Nor do they affect the special provisions of the laws and regulations concerning persons to whom the said recommendations apply.

4· The said recommendations in no way affect the resolutions adopted or to be adopted, or the agreements concluded or to be concluded, concerning Russian and Armenian refugees or other similar classes of refugees.

Annex 28.

(Originally Annex B to Annex 26.)

Hungarian Central Judicial Registry, Budapest.

No. r8t/Ony. eln. 1934.

To the Passport Service, Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

With reference to your request of the nth instant, No. 4595/1934.fk.utl., relating to the case of Vilmos Hammer, Dr. Andras Artukovics, Dr. Istvan Pede and Ivan Adavnai-Percevic,

thirtl have the honour to communicate the opinion of the handwriting expert, together with the

Y-five photographic copies sent for examination.

Budapest, December 12th, 1934· [L.S.] (Signed) Dr. Ferencz SELLYE,

Hungarian Central Judicial Registry, Budapest.

No. I8I/I934· Ony. eln.

• • •

To Dr. Ferencz Sellye, General Police Counsellor, Budapest.

General Police Counsellor .

t I have the honour to inform you that the Passport Service of the Prefecture of Police ~pp~ed 0 our Bureau on the nth instant, under No. 4595/I934.fk.utl., and sent to us for exammatlon

- II2-

thirty-five photographs, forwarded by the French police delegate, representing the pa made out in the names of Vilmos Hammer, Dr. Andras Artukovics, Dr. Istvan Peric an~pol rts Adavnai-Percevic. ' van

I was requested to verify the signatures on page 3 of the four above-mentioned pass in the space for the " signature of the authority issuing the passport ", to ascertain whethrrts. printed stamps on the passports were authentic or false, to see whether the photographs r_tr not have been changed, and to determine whether the written text had been forged. Jntg t

As I had at my disposal only ordinary photographs of the passports in question it . impossible for me to make a methodical and minute examination covering all the deta{Js Thas originals alone, of course, permit of an expert examination of handwriting, and of d~fi . e conclusions. That is the general rule, and is the principle adopted in the scientific examina~lle of handwriting. ton

I received information that the numbers appearing in the above-mentioned passports belo according to the evidence derived from the files in the archives, to other names and other perso ng: it may therefore be legitim_ately supposed that all or part of the manuscript text of the passpo~~ has been deleted by chemical means and replaced by another text, that the photographs ha·: bee~ changed, _that t he pr~ted stamps have been tampered with, an.d ~bat t~e signature of tb! official responsible for making out the passports has been forged. It IS Impossible, with only the photographs that have been forwarded, to examine all these possibilities and carry out a mor~ satisfactory study; it would be necessary to have the original passports in one's hands. I attach importance to the chemical examination of the ink used for the text and the signatures to the comparison of that ink with the ink that is generally used in the Passport Service, a~d to a comparison of the ink of the wet stamps applied to the passports with the ink of the Wet

stamps used in the Passport Service. I desire to note and to stress the fact that the photo~raphs. affixed to Hung<l:rian passpons

bear two stamps, one dry and one wet. The photographic copies sent for exammation do not show the dry stamp on the photographs of the original passports.

The pages of the Hungarian passports have a pattern which is fairly visible on some cop:es and not very recognisable on others. I have not been able to ascertain whether, in the latter ca3e the fact of its not being easily visible is due to some imperfection in the copies or to some chemi'ai treatment that the pages have undergone.

In view of the foregoing, therefore, I have not been able to make an exhaustive examinaOOn. I can, however, point out a number of features which may be noted, particularly in the signatlJC$, and which would seem to confirm the hypothesis of forgery. I have found, for example, that the signature in the space for the " signature of the authority issuing the passport ", in the ~"llt made out in the name of Dr. Istvan Peric, and the original signature of the police official in que:.1iGn, differ appreciably. I will give an exact account of the discrepancies when I have been able to make a microscopic examination of the passports in question.

Budapest, December 12th, 1934.

IJ2IOoj VIII .B.U. 1935·

[L. S.]

Annex 29.

(Signed) Ferencz PuszTASZERI, Polt'ce Expert.

CIRCULAR TO ALL AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ISSUING OF PASSPORTS, CONCERNI~G THE METHODS TO BE FOLLOWED IN ESTABLISHING PASSPORTS.

Any person desiring to obtain a passport must apply personally to the competent authority - i.e., in communes, to the mayor's secretary or to the district secretary; in towns, to the Prefecture of Police, and, within the jurisdiction of the Budapest State Police, to the Passport Office of the Budapest Prefecture of Police. .

Only persons who can prove that they were prevented by serious reasons (illness, official obligations, etc.) from applying in person may be exempted from doing so. In such cases, tht passport may be prepared at the request of a person belonging to the family of the party concern~ duly empowered for the purpose and able to prove his identity, or of some other suitable adu i person having a proper power of attorney.

The applicant, or his representative, must sign the two copies of the application in the pit~: indicated for this purpose. He must also sign the two photographs that must accompany t: application. . .

In submitting his application, the party concerned must prove that he bas been _domt~~ed for at least six months within the area under the jurisdiction of the authority which 1s to~-sue the passport. If he has been domiciled for less than six months within this area, be must pr t~ a certificate issued by the Mayor's office of the commune, or, alternatively, by the. Pref~c ce of Police of the town, in which he was previously resident, attesting t he duration of this r~siden hf and the occupation he followed, and, on the back of the two photographs to be s':pplied, 1

;1 Mayor's office, or the Prefecture of Police, of the locality of the applicant's former residence mu attest his identity.

- II3 -

Should the pa:ty conce~ed not be in. possession of this ~tte~tation ~hen submitting his est the authonty responsible for prepanng the passport application shall1tself procure it, and

r~ al~o take care to see that the identity of the interested party is duly attested on the back 5 f the two photographs. 0 If the party concerned was previous}~ permanently resident abroad, he must prove the date of his return to the country by l!l~ans of h1s p~~rt. If the au~hority responsible (or the issuing f passports concludes, on exammmg the appbcant s paper, that 1t needs more definite information

0 cerning the sojourn of the party concerned abroad, it shall, as an exceptional measure, apply ~~nthe competent HUt;~gari~n diplomatic or consular authority abroad. It shall accompany its

uest with the applicant s photograph. req If necessary, the identity of the person applying for the passport shall be established by the hearing of evidence regarding his identity, an official record being kept of the proceedings.

Every person applying for a passport must prove, by means of appropriate documents, his name place and date of birth, religion, occupation, and the name and nationality of his parents.

Obviously, no proof is required of facts known to the authority establishing the application fonn. Documents produced by the party concerned shall be attached to the application and shall be returned to the party concerned after the passport has been established or refused, together with the passport or the decision refusing its issue.

The description, number, date, and title of t he authority signing the document submitted must be entered on the back of the application form, in a special column, by the proper official, who shall attest these entries by means of his signature, and who shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information.

Generally speaking, a certificate of nationality, not more than ten years old, or a certificate of origin, not more than four years old, may be accepted as proof of nationality.

If the party concerned has no documents at his disposal concerning his nationality, his parentage must be taken into consideration. If both the applicant and his father were born in present Hungarian territory, and have resided, or reside, therein, the applicant's Hungarian nationality may be presumed.

On receiving the passport, the holder must affix his signature in a special column on the third

pagein this connection, I would request you not to establish or renew passports for more than one year, because I shall shortly be introducing a new type, that will preclude forgery as far as is possible, instead of the present type, which can, as experience has shown, easily be forged.

I rely on you strictly to execute these orders, and to explain them to your subordinates and see that your subordinates comply with them.

Budapest, January 2nd, 1935.

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police, Budapest.

5I/I934·fk.eln.

(Signed) Dr. vitez Ferencz KERESZTES-FISCHER.

Annex 30.

By a final order, dated December 24th, I934, the Prefect of the Royal Hungarian Police of Budapest commanded an enquiry to be instituted, preliminary to disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Desire Vilmcinyi, Sub-Chief of the Passport Office, there being presumption of his having COmmitted a disciplinary offence under Disciplinary Regulation No. 2500/I920.VI.a.B.l\f. , §I, paragraph (a).

The enquiry having been concluded, the findings submitted and communicated to the accused, and his observations thereon having been received, the Disciplinary Council of the Budapest Prefecture of Police has delivered th~ following

J udgment:

The Disciplinary Council declares Dr. Desire ViJmanyi, domiciled in Budapest, ~ub-Chief o~ t~e ~assport Office, to be guilty of negligence in the accomplishment of the duties of Jus office, a dlSC!plmary offence coming under the Disciplinary Rules, § I, paragraph (a), and, conse_quently, under Disciplinary Rule § 30, paragraph (c), sentences him to transfer by way of pumshme~t .

. Ap~eal may be lodged against this judgment within fiftee':l day~ ~s from the dat~ of tts notifi.~ahon; the said appeal to be addressed to the Royal Hunganan Mm1stcr of the In tenor, ~nd submitted to the Supervisory and Disciplinary Cases Section of the B~dapest P:efecture of Pollee.

Copy of the decision as communicated {I) to Dr. Desire Vil~anyi, Sub-Chtef of the. Passport Offi~e; (2) to the Chief of the Passport Service; (3) to Dr. Geza Ra1czy, Counsellor of Police, as the offictal having instituted the proceedings.

- II4 -

Reasons.

In his report to the Prefect of Police, the Chief of the Passport Service, Budapest Prefect of Police, stated, inter alia, that, during the enquiry recently carried out in his Service cert u~e facts had come to his knowledge from which it might be concluded that Dr. Desire Vilma a~ Sub-Chief of the Passport Office, had been guilty of a certain degree of negligence. nyJ,

Dr. Desire Vilmanyi was responsible for supervising the technical arrangements for the issu of passports. In this capacity, it was his duty to see that the passport forms and other print ~ documents were properly examined. In spite o_f this, he did not inform his superiors that, p~ on account of the great mass of work, partly owmg to the fact that the staff had been inadequate/ instructed in its duties, the Service had met with technical difficulties such that absolutely rigoroJs control in the preparation of passports could not be ensured in all circumstances.

It was also his duty to see 'that t he Service only submitted for signature passports the applicants for which had their papers in order and fulfilled beyond all doubt the legal conditions for the issue of a passport. On his own admission, Vilmanyi neglected in several cases to exercise this control rigorously, having sometimes, in spite of the formal regulations to the contrary omitted to require the submission of documents by the applicants. '

During the enquiry, the question was also considered whether persons who were unfit to do so had obtained passports in these circumstances. In this connection, however, there was no presumption of guilt, still less any proof.

The consequence of Vilmanyi's dereliction of duty was that faults noted too late led the Prefect of Police to ask the Minister of the Interior to issue fresh Rules, amending the method hitherto followed in preparing passports.

In the light of the facts ascertained, the Disciplinary Council finds that, by his carelessness and negligence, Dr. Desire Vilmanyi has committed the disciplinary offence defined in the Enactment, and it is therefore bound to declare him guilty.

With respect to the penalty to be inflicted, the Disciplinary Council regards as an attenuating circumstance the fact relied on by Vilmanyi in his defence, and proved, that the Passport Service, particularly in the summer months, had to deal with from 2,ooo to 3,000 passports a day, and that, in view of this great mass of work, the detailed control of every request would have imposed upon him a practically superhuman task. Consequently, the Council has not inflicted upon him the most severe penalty, but only a secondary penalty. •

Done at the meeting of the Disciplinary Council in Budapest, on January 2nd, 1935.

[L.S.]

From the Head of the District of Csurg6. No. 54-57/1931.

Annex 31.

(Signed) Dr. Tibor FERENCZY, Prefect of Police,

President of the Disciplinary C01mcil.

To the Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior , Direction of the Department of Public Security, Budapest.

In compliance with your instructions by telephone, I have the honour to inform you that, according to my register of licences to possess firearms, Emil Horvath, the tenant of Jan~apuszt~, received from me on October 15th, 1931, after submitting a request with an explanation of ~IS reasons, a licence to possess four revolvers for the purpose of enabling his farm guards to exerc!se more effective protection of his agricultural products.

Csurg6, December roth, 1934. [L.S.]

{Signed) !IAHM,

Head of the District.

Annex 32.

EXCHANGE OF DIPLOMATIC NOTES BETWEEN HUNGARY AND YUGOSLAVIA.

Yugoslav note :

r. Beginning of October 1930: Interview between M. Lukovic, Yugoslav Minister, and Count Khuen-Hedervary, Deputy Minister .

Hungarian reply:

During the interview Count Khuen-Hederv<irY promised the Yugoslav Minister "that h~ '~ould convey all this information to the M~1sters concerned". As the Yugoslav Minister did not ask for a written reply, no such reply was promised .

- II5

z. February 24th, t19t91: Yugoslav Minister de verbal represen a xon.

n1a

l Note 695/931, October rst , 1931.

4 Notes No. 738, October zoth, 1931 ;

Xo.' 8II/93I, November 14th, 1931.

• 1 ote No. 642/32, November 7th, 1932. J·

6. Note No. 566/33, J uly roth, 1933.

7· Notes No. 754, August r st, 1933; No. 764, August znd, 1933; No. 781, August 7th, 1933.

8. Note No. 795, August roth, 1933.

9· Notes No. 980, October z rst, 1933; ~o. 1039, November 12th, 1933.

10. Note No. 197/34, March 13th, 1933.

Note R.P.184/931, March 3rd, 1931.

Note 4200/pol.-931, October 6th, 1931.

Note 4955/pol.-931 of November 28th, 1931.

With regard to this note, M. Alth, Hungarian ?tiinister in Belgrade, addressed to the Yugoslav ?tiinistry for Foreign Affairs a note to which the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Belgrade replied by note Pov. No. 781, dated January 17th, 1933, and handed to the Legation of the Kingdom of Hungary in Belgrade.

The orders of the Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs sent to the Hungarian Minister in Belgrade are Nos. 841/7/932 and 916/7/932.

Note 591/7/33. November 15th, 1933.

Note 56rj6/933, dated August roth, 1933. In the meantime, from August rst to roth, direct conversations took place on several occa­sions between the Department 6, the competent department of the Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest, as is also shown by the Yugoslav note No. 781.

Note 624/6.1933, September 5th, 1933.

Note No. 916/6.1933, December 14th, 1933.

Notes 830/pol/1934. March 15th; 12II/polf 1934. April 26th, 1934.

Annex 33.

Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

591/7-1933·

AIDE-MEMO IRE.

In reply to aide-mimoire No. 566, which was handed in on July 13th last by His Excellency ~1. J. Ducic, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary:

The Royal Hungarian Government is doing its utmost to exercise close supervision over the State frontiers and by every possible means to prevent the unlawful crossing of the front iers. Its eff~rts are, however, sometimes hampered by the attitude of the Yugoslav front ier-guards-the attitude adopted, for example, in the case of the Hungarian national Bogdan-that is to say, when the Yugoslav frontier-guards, instead of co-operating with the Hungarian frontier authorities ~nd trying to prevent the clandestine crossing of the frontier, endeavour, on the contrary, to mduce it. The enquiry made by the Hungarian authorities in this particular case established the f~ct that the Yugoslav guards themselves, hidden behind bushes on the bank of the Drave, stgnalled to Michael Bogdan, on October 8th, 1932, between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening, by gestures and whistling, to cross the river with his boat .

We. cannot understand on what grounds the Royal Yugoslav Legation assumes that t_he llunga~n authorities are aware of the proceedings of Szigecsan, although he crosse~ the fronher clandestmely. Moreover, as is shown by the deposition of Michael Bogdan, who has s1_nce r~turnE_ld to Hungary, and was able to satisfy himself of the fact when he was in Yugo~laVla, .Sz1gecsan crossed. the frontier without bombs, ammunition or propaganda papers of .any kmd, ~emg armed only With a revolver, which he always carried on him for his own protection. Bogdan could not

- II6 -

say when and how the ammunition and propaganda material could have reached y territory in Szigecsan's bag. ugoslav

It may be mentioned that, on his return to Hungary, Bogdan was arrested by the G ek· police and sentenced to four days' imprisonment for unlawfully crossing the frontier. Y enyes

Budapest, November rsth. r933·

Royal Yugoslav Legation, Budapest.

No. rg7/34·

Annex 34.

NOTE VERBALE.

The Royal Yugoslav Legation has had the honour to report to the Royal Hungarian 1\Iinistr, for Foreign Affairs a number of very serious cases of criminal activities on the part of certa~ Yugoslav subjects who enjoy generous hospitality in Hungary and command the special protection of the Royal Hungarian authorities-activities which are directed against the safety of the Yugoslav State and against the lives and property of its citizens.

For example, in its memorandum No. 566 of July roth, r933, the Royal Yugoslav Legation drew the attention of the Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the criminal acts of one Stjepan (Stephen) Koprek, a Yugoslav subject residing in Hungary, who has been convicted in contmnaciam by the Court for the Defence of the State to capital punishment for a crime committed against the safety of the State and public order (destruction of objects of public utilit):' and .the or~anisation on Hungarian territory of a!l insurrec.ti.onary band), without any effechve action haVlng been taken by the competent Hunganan authont1es to prevent the repetition of the criminal acts of which this man was convicted. On the contrary, although his departure for South America was reported some months before, his presence in Hungary was once Jl!Qre reported in J une r933.

Again, by its note No. 754, of August rst, r933. after the explosion of an infernal machine at Koprivnica on July 30th, r933, as a result of which one police officer was killed and two others were seriously injured, the Royal Yugoslav Legation drew the attention of the Royal Hungarian .Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the case of Edward Premec and Michael (Mijo) Kralj, the authors of the outrage, with a request for their arrest. On receipt of this request, the Royal Hungarian authorities proceeded to arrest one of the authors of the outrage, Edward Premec; but, on the pretext that he had resumed Hungarian nationality, the Hungarian judicial authorities did nm see their way to agree to his extradition. Premec was sent for trial to the court at Kaposvar, while his accomplice Michael (Mijo) Kralj, whose Yugoslav nationality could not be contested, has not been arrested, the police authorities having been unable to find him, although his presence on Hungarian territory has been frequently reported by this Legation on the basis of reliable information (see notes verbales No. 795, of August roth, r933, and No. 980, of October 21st, 1933).

This case is comparable to the Koprek case already referred to. In both cases, the guilty persons were able to escape from justice solely because of the Hungarian police authorities' alleg~ inability to find them at a time when there were good grounds for supposing that they were still living in Hungary. Moreover, the criminal acts to which the Royal Yugoslav Legation drew th.e attention of the Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs are not so much the work of in.dt· viduals as the result of an organised and systematic campaign directed by a former Croat journalist, Gustav Percec, a Yugoslav national condemned to death by the Court for the Defence of the State at Belgrade, who is now residing under false names (the last of which was Groom Illes) at Jankapuszta or Budapest. The Yugoslav authorities are in possession of irrefutable proof that the terrorist activities of Percec and his accomplices are proceeding under the eyes and with the knowledge of the Hungarian civil and military authorities with whom Percec, according tosta~e­ments by some of his former cotleagues, is in constant relations. In this connection, spectal interest attaches to the revelations of the former secretary and mistress of Percec, one J elka Podgorelec, who liveJ! for a long time in Hungary in possession of a Hungarian pass~rt wrongfully issued to her by the Budapest police headquarters. The Royal Yugoslav LegatiOn, by its note verbale No. IIOI, of December 21st, r933, forwarded a pamphlet published by Podgorelec with a summary in French. In it will be found photographs of certain documents, including the Hungarian passport in question carried by Pogorelec. .

The revelations of the former secretary of Percec have, moreover, only confirmed wha~ .hi5

other colleagues, since returned to their own country, had revealed to the Yugoslav authonttes. For example, Marjan Madjeric, John (Ivan) Mraz and Charles (Dragutin) Sikirica, Yu~osla\' subjects from Hlebin in the border district of Koprivnica, all of whom were led by pronuses of agents of Percec to cross the frontier and visit the terrorist centre at J ankapuszta in Hunga:J, returned to Yugoslavia disillusioned, where they made statements to the Commissioner of Pohce at Koprivnica, in which they said amongst other things that:

(r) On their arrival in Hungary on August 3rst, 1931, they were interrogated by ~he civil and military authorities at Pees, to whom they announced their intention of entenng

- IIJ-

the service of Percec with a view to terrorist and revolutionary action directed against Yugoslavia.

(z) They were sent by the same authorities to Budapest, where, after having passed some days at Tolonchaz, they were put in touch with Percec by military officials (Major J{lar-Kovacs) and by the police. They were then sent. together with Stephen Petrovic, to Nagy-Kanizsa, and from there to J ankapuszta, where they lived under false names (Marjan Josipovic, Jankovac Ivan i Durib Dragutin Dragovic Etienne). Some days after­wards, other individuals arrived from Belgium and Italy to take par t in the terrorist campaign directed by Percec, Ignatius Domitrovic and Michael Seletkovic.

(3) During their stay at Jankapuszta, they were informed as to the revolutionary objects of the organisation and the outrages projected and were initiated into the handling of ·infernal machines, etc.

(4) On leaving Jankapuszta as a result of a difference between the head of the band, Percec, and the other principal members, in particular Domitrovic, they returned, after a variety of mishaps, to Yugoslavia. In this conflict between the members of the terrorist organisation, officers of the Hungarian Army (Major John (Janos) Kiar-Kovacs, Andrew (Endre) von Huszar and Julius (Gyula) von Tekes) intervened to smooth over the difference.

Another quite recent case proves that the criminal activities of the Yugoslav terrorists residing in Hungarian territory and enjoying a large measure of hospitality there are still being- freel~r carried on. This is the case of one Joseph Krobot, a Yugoslav national, who, on August 24th, IC}33, assassinated the deputy and former Yugoslav Minister, Dr. Mirko Neudorfer, on his estate at Zlatar. The author of this crime and his accomplices were discovered as a result of the exolosion of a package containing four infernal machines in the house of the father of the said J oseph Krobot at Gomje Ladalje on October rrth, 1933, in the course of which J oseph, the oerson principally implicated in the murder, and his mother lost their lives, while his accomplices, Thomas Kelemen, Francis Zrinjski and Michael Brodar, were seriously injured. A whole arsenal of firearms and bombs was found in the ruins of the house. As a result of this discovery, Krobot's father, his wife and sister informed the authorities of Krobot's criminal activities. Their depositions were fully confirmed by the statements of Krobot's accomplices-Kelemen, Zrinjski and Brodar. It appears from their formal depositions (1) that .T oseph Krobot. who had come from South America, had spent t'olomonths in Hungary with Gustav Percec from March 31st, IQ33. when he left Austrian territory, tntill\fay 30th of the same year, when he returned to Yugoslavia; (2) that, after his return to ~~oslavia, he paid several further visits to Hungary, crossing the frontier unlawfully, and rrb.med each time with weapons, bombs, ammunition and revolutionary tracts; (3) that ~h time he conferred with the terrorist chief Percec and with Hungarian officers and police officials; (4) that it was he who, with the complicity of the said Zrinjski and at the instigation and on the order of the said Percec, assassinated the Member of Parliament and former Minister, Dr. Mirko Neudorfer, additional proof of which is to be found in an article on the subject which appeared in the October issue of a terrorist publication called "Ustasa "; (5) that the late Joseph Krobot, with the complicity of the said Francis Zrinjski, organised criminal attempts on trains -viz., on September 2qth, 1933, by placing two infernal machines (which fortunately did not explode) on the Zidani Most-Zagreb main line near Reichenburg: and again, on October 6th, 1933, by placing an infernal machine (which exploded the following day, causing great damage) on the same line between Podsused and Zapresic; and (6) that the four machines which exploded in the house of Krobot's father were also intended for attacks on the Cakove-Zagreb line.

The Royal Yugoslav Legation could instance other equally damning cases of the same kind; but the above list of terrorist acts should suffice.

The facts stated above show that the Yugoslav emigres-in particular, Percec, Domitrovic and others, who have chosen Hungary as their refuge and have been received there with special hospitality and consideration by the Hungarian authorities-are carrying on criminal activities a~amst the Yugoslav State, its security and public order, and the lives and property of its citizens, ~,,tho~t the Royal Hungarian authorities having taken steps to stop them- a state of affairs which ~ qrute intolerable and incompatible with neighbourly relations between States or with the international obligations of States. The Royal Yugoslav Legation accordingly, by order of the Yug?slav Government, has the honour to request the Royal Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Af!atrs to make representations to the competent authorities with a view to putting an end to this terrorist campaign organised on Hungarian territory against Yugoslavia, and the expulsion from !fm~gary of Yugoslav emigres who have so clearly violated the obligations incumbent on them m vrrtue of the generous measure of hospitality which they have enjoyed.

Budapest, March 13th, 1934. [L.S.]

Annex 35.

On February 13th, 1931, M. Waldemar Alth, Minister of the Kingdom ?f J:Iungary. in Belgrade, received instructions under No. 598/931/pol. to communica~e the followmg mformat~on to the Yugoslav Ministry for Foreign Affairs: In view of the reports whtch had appeared concemmg

- II8-

the outrages, the Hungarian ~uthorities conducted an enquiry which, however, proved fru·u None of the Yugoslav assertions was confirmed. 1 ess.

M. Alth was requested to inform the Yugoslav Ministry for Foreign Affairs that the auth .. could not continue their investigations unless the Yugoslav Government placed the nee onttes documentary material at their disposal. essary

M. Alth, Minister of the Kingdom of Hungary, accordingly replied on February qtb u No. 6rofpol.1931, that, in .c~nformity wit~ his in?tructions, h~ had appr_oached the sec'retd~~ General of the Yugoslav Mm1stry for Foretgn Affatrs, who had mformed him that as soon as~ documentary material which the Yugoslav Ministry of the Interior had been asked to su e had been received, the Yugoslav Minister in Budapest would be instructed to request the Hun frP1Y Govern.ment to take the necess~ry steps to put a stop to the activities of irresponsible indiv~u~~ M. Fobtch, Secretary-General, mformed M. Alth that he regarded the present case as more serio ~ than the frontier incident of Beremend, which had occurred the previous year, and that ~~~ Yugoslav Minister in Budapest would accordingly receive the necessary instructions since the situation was by no means compatible with the requirements of good neighbourly re~tions. e

Notwithstanding the assertions of the Secretary-General of the Yugoslav Ministry for Forei 0

Affairs, the Yugoslav Minister in Budapest did not approach the Hungarian Government un~il February 24th, 1931. On that day, M. Lukovic, Yugoslav Minister in Budapest, called on the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs and merely stated that, although he was well aware that the Hungarian Government had nothing to do with the outrages, he would nevertheless ask that Government to prevent any infiltration of irresponsible elements across the frontier and to see that the crossing of the frontier was not made any easier. The Yugoslav Minister stated as the reason for his request that he regarded the development of friendly relations as being in the interest of both countries.

Annex 36.

REPORT OF THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR j USTICE.

In accordance with the instructions received from Your Excellency, I have endeavoured to ascertain, from the evidence in our possession, whether the man Maloy, alias Kraj-Miro, believed to be a Croat terrorist, who was arrested by the French police near Fontainebleau and is accused of having been concerned in the Marseilles murder, is not the same person as Michael Kralj, an alleged accomplice of Edward Premec convicted by the Royal Tribunal of Kaposvar of committing the Kapronca bomb outrage.

From the summary of evidence against Edward Premec for the crime of murder, which I have examined in the records of the Ministry of Justice, I have been able to establish the following facts concerning Michael Kralj:

According to the note verbale of the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest bearing number 781 and dated August 7th, 1933. Michael Kralj, born at Kapronca on September 17th, rgo8, the son of Blasius and Catherine Kralj, a locksmith by trade, is a tall man with an oval face and close· cropped hair. The place, year, month and day of birth ta.lly exactly with the particulars com­municated through Press messages concerning Kraj-Miro, who was arrested near Fontainebleau.

According to the documents in our file, Slavko Zagor, a railwayman on the Yugoslav Railways, giving evidence in the course of the preliminary enquiry, stated that, on July 29th, 1933, when Edward Premec handed to him at Gyekenyes station the parcel containing the bomb that was to explode later at Kapronca police station, Michael Kralj, who was known to the witness, was with Premec. Although Premec denied this throughout the proceedings, the suspicio~ that Michael Kralj was concerned in this outrage has been, and remains, based upon the evtdence of this witness.

After the outrage, in its note verbale No. 754 of August Ist, 1933, the Yugoslav ~egation in Budapest asked for the arrest of Edward Premec and Michael Kralj pending the arnval of a formal demand for extradition.

On August 5th, 1933, by Ordinance No. 28785[I.M.VII, the Ministry made an urgent request to the Royal Public Prosecutor's Office in Budapest to take immediate action to trace and arrest Edward Premec and Michael Kralj, enjoining the President of the Public Prosecutor's O~ce to bring all available means to bear to find and arrest these two men. On August 5th, havwg been informed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs that the men in (}uestion were probably ~t Gyekenyes, we immediately sent this information to the President of the Public .Prose~ut~r 5

Office, asking him to get into touch with the Gyekenyes police authorities at once w1t.h a v1e\y t~ their arrest. As for our previous note, the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office received mstructwn~ to forward it to the Kaposvar Public Prosecutor's Office.

On August 8th, the Gyekenyes police authorities reported the arrest of Edward Premec. who was handed over to the Kaposvar Public Prosecutor's Office. It was subsequently foun~ that Premec was a Hungarian subject; he was therefore brought to trial, and the proceedings t'~e carried through to their final stages before the Royal Tribunal of Kaposvar. At the close 0 e trial, as you know, a sentence of fifteen years' penal servitude was passed on Premec on one cbarg

- II9-

urder and two charges of attempted murder. The case was finally disposed of by the judgment 0{ilie Hungarian Supreme Court of Justice (Royal Curia) dated October 9th, 1934 and numbered 0 I o87/36-1934, dismissing his appeal. B.l 1 for Michael Kralj , the action taken to secure his arrest has been unsuccessful. I may

tion in this connection that, in a note No. ad 28785/1933-VII, sent to the Royal Hungarian 111~0istry for Foreign Affairs on August 8th, we requested that the ·Yugoslav authorities should ~pproached ~~d asked for personal particulars of Michael Kralj and for a description, which

needed for his arrest. we Meanwhile, in its ncte verbale No. 781, which was dated August 7th and came to hand on A st gth, the Yugoslav Legation. in Budapest st_ated tha~ Michael ~alj, born on _Sep~ember 17th, ·~at Kapronca, the son of Blastus and Cathenne KralJ, a Iocksm1th, was working m an alcohol :fk~in the neighbourhood of Gyekenyes. The same note gave us a few particulars of his personal ap~ce.

That same day-namely, on August 9th-we sent very urgent instructions to the Royal Public Prosecutor's Office at Kaposvar, under No. 29232 I.M.VII-1933. forwarding the personal particulars received concerning Michael Kralj, and requesting that department to take immediate action to trace this man with the help of the in_formation thus f_urni~hed, by broadcast arrest warrant if necessary, and to make arrangements, m the event of hts bemg apprehended, to place him under arrest f~r the p~rpose of ~xtradition. , .

Acting upon mstruchons received from the Kaposvar Pubhc Prosecutor's Office on the basis of the information thus obtained, the Zakany gendarmerie station took measures to trace and arrest Michael Kralj; its investigations proved unsuccessful, however. According to the first report of the gendarmerie station, it appeared from the statements of Croat emigres living at Jankapuszta that this man had left for an unknown destination in the spring of 1933. According to the second report received from the gendarmerie station, dated August 25th, the station succeeded, with the assistance of the Gyekenyes frontier police, in establishing the fact that }fichael Kralj crossed the border and re-entered Hungarian territory on February 6th, 1933; on this occasion, the Gyekenyes police took him to the headquarters of the Third Mixed Brigade atSzombathely. It was impossible to ascertain at Jankapuszta at what time Michael Kralj had come there and how long he had remained; as for the inhabitants of the surrounding district, they did not know the Croat emigres.

On the conclusion of its investigations, the Royal Public Prosecutor's Office at Kaposvar presented to the Ministry its draft statement of charges, and submitted the summary of evidence. ;\Iter considering this summary, the Ministry, by Ordinance No. Bi.IOJI /13, dated December 4th, 1q33, drew the attention of the Public Prosecutor's Office to the fact that the investigations had wA thrown sufficient light upon the part which had been played by Michael Kralj in the affair. It 1145 observed that the enquiry and collection of evidence had only yielded information on defollowing facts: On February 6th, 1933, Michael Kralj, coming from Kapronca, crossed into Hungarian territory, where he subsequently remained; during the month of April 1933, he was employed as a fitter in the J ankapuszta agricultural distillery ; finally, the Gyekenyes frontier police handed over Michael Kralj to the Third Mixed Brigade at Szombathely. The investigations failed, however, to disclose why he was thus handed over or what has become of him since. Now it would appear from the statement made by Slavko Zagor, the railway guard, that Michael Kralj was present when Premec handed over his infernal machine. The investigations also failed to verify the accuracy of the communication received from the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest stating that, after the commission of this outrage, Michael Kralj was seen, as late as September 12th, 1933, at Gyekenyes station, whence he continued on his way towards Zakany.

In order to supply these defects and obtain a more accurate account of the facts, the Royal Public Prosecutor's Office was instructed to ask for a supplementary enquiry. The Ministry gave orders that , in the course of such supplementary enquiry, evidence should be collected from the Gyekenyes frontier police, from the Zakany gendarmerie station, and from the Mixed Brigade at Szombathely, with a view to ascertaining what happened to Michael Kralj after his departure from Jankapuszta, as well as after his release by the military authorities of the Third Mixed Brigade ~mmand at Szombathely. It was further indicated that enquiries should be made as to why llichael Kralj was brought before the above-mentioned military authorities, and whether the communication from the Yugoslav Legation alleging that Michael Kralj was hiding in the district could be correct. Finally, the Budapest Police Prefecture was also to be asked to trace the whereabouts of Michael Kralj .

In. the course of the supplementary enquiry, Zcikany gendarmerie station again reported that Mtchael Kralj had certainly stayed at Jankapuszta, but that it was impossible to ascertain how long, since the Croat emigres there would say nothing. During the last days of July 1933. he was seen at Gyekenyes and at Zakanytelepek, but since that date he had not been seen again. The aforesaid gendarmerie station sent Michael Kralj 's photograph for necessary action to_ the gendarmerie stations at Somogyszentmiklos, Iharosbereny, and Csurg6; the investi~ahons COnduc!ed within the areas of these stations proved fruitless however. Nor was it posstbl~ to ascerta~ whether or not the wanted man was at Gyekenyes station on September 12th, smce no one m that place was acquainted with him.

1 The Hungarian police at Gyekenyes ascertained that, on February 7th, 1933, a pe:son of

he nan:-e of Mijo Kralj was brought in for identification. This man being suspected of espwn~ge, the pohce sent him under escort to the Mixed Brigade at Szombathely on February 8th . _Smce then_he has not been seen again at Gyekenyes police station. On the point whe~her Mtc~ael frail was at Gyekenyes on September rzth it was not possible to procure any tnf<;>rm_at!On . . t sho~d be added that the police called u~n the head of the Csurg6 district to asstst m the lllveshgations communicating to him the warrant of arrest .

- 120 -

The head of the Csurg6 district informed the examining magistrate that he had inst all the gendarmerie stations in his district to search for Michael Kralj and arrest him .~~ted measures, however, produced no result. ' esc

The Commander of the Third Mixed Brigade at Szombathely further informed the exam· . magistrate that his services had no information whatever as to what had become of hr~i Kralj since his release by the military authorities on February 13th, 1933, and that his p;~e whereabouts were unknown to them. nt

It appears from these facts that the measures taken to apprehend Michael Kralj , . unavailing, and that the supplementary enquiry was also unsuccessful. \ere

The report that Michael Kralj had been seen at Gyekenyes station on September 12th 1933 a d had continued on his way towards Zakany, was communicated to the Royal Ministry f~r Fo;ein Affairs by the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest in its note verbale No. g8o, dated October 2rst 19~

1

The facts related above show that the correctness of this statement could not be verified. ' J·

On the subsequent developments of the case occurring during the supplementary enquir) the Public Prosecutor reported to the Ministry in his memorandum 130.-f.u.rg34 dated January 23rd, 1934. The Ministry, in turn, in Ordinance Bi.1071/15, dated February rzth authorising the lodging of the charge submitted to it, gave instructions that there be included i~ the statement of charges a proposal for the issue of a warrant of arrest against Michael Kralj as being suspected of complicity, and a request for the production of the evidence in the course of the main hearing. The Public Prosecutor's Office acted upon those instructions, and the Royal Tribunal of Kaposvar issued a warrant of arrest against Michael Kralj on February 23rd, 1934, under No. B.2899/1933-2I.

I may add that, in preparing the present memorandum, I made usc of the file of documents concerning the Premec case, which was delivered to me informally by the Royal Supreme Court.

Budapest, October rgth, 1934.

Royal Hungarian Ministry of the Interior. No. 202654/1927.

II.

Annex 37.

(Signed) Dr. Andras TAsNADY-JAGY, U11der-Secretary of State for j ustice.

Act of Reinstatement in H1mgarian Nationality.

Edward Premec, born in r8gg, basket-maker, domiciled at Zakany, having lost his Hungarian nationality in virtue of Article 61 of the Treaty of Trianon, embodied in Law XXXIII o~ 1921, is reinstated in Hungarian nationality at his own request, in virtue of Law XVII of 1922, Arttclez4, together with his wife, Mary Grotics, born in 1900.

Budapest, September 2oth, 1927. [L .S.]

Ad 32380/1927.

Sub-Prefect of the Country of Somogy.

By Order of the Minister :

[Signature.] Ministerial Secretary.

I certify that Edward Premec, and his wife Mary Grotics, living at Zakany, have sworn allegiance to the Hungarian State in my presence this day, November 24th, 1927.

Kaposvar, November 24th, 1927. [L.S.]

{Signed) WEISSENBACH,

Deputy Sub-Prefect.

Article I6 of Law I of I879· - " If the person for whom the naturalisation act has been m~de out and who has been summoned to take the oath (vow) does not, within one year from the sr~~ of the summons, present himself for the purpose of taking the oath (vow) and d?es not ta e . oath, the naturalisation act shall become void, and shall be returned, with a certificate regardmg the serving of the summons, to the authority which made it out."

Criminal Section of the Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police.

-121-

Annex 38.

OFFICIAL REcoRD oF vVIrxEss's DEPosiTioN

Drawn up at Kaposvar on J anuary rst, 1935.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned by me that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under the Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness made the following statement:

(r ) Name: Arpad Hegyi, doctor of law. (2) Age: 56 years. (3) Birthplace: Villany, County of Baranya. (4) Domicile: Kaposvar. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Profession : Barrister.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I acted as counsel for the defence of M. Alexis Premec. "It is not true that, on the eve of the hearing, I was informed by telephone by Croat bnigrtfs

that the Kaposvar police bad warned them that they could not enter the court with the arms habitually carried on their persons.

"Hence it is also untrue that I proposed that they should leave those arms n.t my lodgings during the hearing.

"The statement that about thirty pistols were deposited at my lodgings is completely devoid of foundation. Nobody brought so much as a cartridge there.

"At the end of November and at the beginning of December last, when I happened to be at the Hotel Astoria in Budapest, an unknown man presented himself and, alleging that he knew me from the principal hearing of the Premec case at Kaposvar, asked me for an interview. I was so busy at the time that I could not grant that interview immediately, and answered that I would be at his disposal at midday the following day.

" Next day at midday I met in the restaurant of the Hotel Astoria my friend Bela Patkay, doctor of law, barrister, whom I informed that I was about to have an interview at the next table with one of the correspondents of the' Avala ', named Weisz, who had given me his card. I then wen~ to the next table. M. Weisz gave me a long account of the Serbo-Croat controversy, making ?pec1al efforts to prove that the Serbs were in the right. Later he offered to convince me of that m Belgrade. He asked me to write an article in Hungarian on the subject, if I was convinced of the truth of his account. . . " It is untrue that I spoke to l\1. 'Veisz of the arms mentioned at the beginning of my depo­

st~ton, or of their having heen deposited in my lodgings; it is also false that I stated that enough ptstols and cartridges for a battle had accumulated in my lodgings.

. " After concluding the above-mentioned interview, I sat down at the table of my friend Bela Patkay, to whom I related almost word for word my conversation with M. Weisz.

" This can be corroborated by M. Patkay. " I have nothing further to say."

Duly signed after being read out.

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. SCHWEINITZER,

Police Counsellor.

(Signed) Dr. Arpad HEGYI.

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police, Criminal Section.

-122-

Annex 39 a.

OFFICIAL REcoRD OF WITNEss' s DEPOSITIOK

Drawn up in Budapest on January 2nd, 1935.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness attending in response to a summons was informed of the object of the enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath I warned him that if he gave false evidence he would be guilty of a criminal offence. ·

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: Bela Patkay, doctor of law. (2) Age: 63. (3) Place of birth: Sokor6patka. (4) Domicile: Budapest, Karoly korut., 12. (5) Civil status: Bachelor. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Farmer and advocate.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned tbar they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

" It was, I think, about the end of November 1934 at midday that I met my friend Arpad Hegyi, doctor of law, at the Astoria restaurant; M. Arpad Hegyi told me on that occasion that he was going to have a talk at the next table with M. Weisz, correspondent of the 'Avala ', at the latter's request.

"M. Hegyi sat down atM. Weisz' table as soon as the latter entered the restaurant. Shortly afterwards, he rejoined me and informed me of the proposal which M. Weisz had just made to him. The latter had asked M. Hegyi to go with him to Belgrade, where he would place all the necessary evidence at his disposal to convince him that in the Serbo-Croat dispute the Serbs had right o~ their side. He also asked him to write a pamphlet in the Hungarian language setting forth th1s conviction.

" M. Arpad Hegyi formally refused to do this and repeated his refusal before me. " According to M. Arpad Hegyi's statement, he did not discuss any other matter with Weisz."

Duly signed after it had been read over.

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. ScHWEINITZER,

Police CO"tmsellor.

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police, Criminal Section.

Annex 39 b .

(Signed) Dr. Bela PArKAY.

OFFICIAL REcoRD oF WITNEss's DEPOSITION

Drawn up at Kaposvar on January 1st, 1935.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness attending in response to a summons was informed of the object of the enqui~y and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. I warned him that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a criminal offence.

-123-

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(I) Name: Geza Russay; doctor of law. (2) Age: Born r886. (3) Place of birth: Szobrac. (4) Domicile: Kaposvar, Eszterhcizy Street, 25. (5) Civil Status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Police Counsellor, Director of the Prefecture.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are n?t bound to. make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned m the offi.ctal record.)

" It is not true that, before the hearing of the case, I sent a message to M. Arpad Hegyi, doctor of law, advocate and counsel for Alexis Premec, warning him that the Croat emigres could not bring into the courtroom the arms which they usually carried on their persons.

" The falseness of this asser tion is further proved by the fact that, as everyone knows, it is forbidden under the regulations to bring even a stick or an umbrella into the courtroom.

"Besides, there were no Croat emigres at Kaposvar; apart from the parties summoned, the journalists and a few onlookers from the town, no one was present at the hearing.

"I have no official or private information to the effect that the emigres left their arms or cartridges at the bouse of M. Arpad Hegyi while the case was being heard.

" I have signed the officia l record after it had been read over. "

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. SCHWEINITZER,

Police C()tmsellor.

(Signed) Geza RussAY.

Annex 40 a.

Before the Royal Court of Kaposvcir Edward Premec, a Htmgarian national, domiciled at minytelp, was undergoing trial for a murder and two attempted murders.

In its judgment No. B.2899/25-1933, dated May 14th, 1934, the above-named court found the accused guilty of these three crimes and, in application of Articles 278, z8g, 66, g6, 99 and paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Penal Code, inflicted on him fifteen years' penal servitude as !he principal sentence and deprivation of civil rights for ten years as an accessory sentence.

The following parties lodged an appeal against this judgment: the Public Prosecutor, on the ground that the sentence was too light; the accused, on the ground that the sentence was too severe; and his counsel, on the ground that his client had been found guilty and that the acts bad been described otherwise than in the charge.

Counsel for the defence pleaded that the accused had been subjected to irresistible pressure and argued that he was not the principal in the three crimes but merely an accessory.

The Pees Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the court of first instance (judgment ~o. B.II.2732/31-1934, given in public session on May 25th , 1934).

The Public Prosecutor-General took note of the judgment. The following appealed against this judgment: the accused on the ground that the sentence was too severe; and his counsel (under Section r of Article 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), on the ground that the accused was not the principal in these crimes but an accessory.

The Attorney-General did not appeal against this judgment. The Royal Supreme Cour t rejected the appeals (judgment No. IL3087/35-I934, given in

public session on October 9th, 1934). I appeared for the Crown at the hearing on October 3rd. As the Public Prosecutor-General of Pees did not appeal against the judgment, and as the

Attorney-General did not concern himself with the appeal of the convicted party, after a statement of the facts in the case and the reading of the judgments of the lower courts, counsel for the defence addressed the court. . He described the motives of the crimes as confessed by the accused and as set out in th<' ]udg!Dents, and then advanced the arguments which in his opinion proved the inaccuracy of the specmcations adopted by the lower courts.

I was called upon to reply to these arguments of the counsel for the defence and to the appeals against the judgment. . . .

In the memorandum deposited with the League of Nations at Geneva by Yugosla~Ja agamst Hungary, a completely distorted version is given of my reply. I t will be found that th1s has been translated word for word from the evening edition of the Pester Lloyd, No. 228, of Octo?er gth. . Consequently, the charge in the memorandum could only have been brought agatnst m<' tf the article in question had faithfully reproduced my speech. .

In this article, the sequence of arguments in my speech ~as been radtcally changed and I formally declare that the authorship of the speech as pubhshed by the Pester Lloyd and reproduced in the memorandum must be attributed to that newspaper and not to me.

-124-

The following is a summary of my remarks:

I would point out, in the first place, that, as I did not write out my brief speech I longer remember it word for word, but will give an approximate summary. ' can no

" I agree with a part of the address to the court, but as regards the remainder I tak diametrically opposite view. . e a

" I agree that the accused may have been induced to commit the crimes as it were . utter despair, owing to the fact that be and his parents and also his Croat co~patriots h ~ in his opinion been the victims of persecutions and grave and continual atrocities. a

"After enumerating the grave persecutions suffered by him and his parents the accus d mentioned certain well-known facts calculated to arouse his Croat nationalist se~timents ~d to convince him of the necessity for avenging himself on the person who, he was profoundl• convinced, was one of the instigators of those atrocities. }

"Among other things, the accused referred to the murder of Stephen Radic Paul Raditch and Baszaricek in the Yugoslav Skupchtina, and the murder in the open 'street of Dr. Suffiay, a university professor.

" The lower courts took into consideration the sentiments of the accused and regarded them as miti~ating circumstances when determining the sentence.

" They did not, however, take into account the motives of the crimes in question since the motive of a criminal act is not a component part of that act. '

"As these are subjective points of view, it is not necessary or even possible to ascertain whether these motives would bear objective criticism or not, and I have not taken them into account. In my opinion, however, no serious objection can be raised to the argument of the lower courts and this was why the representative of the Crown did not lodge an appeal.

" It is also a subjective sentiment of the accused that he considers the sentence to be too heavy, even with the full application of Article 92 of the Penal Code.

" As regards the terms used, the appeal of the accused against the judgment is unjustified and must be rejected."

After making this statement, I put forward arguments showing why the appeal of the couruel for the defence against the judgment should be dismissed.

That was all I said. I declare that I said nothing to justify the conclusion that I appro>ed of the accused's crimes or that I criticised the internal conditions of Yugoslavia and her minority questions or the treatment of her minorities.

It is true that, in my statement, I mentioned the controversies between Serbs and Croats, but this was only in order to bring out more clearly the motives of the crime by purely subjective considerations.

It is obvious that the sequence of arguments of my statement and the tenor of the speech attributed to me are entirely different.

I made it quite clear that, in my opinion, the accused was guilty of the crimes in question and must expiate t hem in accordance with the law, but that the severity of the sentence should be proportionate to the subjective degree of his culpability.

No one can say that this was a speech for the defence or a eulogy of the crimes in question. Any contrary opinion or charge is false and is a pure invention.

Budapest, December Ioth , 1934.

Annex 40b.

Pester Lloyd.

Evening Edition.

8Ist year. Budapest, October 9th, 1934.

(Signed) Eugene MAKKAI,

Deputy Attorney-General.

:\o. zz8.

Monsieur Makkai, doctor of law, Deputy Attorney-General, said that he agreed on sey~ral points with the counsel for the defence. It is not necessary, he said, to enlighten public opm10n in this country as to the way in which the Croat people is t errorised over in its own country. ~h1 violent methods of the Serbs are very generally known and it is idle to interpret the psycholog~ca motives which led Premec to perpetrate his deed. The acts of violence committed by the ?er~s towards members of his family have reduced him to such a mental state that his indignatlo~~ perfectly excusable and may be taken into consideration. It was taken into account, together ~VI the other mitigating circumstances, by the court of first instance. That was why Premec received only a light penalty. As regards the question of law, the Public Prosecutor was obliged to stress the fact that the accused must be regarded as the author of the crime. In so far as other persons are implicated, these are the Croat officer who was the instigator and the Croat railway emJ?lo):e: who was the accomplice. There was only one author-namely, the accused. That was why It "a~ not possible to inflict a lighter sentence.

- I25-

Annex 41.

r His Excellency M. Ferencz Keresztes-Fischer, 0 Royal Hungarian Minister of the Interior,

Budapest.

Monsieur le Ministre,

Budapest, October 31st, 1934.

1 have the honour to submit the following report concerning the measures taken and the . vestigations carried out up to date, in conformity with your instructions, with reference to the Ill d . ~Iarseilles mur er . · The day after the crime, when we learned through the Press and through radiograms from the paris police, that there was reason to suppose that the author of the crime and his accomplices had been in Hungary, we proceeded to investigate the affair.

With regard to names taken from the Press and from radiograms, such as: Peter Kale men; Petre Kelemen; Nalis Nihomir; Tikomir Nalis; Benes Ladislav; Egon Kramer; Sylvester Chalni; Rudolph Sik; RudolJ?h Schuck; Sylvester Malny; Maria Vou~rock; Eugene. Kraternik; Eugene Kvatzernik; Kvatermch J autsch; Gustavus Percec; Ante Pavehtsch; Ivan Ratch; Jaroslav Novak ; zvoinimir Pospichil; J oseph Schever; Jeanne Podgorelec; Vlada Georgieff; Vlada Csernozenszky; Etienne Lugar; Jean Bumbaj; Zubomir Bizek; Bzik Mic; Marie Vondracsek; Rodolphe Zadravec (according to a Warsaw telegram),

(a) We made enquiries to ascertain whether those individuals had really been in Hungary;

(b) Researches were carried out in the records and card-index of the Passport Office ; (c) We thoroughly examined the Central Judicial records ; (d) And also the records and special archives of the Political Section; (e) The records of the Office for the Registration of Domicile; U) The records of the Central Office for the Supervision over Aliens.

All these researches produced absolu.tely negative results. We therefore sent a circular to all the political and police rapporteurs, to the gendarmerie and

1othe frontier-guard, instructing them to communicate to us immediately any clue that they might ~ver relating to the regicide.

In the meantime, the suspicion was voiced that the author of the crime and his accomplices ~t be Yugoslav emigres from Jankapuszta.

We immediately investigated the matter and found that Jankapuszta had been wound up on .{pril 28th, 1934, though it had been noted that only forty or fifty emigres were working at jankapuszta, that they were engaged in agriculture practically on communal lines and that they ~·ere all perfectly innocent persons.

For those who might have given grounds for some suspicion, the General Office for the Supervision over Aliens had ordered police supervision. . At the time of the dispersion of the inhabitants of Jankapuszta, there was a fairly considerable

mtgration among the Croat emigres, so that the duty of supervising them involved an increasingly heavy task for the competent authorities. . It was found that some of these emigres went to Nagykanizsa, where they installed themselves m a deserted house and led a sort of communal life, like that at J ankapuszta, while another group had left Hungary.

When, after the outrage, it began to be conjectured that the authors of the crime might have been recruited among the Croats of Nagykanizsa, we immediately ordered an investigation and, assisted by a higher official of the Central Office, we examined this question on the spot.

In consequence, as a result of vexations, the emigres who had come from Jankapuszta and settled at Nagykanizsa sometimes left that town and then, again, returned to it.

During the days following the crime, we saw two Croat refugees: J oseph Moravetz and Antony Zurich. They were placed under arrest by the Nagykanizsa police.

When it was established by the French police that the assassin 's real name was Vlada (Vlana, Vrana) Georgieff, we instituted minute and comprehensive investigations in order to ascertain whether this man had ever been in Hungary. . It was proved beyond all manner of doubt that the individual in question had never been m Hungary.

The Yugoslav note said that he had come to Hungary from Sofia. W,e immediately sent a telegram to the Sofia police, and were informed in reply that t.he

assassm had lived in that town. On leaving, he said that be was going to Hungary, but the pollee cannot supply any authentic proof in support of that information.

In the meantime, being desirous of assisting in clearing up the circumstances of the case, we kept the Paris police continually informed.

We carried our enquiries to the point of making several hundreds of proofs of the photograph of the assassin Georgieff and sent them to all the investigation services.

In order to leave no stone untumed, we compared the photograph of the assa~sin with all the photographs kept in the archives, together with the records of passports, dunng the last four years.

The result was negative.

-126-

In order to discover the persons implicated in the crime, and also Croat emigres enquiries in all the night establishments, all the hospitals and even in the sanatoria ai,;9e m~de negative results. ' ays WJtb

We would stress the point that in each case we consulted the central judicial records the names and fingerprints of all individuals, with their judicial antecedents, foreign and n' there are kept. But here again the results were negative. a Ional,

We also searched through our political records, which contain personal information d account of the activities of about 6o,ooo individuals, but also without success. an an

During the days following the crime, acting on news from abroad, we ordered the ~ . ka.nizsa police to _carry out i!l':'es~igatio~s ~n order t_o ascerta_in whether the statement ~t~· pnsoners Ivan Ra1ch and ZvolllUDJI P?sp1chil~~ccordmg t~ w~1~h they were living in Se tem e last at Jankapuszta, where they received a VISit from an mdividual, short, with cJippea br her moustaches, apparently about 50 years of age, who handed them forged Hungarian passpo~ corresponded to the truth.

In their report, the Nagykanizsa police informed us that there was no foundation forth above-mentioned statement, that Raich and Pospisil left Jankapuszta long ago for an unkno~ destination, and that it was impossible, despite the most minute investigations, to ascertai whether they received a visit at Jankapuszta from the individual in question. n

Lastly, with the help of the documents in our possession, we endeavoured to obtain infor. matio~ _in ?rder to asc~rtain whether Malny, alias I~raj-Miro, a Croat terrorist suspected of comphc1ty m the Marseilles murder, arrested at Fontamebleau, was the same as Michael Kral" the accomplice, it is said, of Edward Premec, convicted last spring by the Kaposvar Court fj; the Koprivnica outrage. ·

Here, it was found that, in conformity with t~e verbal no_te of the Yugoslav Legation in Budapest, No. 781, dated August 7th, 1933, Michael KralJ was born at Koprivnica 00 September 17th, 1908, the son of Blasius and Catherine Kralj , locksmith, tall, with oval face and hair cut short.

The place, day, month and year of birth correspond exactly with the information given by the newspapers concerning Kraj-Miro, arrested in the neighbourhood of Fontainebleau.

On the other hand, the measures taken with a view to the arrest of Michael Kralj in the criminal proceedings against Edward Premec proved abortive, despite the fact that advantage was taken of every possibility and every imaginable means, and it was impossible for us to ascertain beyond doubt whether Michael Kralj was seen on September 12th, 1933, in the station at Gyekenyes, from which he is said to have left in th·e direction of Zcikany.

Nevertheless, the Kaposvar Tribunal had duly issued against Michael Kralj a warrant o\ arrest No. 2899/1931-21, dated February 23rd, 1934.

On October 12th last, general orders were given for police supervision over all Croat refugees. Next, on October 16th, an order was issued by the Minister of the Interior, increasing the

strictness of the police supervision. . We have also carried out investigations with reference to the notes of the Kingdom of

Yugoslavia and submitted reports to the Ministry of the Interior. On October 22nd last, we did all that was in our power with reference to note No. ro89

of the Royal Yugoslav Legation, in order to ascertain the whereabouts of J ohn Szendrei-Servaci. The investigations were instituted the same day, and on that day also a domiciliary search

was carried out at his former domicile, but we found there no clue that might have served as a starting-point for determining the direction in which he might have fled. We have ascertained, however, beyond all possibility of doubt that, on the 13th instant, John Szendrei-Servaci left his home and that he has not returned to it since then.

Our detectives looked for him in all the likely places where one might have expected to find him; we visited all the hotels and pensions. We got into touch with all the investigation authorities that could possibly be concerned, and, t he same day, we issued a warrant against Servaci. Our detectives visited all the restaurants, wineshops and places of ill-fame frequented by Croa~. works-yards in which Croat workers are in the habit of congregating in search of work; but 10

every case without success. We found that his wife had left the day after his departure-that is to say, on October 14th.

She entrusted the keys of the flat to the doorkeeper, asking him to go and see from time to tune whether the radiators were working properly.

Our efforts to ascertain where Madame Servaci was staying were also unsuccessful. As regards Dr. Mile Budak, who forms the subject of note No. IIII of the Kingdo~ of

Yugoslavia, on the 14th inst., the day on which the said note was received, we took all possible measures, and employed every available means in order to discover his whereabouts.

His description and particulars of his origin were communicated to all the police organs, to the headquarters of the gendarmerie investigation services and to the headquarters of .the frontier-guard, with the information that Dr. Mile Budak appears to be implicated in the Marse~l!es crime. At the same time, the most thorough investigations were ordered and the authonhes in question were instructed to arrest the said Dr. Mile Budak should he be found, and to report his arrest to the Prefecture of Police in Budapest.

The investigations carried out in Budapest have yielded no result up to the present, nor has he been found in any rural district. .

According to information supplied by the Office for the Registration of Domicile, Dr. Mile Budak has never had a declared domicile in Budapest, nor does his name appear in the Central Judicial Records or in the Political Records. .

We have had copies made of the photograph placed at our dispo~l by the Yugoslav Le~ation and have endeavoured by this means to ascertain the whereabouts of the person in question.

-127-

Our detectives have visited the restaurants, the ports on the Danube, all the hotels and all nsions; we have shown the photographs, but we have not found a single person who can

(he fr the slightest information concerning Dr. Mile Budak. Investigations are being continued su~ in Budapest and in the country. bo The same applies to Dr. Alexander Vlahov, the subject of note No. II24 of the Yugoslav

tion. This individual never lived at No. 17, Olaszfasor, or at No. IOJ , Ull6i-ut. He does Lefa r under the name of Dr. Arnaut and no trace has been found of him under the name :f Ni~ Nemeth, for in the absence of data as to his appearance, it was impossible to establish bis idenhty.

Lastly, we have the honour to inform you that a special report bearing to-day's date gives account of the telegrams and radiograms exchanged with the Paris Surete, information relating

an the enquiries requested by the Sfuete, and the replies to those requests. 10 These investigations and replies are closely connected with the investigations of which we h ve given an account here, and must be taken into account when replying to the question as ,: what researches have been carried out by the police up to date in regard to the Marseilles murder.

To the Prefect of Police.

Annex 42.

(Signed) Dr. Emeric HETENYI,

Assistant Prefect of Police.

The first telegram from the French Sfuete arrived on October 10th. In this telegram, information was requested as to the identity of Peter Kelemen. The reply to this telegram was despatched on October nth. The second telegram from the Sfuete arrived on October n th. This telegram asked for information concerning the identity of Nihomir Nalis, Tikomir Nalis,

l.adislav Benes, Egon Kramer and Sylvestre Chalni. The third telegram arrived the same day (October nth) and requested information regarding

llt name Rudolf Sik, in connection with Peter Kelemen. The fourth telegram, which arrived on October 12th, repeated the request for information

lllUmling Egon Kramer, amended the name of Chalny to Maloy, and gave the name of Maria l~drock as that of a suspected person.

On October 13th, we sent the Sfuete a radiogram as a joint reply to its telegrams 2 , 3 and 4, and informed it that the names of the persons mentioned up to that date were not to be found in the records of our services-that is to say, neither in the judicial records nor in the political records kept by our services.

The fifth radiotelegram from the Sfuete reached us on October 15th. It informed us that Egon Kramer was identical with Eugen Kraternik, who also went under the names of Kvatzer a nd jautsch Kvaternik. The same telegram asked us for information concerning this person.

Our reply to this telegram was despatched the same day ; we informed the Surete that the above-mentioned person also was unknown here.

The sixth telegram from the Sfuete arrived on October 16th ; it related to the persons known as Gustavus Pertchiz or Percec and Ante Pavelitsch. We were asked to trace and arrest them . . The same day, the seventh telegram from the Sfuete reached us. It referred to Ladislav Benes,

alias Ivan Raich, and J aroslav Novak, alias Zvoinimir Pospichil. The telegram stated that, aCC?rding to confessions made by these men, they would seem to have stayed at J ankapuszta lllltd September 26th, on which date, a man of about so years of age was said to have come to see them. This man was alleged to have banded Reich a false Hungarian passport in the name of J 6zsef Sever, and to have ordered him to leave for Zurich. The telegram added ~t Pospichil confirmed these statements. The Sfuete requested us to carry out investigations into this matter.

The eighth telegram from the Sfuete reached us on October 18th. It informed us that it 11ha·as Dr. Pavelich's representative, named Zudomire Bizek, alias Mio Bzik, who was said to have

nded false Hungarian passports in Budapest, in September 1934, to the terrorists who Jeft for FScrance, and to have ordered them to proceed on September 26th to Zurich, where they were to meet h~ck, alias Kelemen, and Kvaternik. The Sfuete asked us to carry out investigations on this

SUbject also.

th _The ~arne day, we received the ninth telegram from the Surete, asking for information as to

e tdenhty of Maria Vondracsek, also known as Maria Voundrock, and the man by whom she was accompanied, and requesting us to trace and arrest these persons. .

~er carrying out investigations-that is to say, on October 21st- we r~plied b):' radwg_ram ;o the SlXth and seventh telegrams from the Smete, stating that, according to mformatlon recetved :o~ ?ur office for the registration of domiciles, Gustavus Percec had never had any de~Jared 0~_cile, and that his name did not appear in the central judicial records of Hung~ry or m the ~litical records. We stated that the same was true of Ante Pavelit_sc_h. _We fur~~er mformed the ~te t.?-at the above-mentioned confessions by Ivan Raich and Zvorntmlf Posptsil were not true, itn. use tt had been ascertained that , as long ago as April or M~y of ~he ~resent rear, the Yugos!av

tgres had left Jankapuszta for an unknown destination. The mvesttgahons earned out concernmg

- !28-

the individual of about so years of age who was alleged to have gone to see the abo persons, and to have given them false Hungarian passports, have yielded no results. Th:e-natned service has not made out any passports bearing the names in question. passport

As regards the eighth and ninth telegrams from the Sftrete, after carryin investigations, we informed the Surete on October 23rd that nothing could be discovered ~onout ~e Zudomire Bizek, that the assertion that Gustavus Percec had lived at Horthyutca Nagykce~mg was not true and that it had been impossible to trace Maria Vondracsek. ' aDlzsa,

The tenth telegram from the Surete arrived on October 23rd. It informed us that Gust Percec was living in Budapest under the name of Joseph Neumann, journalist, and that he t1s a passport made out in that name. Having arrived in Hungary, at J ankapuszta unde ed name of Emil Horvath, he was said to have taken J ankapuszta on a lease and to b~ve liv~ the Horthy utca, 23, Nagykanizsa, under the assumed name of Ladislas Horvath, with his mistd at J elka Podgorelec, who left him in 1933. It was added that, at the latter address, the grou re~ emigres had met in the house belonging to Anton Zurich. It was stated that, among oufe 0

Pospisil and Kralj had stayed there until they left for France. Further, Raich, alias Be rs, stated that, with his two emigre companions, he lived continuously at J ankapuszta until the ~J of September-i.e., until he left for Zurich. n

The same telegram contained information concerning another individual, Bjekoslav Servac· who was said to live at Attila-utca, 81, Budapest, under the Hungarian name of Jcinos Szendre1

'

and to have been in communication with the terrorists arrested in France. 1'

We were asked to trace and arrest the above-mentioned persons. On October 27th, we replied by radiogram to this tenth t elegram. Our reply stated that

during our investigations we had not found anything which went to show that Gustavus Percec had lived here, as a journalist, under the name of Joseph Neumann; our passport servicehasnot during recent years, issued any passport bearing that name and occupation. We informed th~ Surete that Jankapuszta had been taken on a lease by a person named Emil Horvath, but that the farm had never belonged to Anton Zurich. It was possible that Edward Premec, who was probably an accomplice of Michael Kralj, might have passed through J ankapuszta during his flight. No one there knew him, however, and it has C011$equently been impossible to verify the accuracy of this hypothesis.

It has been proved that, at Attila-utca, 81, Budapest, on the fourth floor, No. z, there did indeed live a person whose demeanour was suspicious, who was identical with Vjekoslav Servaci and who passed as J anos Szendrei. According to the information we have obtained, however ' this man left his lodging on the 13th of the present month for an unknown destination. \\'~ informed the Surete that the search carried out in his former lodging had yielded no evidence that was likely to direct the investigations along any line whatsoever.

Finally, we have the honour to state that, before to-day-that is to say, before our report was written-an eleventh telegram arrived from Paris, on October 17th. In it, the Surete stata that Dr. Andras Artukovics has been arrested, and that there was found on him a Hungarian passport made out in his name in Budapest on February sth, 1934, and bearing the nu.mber 404,509/314,546. The Sfuete asked for an urgent telegraphic reply with information as to the circumstances in which Artukovics was able to procure this passport.

Budapest, October 31st, 1934.

Annex 43.

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of State Police, Budapest, Criminal Section.

(Signed) Dr. Emeric HETENYI,

Deputy Prefect of Police.

OFFICIAL REcoRD OF WITNEss's DEPOSITION

Drawn up in Budapest on October 26th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of th: enquiry and warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing ~~1t the trot in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his depos1tlon on ~a~~· He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of an offence under e Criminal Code.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Ladislas Vukovics. (z) Age: 33· (3) Place of birth: Budapest. (4) Domicile: Budapest I, Attila-u., Sr.

- 129 -

(5) Civil status: Married . (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Occupation: Chauffeur and doorkeeper.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned b t they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto ~:st be mentioned in the official record .)

• I am doorkeeper at No. 8r, Attila-utca. As far as I remember, it was in June this year that there came to live in flat No. 2, on the fourth floor, a man and woman who stated that they

rere Janos Szendrey, merchant, born at Szeged, and his wife. As far as I know, these persons ;'d a very quiet and orderly life. They paid their rent regularly. Regularly, but not always at t~e same hour, the man used to go out in order (as he said) to attend to his business affairs.

• I only conversed with these persons very rarely; we simply exchanged a few words. )foreover, I met t~em onl.Y rarely, when I opened the door to them or sometimes when I accompanied them 1!1 the ltft. . .

"I did not nohce the persons who came to see them. The bouse ts rather frequented; 1t is a five-storey building with twenty-two flats, so that I could not possibly have seen what was going on everywhere. With regard to the woman, I know that, once or twice, Hungarian ladies came to see her.

"I know nothing more about their personal circumstances. • I do, however, remember that on Saturday, October 13th, in the evening, Szendrey's

11~fe came to us and told us that that afternoon two men had come to her flat--one tall, the other shorter- we know that, because we had taken them up in the lift-and asked after her husband. She then told us that her husband had left on the same day-i.e., on the morning of October 13th­on business, and that consequently the two men had not been able to interview him. They said, however, that they had come on behalf of the police. She told us that she did not believe it, because one of them bad not spoken Htmgarian. On this point, Mme. Szendrey was right, becau:.e tater, on October 23rd, I was able to ascertain this fact for myself. On lhat day, the man who had come on the 13th called again, and again said that he had come from the police. At my request, after some hesitation, he handed me the attached visiting-card, on which I noted that day the number of the motor-car in which he had arrived at our house.

· I may say further that, on the next day (October 14th), Mme. Szendrcy came down to tiS in the morning and handed us the key of her fiat, saying that she herself would be absent lor a few days; she asked us to look after the flat and ascertain from time to time that there m no leakage in the central-heating pipes.

• Since the 13th and 14th respectively, neither Szendrey nor his wife rctw·ned t;.o the fiat wwe have not seen them again.

• I affirm that, on the 23rd of this month, I asked Maurice Negre for his card, because on the zznd, when the police were looking for Janos Szendrey and searched his flat in the presence of the under-doorkeeper, I received orders from the police that henceforward if anyone came to enquire after Szendrey I should ask the visitor to p~;ove his identity and should inform the police.

• I have nothing further to add."

This official record, after being read over and found to be correct, was duly signed.

Done on the above date.

(Signed) Dr. SCHWEINITZER,

Counsellor of Police.

Notes verbales of the Royal Yugoslav Legatiotl

October 16th, 1934 - No. 1065/34 (Gheorghieff cases)

October 20th, 1934 - No. 1083134

October 22nd, 1934 - No. 1089134 (Servazi case)

October 25th , 1934 - No. 1II7J34

October 23rd, 1934 - No. IOI7/34 (" Topol " cases)

Annex 44.

(Sigt1ed) Ladislas \'u KOVICS.

Replies of the Royal Hungaria·rr Mittistry for Foreign Affairs

October 17th, 1934 - No. 3438/34/ Pol. October 17th, 1934 - ad N0.34381Pol.

October 21st, 1934 - No. 3543/34/Pol. October 26th, 1934 - No. 3688/34/PoJ.

October zsth, I934 - No. 3645/34/POI.

October 26th, 1934 - No. 3687{34JPol. October 27th, 1934 - No. 3717/34/ Pol.

-130 -

October 23rd, 1934 - No. 989/34 (Fishermen's cases)

October 23rd, 1934 - No. 1040/34 (Dudas cases)

October 24th, 1934 - No. IIII/34 (Budak cases)

November sth, 1934 - ad No. IIII/34

October 26th, 1934 - No. II24/34 (Vlah6v case)

November 6th, 1934 - No. II47/34

October 28th, 1934 - No. II32/34 (Concerning the list of Croat emigres)

November 8th, 1934 - No. IIJ6/34

October 31st, 1934 -No. 867/34/4a.r.

November 17th, 1934 -No. 3943134/Pol.

November 6th, 1934 -No. 3836/34/Pol. November 10th, 1934 - No. 3886/34/PoJ.

November 14th, 1934 - No. 3887/34/Pol.

November 2nd, 1934- No. 3726/34/Pol. November z rst, 1934- No. 3873/34/Pol.

Annex 45 a. Criminal Section of the

Royal Hungarian Prefecture of Police.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITION

Drawn up in Budapest on December 25th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry atd warned that he was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in accordance with his conscience, and that he might be required to confirm his deposition on oath. He was also warned that, if he gave false evidence, he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(I) Name: Valentine Somogyi. (2) Age: so years. (3) Birthplace: Poroszl6. (4) Domicile: Budapest, Baross-u., 129, Fsz. 6. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Protestant. (7) Profession: Doorkeeper.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I have been doorkeeper at No. 129, Baross Street, since May rst, 1933. " In view of my duties, I naturally know all the inmates of the house. . " I therefore knew and still know Joseph Haber, who has been living at No. 32 on the th~rd

floor since August rst last. I had no relations with him, but only a few conversations concermng his flat.

" I recognise that the double photograph submitted to me as being that of Persec represents t he person who lived in our house under the name of Joseph Haber. .

" When this photograph was shown to me for the first time, I was unable to recogm~e the person in question, as I had not my spectacles with me at the time, and as the bad light~1g ~~ my lodgings made it difficult for me to recognise it ; in this office, however, I can recogmse 11

quite easily. " I cannot say at what t ime Haber-Persec left the flat, as I did not notice it."

Signed after being read over.

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. SCHWEINITZER,

Police Comzsellor.

(Signed) Valentine SoMoGYI.

-131-

Annex 45 b. Criminal Section of the

R al Hungarian Prefecture oy of Police.

OFFICIAL REcoRD OF WITNEss's DEPOSITION

Drawn up in Budapest on December 25th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

The witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the enquiry, and wa~ed .that he.was bound to tell th~ truth, the ~vhole truth and ~othing but the truth in accordance wtth h ts consctence, and that he mtght be requtred to confirm hts deposition on oath. He was also warned that if he gave false evidence he would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(1) Name: J ohn Fazekas. (2) Age: so years. (3) Birthplace: Mez6kovacshaza, County of Csanda. (4) Domicile: Baross Street, No. 131, mezzanine g. (5) Civil status: Married. (6) Religion: Roman Catholic. (7) Profession: Under-doorkeeper at 129, Baross Street.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.)

" I recognise without any doubt the double photograph which is now before me as being that of Joseph Haber, who lived at 129, Baross Street.

• As I am under-doorkeeper in that house, I have frequently had opportunities of seeing him. • The doorkeeper of that house is 1\f. Valentine Somogyi."

Duly signed after being read over.

Date as above.

{Signed) Dr. SCHWEINITZER.

Police Cotmsellor.

Criminal Section of the Royal Hungarian Prefecture

of Police.

Annex 45 c .

{Signed) john FAZEKAS.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF WITNESS'S DEPOSITIO;..i

Drawn up in Budapest on December 25th, 1934.

Present: The undersigned.

!he witness, attending in response to a summons, was informed by me of the object of the ~nqwry, and warned that she was bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth m accordance with her conscience, and that she might be required to confirm her deposition on oath. She was also warned that, if she gave false evidence, she would be guilty of a punishable offence.

In the absence of the other witnesses, the witness then made the following statement:

(r) Name: Madame John Fazekas; maiden name, Barbara Kab6k. (2) Age: 44 years. (3) Birthplace: Torokbecse, County of Torontal. (4) Domicile: 131, Baross Street, mezzanine 9· (S) Civil status: Married. (6) Heligion: Roman Catholic. (7) Profession: Under-doorkeeper.

(The persons referred to in Article 205 of the Code of Crin1inal Procedure must be warned that they are not bound to make a statement. This warning and the witness's reply thereto must be mentioned in the official record.}

·I recognise without any doubt the double photograph which is now before me as being that of J~eph Haber, who lived at 131, Baross Street. . . ,

I have often worked in the bouse; I have often seen h1m ; I cannot be m1staken.

" I can give no information about him, except that he has always been a very quiet tenant."

Date as above.

(Signed) Dr. ScHWEINITZER,

Police Counsellor.

Royal Hungarian State Police Prefecture, Budapest.

Annex 46 a .

OFFICIAL RECORD

[Initials of Mme. ]. Fazekas.]

(Signed) Dr. SCHWEINITZER Police Counsellor '

Drawn up at the Royal Hungarian State Police Prefecture, Budapest, on December 4th, 1934 on the occasion of the examination of Dr. Peter Heczey, born at Kolozsvar, 44 years, of th~

reformed religion, Police Counsellor, Chief of the Press Bureau, domiciled in Budapest.

Present: The undersigned.

The above-mentioned person made the following statement :

"As regards the affair of Vjekoslaw Servaci, a Y~oslav national (who is alleged to be the same as Janos Szendrei), I made no statement before the journalists at the Police Press Bureau on the evening of October 23rd and could not indeed have made any, since I was not at the Bureau that evening. This can be attested by the Yugoslav Press attache himself, since, on theeveninu of October 23rd, he endeavoured repeatedly to reach me by telephone at the Police Press Bureau~ without result. During the morning of the following day, October 24th, Albert Bozsidar, lhe Press attache at the Yugoslav Legation, telephoned to me and asked me whether it was true that the Budapest police had arrested a Yugoslav national and whether I had made a staternen\ before the journalists the previous evening with regard to this arrest. I told the Yugoslav Press attache most categorically that I knew nothing about the affair, that I had not made a statement in any form before the journalists and that I could not have done so, because I was not at tbt Press Bureau.

" Thereupon, our conversation ended, and the Press attache took note of my reply. Later, I investigated the origin of this false rumour and learned that it was a journalist called F6thi, who had access to the Press Bureau, who had heard it somewhere. He would, no doubt, be able to say where he obtained the information."

The record was read over, found correct and signed.

Done on the date above-mentioned.

(Signed) Dr. PEREGRINY,

General Police Counsellor.

(Signed) Dr. Peter H:EczEY, Police Counsellor.

It was before the signature of the record that the word "delel6tt" (forenoon, mo~1ing), on the eighth line on page r, and the word "bejar6" (who had access), on the fourth hneon page 2, were respectively inserted and amended.

{Signed) Dr. P EREGRINY,

General Police Co~msellor.

1\oyal Hungarian State Police Prefecture,

Budapest.

Annex 46 b.

OFFICIAL RECOIW

(Signed) Dr. Peter H:EczEY,

Police Counsellor.

Drawn up at the Royal Hungarian State Police Prefecture, Budapest, on December 4th, 193.4• on the occasion of the examination of Ernest F6thy, bom at Csongnid, 34 years, Roman Catholtc,

journalist by profession, domiciled in Budapest, Mester-utca, 4·

Present: The undersigned.

-133-

The above-mentioned person made the following statement:

• On October 23rd, about 9 o'clock in the evening, when I was at the Police Press Bureau, I heard-the telephone box being_ open-Emeric Sz:<>ke,_ reporter of the newspaper Pesti Napl6, . f nn his editor by telephone: 'Srr, a false rurnour 1s gomg round the town to the effect that the Ul ~ce have arrested a Yugoslav national, in connection, it is said, with the Marseilles outrage. pobave not received any information on the subject from the police, but I am going to find out I bether the news is accurate and whether it is true.' That is what I heard and what I felt bound r report in my turn to the Dunaposta Press Information Agency, warning my editor at the same ~e that I did not lmow whether this news was correct or not and that I was going to obtain

~ fonnation from other sources, since I bad not received any information on the subject from the ~lice or from the Chief of the Police Press Bureau."

The record was read over, found correct and signed.

Done on the above-mentioned date. (Signed) Ernest F6THY.

(Signed) Dr. PEREGRINY,

General Police Counsellor.