United States? If there ever was a State, a community in Europe, which knew what self-determination meant, and how to exercise such a right, that community or State was Fiume.

The citizens of the free community or free municipality of Fiume decided on July 20, 1530, to place themselves under the protection of Ferdinand I, under certain conditions, accepting certain duties but without renunciation to the personality of the community, whose historical boundaries were recognized by imperial patents issued by Emperor Ferdinand himself. On the force of that patent Fiume was annexed to the crown, but as a separate body, corpus separatum and its status was confirmed by Maria Theresa in 1789, and by the Hungarian Parliament in 1868. In plain words, up to October 30, 1918, the empire of the Hapsburgs was formed by three States, viz, Austria, Hungary, and Fiume. With the collapse of the Hapsburgs, the compact stipulated between them and Fiume became void and null, and the citizens of Fiume, free again of any ties or obligations, decided to annex themselves to Italy. This decision was a bona fide one and was taken through the proper and right channels and in a politically legal form.

Now if we were to trust what has been said here and there, it would appear that when Fiume proclaimed her annexation to Italy on the basis of her right of self-determination, a sort of a dilemma was put to Italy by her allies: If you take Fiume, then the treaty of London shall be considered void and null, because Fiume was excluded from the pact; if you want the fulfillment of the Treaty of London, then Fiume must go to Croatia. I must candidly confess that I am not able to follow the argument.

Let us suppose that Fiume was excluded from the pact of London for unselfish reasons, for the reason that Austria-Hungary could not be deprived as a nation (republic or empire does not matter) of an outlet to the sea. At that time nobody hoped that Italy would be able to completely crush the Austrian dynasty, and perhaps it was right to leave Fiume to Austria. But now, with the break-up of the Austrian Empire, we have Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, who have become inland powers and who consequently have as much right to Fiume as Switzerland has to Genoa or Marseille. Fiume is an independent body, and as such, exercising its right of self-determination, chooses to be annexed to Italy. How could and why should Italy lose the rights acquired by the treaty of London in accepting the decision of the free state of Fiume?

We have been told that it is because the new State called JugoSlavia needs an outlet to the sea. But what do they mean when they say Jugo-Slavia? If it is a question of Croatia, Bosnia, Herzego vina, and Serbia as a whole, it is clear that Fiume is not the natural outlet to the sea of any of them. The future of Serbia points “toward the south" will be our moto from now on, wrote Prof. Ciwije, of Belgrade University, in 1913, and he was thinking of Saloniki. On August 6, 1916, the Serbian Premier Pasic said, "We can not deny the incontestable right of Italy to the hegemony of both sides of the Adriatic. We are only looking for an economical outlet," and such an outlet was considered more than sufficient in a strip of territory between Ragusa and Cattaro 3 miles long. And again, another Serbian official said, "The harbors of Dalmatia are useless to us,

because they are eccentric to Serbia." And so they are, especially Fiume, which is the most eccentric of them all. What has been said of Serbia can be applied to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which lie between Serbia and the Adriatic.

Then Fiume would be the natural outlet of Croatia. But it is not, since only 7 per cent of all the trade passing through Fiume is Croatian and only 13 per cent of the import and export commerce of JugoSlavia pass through Fiume. Then it appears clearly that the Croatians want Fiume not for their trade, but to acquire a predominance over Hungary, the Bohemians and Germans, substituting themselves for the detested Hapsburgs. It is for the reason that the Croatians want to resuscitate another powerful Austria that the people of Fiume_protest against being forcibly annexed to JugoSlavia; that the Italians naturally can not suffer their brethren to be again subjected to the gallows of their oppressors, and Italy wishes. to insure her security on the Dalmatian coast. It should be born in mind that Croatia already has natural outlets, e. g. Buccari, Porto Re, Carlo Pago, and Segna; Serbia and Herzegovina have Trau and Spalato, Marcassa, Gravosa and Ragusa, Castelnuovo, Cattaro, Antivari and Metcovitch which is with Spalato, the natural outlet. of Jugo-Slavia, as it stands at the terminal of the only railroad system that goes from the sea to Sarajevo and Belgrade.

It is claimed that Fiume is needed by Jugo-Slavia because that is the only port served by a normal guage railroad. Now a regular gauge railway will never be built in Jugo-Slavia because the whole country is served and shall be served by narrow guage railroads.

Mr. Sanjanovic, a Slav civil engineer, railway adviser to the JugoSlav Government, on March 12, 1919, made this statement: "Examined the situation of Spalato as compared with that of Fiume and Salonica, with regard to the outlets of Jugo-Slavia. I may conclude that by the construction of two comparatively short and inexpensive railway lines, Spalato will acquire for Jugo-Slavia's trade an importance equal to that of Fiume and Salonica."

Mr. Sanjanovic justly remarks that the railway system of the new State will thus be formed by two distinct parts:

1. A main, normal-gauge line from Steinbruck to Zagabria, Belgrade, Nisch, and Salonica, for international intercourse between West and East:

2. A series of transversal lines for national traffic, linking up the various centers of the new Kingdom amongst themselves and with the sea. These latter would be narrow-gauge railways, like most of those built by the late Austro-Hungarian Government and by Serbia.

It follows that the ports of national importance for Jugo-Slavia will be those on the Adriatic connected by the narrow-gauge lines and evidently not those (like Fiume, etc.) connected to the main line.

Mr. Senjanovic shows also that the new lines of Jugo-Slavia will have to be narrow-gauge ones, both because the country has already 2,000 kilometers of narrow-gauge lines and because narrow-gauge lines are so much cheaper, although affording a high transport. capacity.

"In Bosnia," says Mr. Senjanovic, "narrow-gauge railways attain a speed of 45 kilometers an hour, a speed which could not be exceeded. in mountainous regions, by normal-gauge ones. Modern narrowgauge trucks can be built to carry from 15 to 20 tons, that is to say, the same as normal-gauge ones. The Doboi-Serajevo line had 30 trains a day and the yearly earnings reached 35,000 crowns a kilometer in 1911, as compared with 40,000 crowns for the normal-gauge lines, and from 16,000 to 20,000 on the secondary lines."

In 1912 the Brod-Serajevo Line transported 1,641,000 tons per kilometer, or 4,500 tons per kilometer a day, equal to 225 fully loaded trucks; similar results are found only on very active normal-gauge lines.

All the data have been taken from the following official documents. We know that Jugo-Slavia has plenty of harbors for its present and future commerce. The statement often made by Jugo-Slavs that Italy wants to block forever Jugo-Slav commercial expansion by taking over the Dalmatian coast is absolute falsehood. The Serbians wanted only 3 miles and instead they have now more than 600. Italy has claimed no more than 200 miles, excluding for instance Spalato, which makes its living almost exclusively on Italian trade. In fact, Spalato has an electric plant for the production of 60,000 horsepower, built by the Italians with Italian capital, and from Spalato 400.000 tons of cement were yearly exported to Italy.

Italy wanted a part of Dalmatia which had retained its Italian character and some Dalmatian islands which constitute a tremendous danger to her. These islands can hide and protect by a system of mine laying the navy of Jugo-Slavia or any of her allies, which could attack at will the occidental coast of the Adriatic, studded with beautiful cities, and return safely to their abodes before the Italian Navy might be able to defend the coast. The recent war has confirmed Italy in her conviction that she needs protection on that side. Unable to confute such military reasons the Jugo-Slavs say it was all right to seek protection in the past, but now we have the league of nations. It is fine rhetoric and fine philosophy, but a league that has to hang on another league of three nations to be of any value arouses great suspicion of its own protective value. I can not blame the Italians if they demand a more tangible form of protection.

The last argument used by the Jugo-Slavs is that the majority of the population in Dalmatia is Slavic. Therefore these lands fall to Jugo-Slavia on the principle of nationality. Now, the question of nationality has nothing to do with the question as to how many Slavs will be included within Italy's frontiers or to how many Germans will be included within the French frontier on the Rhine. Dalmatia is claimed by Italy as unredeemed land, just as Transylvania is claimed by Roumania and Alsace-Lorraine by France.

In Transylvania there are 1,472,021 Roumanians and 1,206,346 Magyars and Germans. In Alsace and Lorraine before the war there was the following proportion between Germans and French: Lorraine-481,460 Germans, 73 per cent; 146,097 French, 27 per

cent.

Upper Alsace-481,375 Germans, 93 per cent; 31,771 French, 6 per cent.

Lower Alsace-671,425 Germans, 96 per cent; 26,394 French, 3.7 per cent.

In all, 1,634,260 Germans, 87 per cent; 204,662 French, 10 per

cent.

I don't care to belittle the sacred aspirations of France, but wish to demonstrate that the proportions existing in Dalmatia between Italians and Slavs is more or less equivalent to that existing between the French and Germans in Alsace and Lorraine, two provinces which were restored to France without discussion. This shows that the principle of nationality can not be defined by the simple process of counting heads, by taking the individual out of his surroundings, out of his national traditions, out of his political and social ties, with his forerunners and the people living around him at present. If you take him out of the whole series of interdependent national relations you make the individual universal. You make of him an antisocial and antipolitical being. You do, in other words, what the Bolsheviks have done in Russia and elsewhere. The Slavs in Slavia and Dalmatia, as well as the Germans in Alsace and Lorraine, can not be separated from their environment and considered. as individuals. The Slavs find themselves in territory which is Italian historically, geographically, and by right of strategic necessity. They must bow to this condition, because it is more important to the world that a great nation should be made secure than the liking of a few thousand individuals should not be thwarted. Naturally there are also the rights of Jugo-Slavia to be considered if Jugo-Slavia will become a nation. In fact, where the Slav national rights will necessitate the inclusion of some Italians within JugoSlavia's boundaries, these Italians shall have to bow to a superior interest.

That is not the case of Fiume, however, whose people are entitled to the principle of self-determination, nor the case of that part of Dalmatia which was assigned to Italy by the Treaty of London that is indispensable to the security of a nation of 40,000,000 inhabitants, a nation which has paid the full price in blood, suffering, and wealth to acquire that security. Because that part of Dalmatia was under the yoke of the Hapsburgs, it has been possible for the Austrian fleet, a few hours after the declaration of war, to pour upon cities and destroy churches and schools, to kill women and children, and fly away, refusing, up to the last, the challenge of the Italian sailors. Should a new war break again, in spite of all our efforts, in five years or in a century, the Italians do not want a repetition of what happened in the past. They want that the churches and cities be spared that the priests might pray and women toil and children grow in safety at least. It is for the assurance of such a future that more than 500,000 Italians died on the battle fields, more than 900,000 were severely wounded, and millions and millions of men. women, and children suffered cold and hunger and swallowed silently their bitter tears. They hoped for the justice of Italy's allies, and especially America, and they must not have hoped in vain. Senator HARDING. What port do you suggest that Jugo-Slavia should develop?

Dr. VACCARO. Metzovic is the most central of them all. I have some maps here, Senator, which show that Metzovic is the most centrally located one.

Mr. COTILLO. I have a telegram here from John J. Freschi, who regrets his inability to be here, and desires to be recorded at the hearing of Fiume before the committee as favoring Italy having Fiume, and he states that if it pleases the Senate committee he will file a memorandum, including exhibits.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have here a gentleman, Mr. Field, who has requested me to ask for a few minutes of your time. The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

STATEMENT OF MR. W. H. FIELD.

Mr. FIELD. I desire to file with you statements signed by people who were present in Paris and in Italy during the recent negotiations, which statements will show that Col. House was in favor of giving Fiume to the Italians and that President Wilson opposed it.

I will also file statements and publications from England which show that the Hamburg banking house of Warburg was interested in the railroads, and for that reason is interested in the Fiume decision, and that the matter is one which should be gone into very carefully, as it is divided into two camps.

Senator KNOX. What position does the Warburg bank take in the matter?

Mr. FIELD. They wish Fiume not to be an Italian port. Opposition to that has been shown, and I think if you go over carefully the publications that came out abroad on both sides, you get a very accurate view of the financial interests, and if you have some of the statements by those who took part in the negotiations, you will see clearly that in the American delegation there was a rift, on the one side the President, and on the other side Col. House, and some of those witnesses did not wish to appear and some are not available in this country, but it is stated that they are willing to make signed memoranda to be delivered to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Now, those I will file as rapidly as possible with the committee.

(Subsequently the extracts referred to were submitted and are here printed in full, as follows:)

[Extracts from Modern Italy, published May 24, 1919; June 21, May 31, May 17, and May 10, 1919, respectively.]

THE BRITISH MERCANTILE MARINE.

But the group goes even further. According to Pertinax in the Echo de Paris, April 28:

M. Max Warburg is the chief of the banking firm Max Warburg & Co., of Hamburg. He is the principal shareholder in the Hamburg-American and German Lloyd Steamship Lines. His two brothers, Paul and Felix Warburg, married respectively to the sister-in-law and the daughter of M. Jacob H. Schiff (born at Frankfort) are the associates of the latter at the head of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. bank of New York. Here we have a financial group which, up to the declaration of war by America, in April, 1917, was the most powerful link between the politicians of Washington and those of Berlin. From 1914 to 1917 this powerful syndicate showed itself extraordinarily active against

It should not be forgotten that Mr. Jacob Schiff, according to Pertinax, has been the great financial supporter of the "Mutual Society of German Jews," which was linked and is still probably linked on many sides with high German circles, and that in 1916 he founded the American Neutral Conference Committee which took upon itself the task of bringing about peace with a vic orious Germany.