Church would lose further 7 colleges, 3 preparatory schools, 1 girls' secondary school, and about 600 primary schools. More than a thousand, that is half of the total number, of the congregations of the Reformed Church would become scattered under the foreign rule of different countries. It need not be said that this would completely paralyze this hitherto most numerous unit of the Calvinistic Church in Europe. The Unitarian Church would fare still worse, if possible. In spite of the fact that her members are exclusively Magyars, all of her congregations, with the exception of three, would come under Roumanian rule. This unit referred to in Britain and in America as the oldest one of the Unitarian Church, holding always a leading part in the cultivation of liberal thought, would be doomed to complete ruin. And what ould the Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, and other denominations, less important in numbers than on account of their lively missionary activity, except should they come under the rule of Roumania and Serba? The priests of these countries never ceased to emphasize that it was disloyal for a Roumanian or a Servian to follow any other creed than the Orthodox. What this unfortunate situation means for Protestanism, any one familiar with church history will readily understand. It means danger to all the lofty principles represented by Protestantism, and it means the triumph of empty rites, ceremonies, and priestcraft represented by the Greek Orthodox Church. It means the victory of eastern superstitution over the civilization of the West. That the spirit of the East is not an imaginary danger to western civilization is shown by the fact that one of the first things the Roumanians did after entering Transylvania was to arrest and imprison the bishop, or superintendent, of the Hungarian Reformed Church, Charles Nagy, D. D. In many instances, when they occupied an Hungarian town, they ordered the clergymen to offer thanksgivings in the churches. The minister or priest who refused to comply with the order was simply thrown into prison. And, according to the Manchester Guardian of March 17, 1919, the Roumanian army of invasion has made captive some other religious leaders of Transylvania, including Joseph Ferencz, the Unitarian superintendent, who is 87 years old; Samuel Barabas (Calvinist), Matthias Eisler and Morris Glasner (Hebrew rabbis), Prof. Alexius Boer (Calvinist), and Julius Arkosy (Unitarian inspector of schools). In the lights of these facts the refusal of M. Bratianu, the premier of Roumania, to subscribe to the guaranties for the protection of racial and religious minorities is not difficult to understand. The partition of Hungary would sound the deathknell to Protestantism in the east of Europe. IV. THE ECONOMICAL ASPECT. The late French geographer and savant. Prof. Reclus, remarked in one of his books that Hungary is the most compact geographical unit in Europe. A glance at the map will convince everybody of the truth of this statement. The Carpathians form a solid mountain wall around two-thirds of the country, and for the other third the Danube. Drave, Lajta, and Morava Rivers are the natural boundaries. The whole country belongs to one hydrographic system, there being only three unimportant streams which do not join the Danube or its tributaries within its boundaries. It is rich in natural resources which, however, are so distributed that the different regions are economically interdependent. The great central plain is a most fertile grain-producing region, but has practically no timber and minerals. Northern and northeastern Hungary is rich in timber, coal, iron ore, and salt, but is a poor agricultural country. Southeastern Hungary has natural gas (which indicates the presence of oil), coal, salt, copper, gold, and silver mines, but being mostly mountainous, does not produce sufficient quantities of cereals. Each region needs products of which the other regions have a surplus. Separately they can not exist, together they form a fine, self- supporting organism. The proposed partition of Hungary would leave to her only a part of the central plain. The only hard-coal mines, those around Petrozseny, would go to Roumania. The next best coal mines, in the vicinity of Salgo-Tarjan, are coveted by the Czechs; and the coal mines in Baranya County are demanded by the Serbians. Hungary would retain only the soft-coal mines around Esztergom, which can not produce enough to supply the railroads, leaving nothing for heating and the lighting and manufacturing plants. All the iron-ore fields and the splendid iron works at Diosgyor, Ozd, and other places, which owe their development to Hungarian brains and money, would be lost to the Czechs. Eighty-six per cent of Hungary's wool industry would go to the Czechs and nearly all of the rest to Roumania. The latter country would also get more than one-half of Hungary's cellulose and paper factories. While more complete statistical data are not at present at our disposal, it is cl even from the above facts that the "new Hungary" would be stripped of practica all her resources of raw material and the greater part of her industries. She w have no outlet to the sea and, with no natural boundaries, would be condemne! * economic strangulation by her selfish and imperialistic neighbors. It is also worthy of note in this connection that, while Germany was deprived only 10 per cent of her continental territory and that 10 per cent consists of comp tively recent conquests, Hungary is to lose 80 per cent of her territory, all of whi she has held for a thousand years. Is Hungary, which played a subordinate part in the great drama, to be punish eight times as severely as Germany, the chief actor and manager? V. THE POLITICAL OR INTERNATIONAL ASPECT. Coming to the political aspect of the readjustment of the world's affairs, in its tion to the proposed mode of disposal of Hungary's territory, there can hardly be a dissent of opinion as to the truism that the permanency and stability of peace pends to a very large extent on the permanency and stability of the politically orga ized bodies: i. e., States, as they will emerge from the peace treaties. The logical sequel of this truism is that in deciding if any political changes o to be made, the first and paramount consideration should be whether the propos changes will add to the permanency and stability of conditions. It seems to be qur apparent, therefore, that even though the political status as it existed before at during the war should be adjudged as unsatisfactory, no changes should be permit that will make matters worse instead of improving them. Applying these truths to Hungary, this question has to be faced: Will the interests of mankind and of all involved races, and in particular the 12terests of a permanent peace be better served by the disturbing of the territorial historical, political, and economic unity of Hungary and by the substituting for the natural boundaries new boundaries that can not do full justice to everybody or ** anybody, no matter how carefully they are drawn, than by leaving this territori historical, political, and economic unit undisturbed and by giving a new, m democratic Hungarian Republic an opportunity to assure the free development all races, on the lines laid down by the allied and associated powers in the treaty proposed for Poland and which lines are identical with the fundamental principle concerning the protection of racial minorities as incorporated in the laws of Hungary In order to get the proper answer to this question, the following undisputable ** are to be considered: 1. As hereinbefore shown, Hungary proved, for over a thousand years, her al to maintain a politically well-organized state in a part of Europe where no other a succeeded in that task before. .י 2. The goal of Hungary has always been, as it has been demonstrated by her his and laws, to be a politically one nation, even though composed of many raHH, ALL these races to enjoy all liberties and rights as long as they do not conflict with the interests of the politically one nation. That this goal has been a just one is best pro by the fact that in creating new nations the Paris conference tries to enable the reach that very goal. It may be added that whatever errors may have been committed by Hungary in the treatment of her nationalities, whatever wrongs the varias É may have been complaining of, were solely due to the zoal to realize such a pa such an ideal. New Hungary certainly profited by the errors of the past and h learned that the old ideal must be adapted to the new conditions, to the new the dominating the world. 3. Hungary has given the evidence of centuries of her total lack of imperati tendencies and of her sole desire to protect her own national existence, with respect for all her neighbors and without any designs on any part of their territ This is in sharp contrast with the decidedly imperialistic tendencies of her neigh all of whom would like to aggrandize themselves not only at the cost of Hungary, also at the cost of each other. And inasmuch as the peace of the future lomani primarily, the elimination of all imperialism, Hungary's territory can only be s from becoming the battle field of imperialism by leaving it in care of the only na z in that part of Europe which is absolutely free of all taint of imperialisın. The claimants of Hungarian territory try to overcome this very apparent weak of their political aspirations by pleading that the disruption of Hungary is require (a) In order to establish democracy in that section of Europe, and (b) went a wall against German imperialism. 1 Both pleas are without any real foundation and can easily be disposed of. (a) Although the propaganda maintained by Hungary's neighbors in this country in the last few years exerted all its efforts to make the American people believe that the Hungarians are a race of oppressors, real "Prussians," who have no respect for the rights of people, the fact remains and can be proved by all recognized books on history in all civilized languages, that no country and no race is better fitted, more able, and better prepared to champion the cause of true democracy in eastern and southeastern Europe than Hungary and the Magyars. It should not be forgotten that, next to England, Hungary has the oldest constitution. It should not be forgotten that, for many centuries, these two constitutions were the only safeguards of peoples' rights against the kings' prerogatives, and so really were the forerunners of modern democracy. Neither should it be forgotten that, when in the sixteenth century the revival of Roman law in its Pyzantine form brought an invasion of ideas of despotism and absolute rule all over Europe and so crushed all the free institutions of the mediaeval nations, it left standing alone two constitutions, the English constitution and the Hungarian constitution.` Finally, it should not be forgotten that this very reason caused these two nations to be among the last ones to adopt such suffrage laws without which no real democracy is possible. History teaches that a period of autocracy led most everywhere (we speak of Europe, of course) to the establishment of truly democratic institutions. There were no periods of autocratic rule of sufficient length in the history of Hungary to cause such changes, and as a result the introduction of modern democracy became a rather slow process, which slowness, however, does not reflect upon Hungary's readiness, adaptability for real democracy, and does not justify the recent attacks against the Hungarian nation, accusing her of shamming democracy for the hidden purpose of perpetuating what the accusers like to call the rule of the aristocratic classes. A comparison of Hungary's history with that of her neighbors, of Hungary's laws and institution with those of her neighbors, of the condition of the tillers of the soil and of the laboring men in Hungary and in the territories of her neighbors, of Hungary's civilization with that of her neighbors, will readily given the only possible answer to the question: Which State, which race can best be intrusted with the important task of making democracy safe in that part of the world? (b) The plea of the Czechs, of Roumania, and Serbia that Hungary must be dismembered so that a solid wall could be erected against all possible future imperialistic designs of Germany, is apparently making the deepest impression in not too well versed circles, and yet this plea is the most futile, the most flimsy, the most ludicrous of all. History shows that the Hungarian nation has been ever since its conception the natural opponent and counterbalancing factor of Germanism. In fact, while compelled, first by the Turkish peril, and in the second half of the. nineteenth century by the Russian danger and by the refusal of the Western Powers to stand by her, to accept the Hapsburg rule, Hungary had to keep on and did keep on a continuous fight against the tendency of the Hapsburgs to Germanize Hungary and to make her an Austrian, and thereby practically a German Province with an autocratic government. This attitude of Hungary and of the Magyars deseves all the more appreciation in the disposal of Hungary's fate, as it is to be remembered that the Croatians and Roumanians of Hungary have always courted the favor of the Hapsburgs, not offering any resistance to their Germanizing tendencies, and becoming willing tools of their plans of absolutism. The Hungarian wall has proved its worth for centuries. A Slavic and Roumanian wall is an unknown and, therefore, uncertain factor. Only a strong and self-supporting Hungary, independent from the German Hapsburgs, can form a secure and stable barrier against Germany's "Drang nach dem Osten." And such a Hungary would do more. She would also be an effective bar, and the only possible bar, against all imperialistic tendencies of her neighbors, which must be considered a very disturbing element for the future. Furthermore, the Hungarians belong neither to the Teutonic nor the Slavic nor the. Latin group of races, and seem thus to be destined to form a buffer State amongst them. The deeper one delves into the political aspect of the entire situation the more he must get convinced that the proposed disintegration of Hungary can not possibly ameliorate matters, and that it is the vital interest of mankind, of all involved races, and of permanent peace that Hungary should emerge from the present cataclysm as a strong, self-supporting State. CONCLUSION. To resume, we have established by the foregoing the following facts: 1. Hungary has existed as a State and a nation for over a thousand years in a territory where no other race had been able to establish and maintain a permanent political organization. Surely, possession of such length and the demonstration of such political capacity ought to secure a clear and undisputable title. 2. No other country has any claim on any part of Hungary that could be based on "historical rights.' 3. The distribution of the various races in Hungary positively prevents any territorial readjustment, by which more homogeneous conditions could be created than existed till now. 4. Hungary has always been the land of religious liberty and tolerance. Roumanian and Serbian rule over large parts of Hungary would disrupt the Hungarian Protestant Churches and threaten protestantism with extinction in the east of Europe. 5. Hungary is a natural geographhic and hydrographic unit, to disturb which could not possibly help in stabilizing conditions. 6. Hungary is also a most distinct economic unit, all parts being interdependent. Separately they can not exist, together they are a self-supporting organism. 7. Not only would the cause of peace not be promoted by the partition of Hungary, but a new Balkan, or Macedonia, would be created right in the heart of Europe and become the source of permanent strife and complications. 8. Should the foregoing facts and circumstances be considered as of insufficient force and importance to bar the claims of neighboring nations, it certainly ought not to be permitted to have any part of Hungary placed under a new sovereignty without giving the peoples of such parts an opportunity to exercise the right of self-determination by plebiscites under fair conditions. 9. Hungary ought not to be dismembered in punishment because this would not be warranted by Hungary's acts and deeds before and during the war. Not only was she not able to keep out of the war, but developments since the armistice justified Hungary's claim that her existence had been in constant peril. We feel that Hungary can be saved from destruction only by America, as the United States are the only powerful country which has not been a party to the immoral secret treaties upon which the claimants of Hungarian territory are pressing their claims. In voicing our protest, therefore, against the proposed partition of Hungary as contrary to the demands of justice and incompatible with the requirements of a just and lasting peace, we respectfully ask the Senate of the United States to refuse to have our country become a party to the annihilation of a civilized nation. Respectfully submitted. CLEVELAND, OHIO, September 1, 1919. HUNGARIAN AMERICAN FEDERATION. APPENDIX A. EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN AND BRITISH PUBLIC MEN. In June, 1849, when Hungary, under the leadership of Louis Kossuth was battling heroically against fearful odds for freedom and independence, President Zachary Taylor appointed Ambrose Dudley Mann, of Virginia, "special and confidential agent to Hungary," and instructed him to report on conditions in that country with the view of acknowledging its independence. However, the dispatching of the American agent was of no assistance to Hungary which, abandoned by the Western Powers, had to succumb to the combined attacks of the two greatest military powers of the age, Austria and Russia. In his message, dated March 28, 1850, transmitting the correspondence relating to Mann's mission to the Senate, President Taylor wrote as follows: My purpose, as freely avowed in this correspondence, was to have acknowledged the independence of Hungary had she succeeded in establishing a government de facto on a basis sufficiently permanent in its character to have justified me in doing so, according to the usuages and settled principles of this Government, and although she is now fallen, and many of her gallant patriots are in exile or in chains, I am free still to declare that had she been successful in the maintenance of such a government as we could have recognized, we should have been the first to welcome her into the family of nations." As Congressman Henry J. Steele, of Pennsylvania, recently said in a public speech, had Hungary then not been abandoned to her fate, the development of democracy in Central and Eastern Europe would have taken a different turn, and it would not have been necessary in 1917 "to make the world safe for democracy" by a sanguinary war. The American agent sent to Hungary also felt that the abandonment of Hungary at that critical juncture was a fatal mistake. In his report to Washington, dated Vienna, September 27, 1849, he said: "In not formally expressing her disapproval of the policy avowed in the manifesto of Nicholas of 14th May last, Great Britain either misconceived the nature of the obligations imposed upon her as the most liberal and enlightened of the European powers or was ignorant of the principles and interest involved in the issue. Had she proclaimed in emphatic language within 24 hours after this manifesto reached Downing Street that she was prepared to resist an armed intervention by any power adverse to Hungary, the Czar would scarcely have had the termerity to march his army across his frontiers. The deplorable omission of such duty changes completely the relations of power in European States." Autocracy having been victorious, Louis Kossuth, the champion of European democracy, was interned in Asia Minor. In 1851 he was liberated, mainly through the efforts of Daniel Webster, and brought to the United States in a national vessel as the guest of the nation. Daniel Webster, then Secretary of State for the second time, whose celebrated Hülsemann letter had nearly led to war with Austria on account of Hungary, was the principal American speaker at the congressional banquet tendered in honor of Kossuth in Washington, January 5, 1852. "It is remarkable," he said in the course of his speech, "that, on the western coasts of Europe, political light exists. There is a sun in the political firmament, and that sun sheds his light on those who are able to enjoy it. But in eastern Europe, generally speaking, and on the confines between eastern Europe and Asia, there is no political sun in the heavens. It is all an Arctic Zone of political life. The luminary that enlightens the world in general seldom rises there above the horizon. The light which they possess is at best crepuscular, a kind of twilight, and they are under the necessity of groping about to catch, as they may, any stray gleams of the light of day. Gentlemen, the country of which your guest to-night is a native is a remarkable exception. She has shown through her whole history, for many hundreds of years, an attachment to the principles of civil liberty, and of law and of order, and obedience to the constitution which the will of the great majority have established. That is the fact, and it ought to be known wherever the question of the practicability of Hungarian liberty and independence are discussed. It ought to be known that Hungary stands out from it above her neighbors in all that respects free institutions, constitutional government, and a hereditary love of liberty. * * * * * * * "Gentlemen, my sentiments in regard to this effort made by Hungary are here sufficiently well expressed. In a memorial addressed to Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston, said to have been written by Lord Fitzwilliams and signed by him and several other Peers and members of Parliament, the following language is used, the object of the memorial being to ask the mediation of England in favor of Hungary: "While so many of the nations of Europe have engaged in revolutionary movements, and have embarked in schemes of doubtful policy and still more doubtful success, it is gratifying to the undersigned to be able to assure your lordships that the Hungarians demand nothing but the recognition of ancient rights and the stability and integrity of their ancient constitution. To your lordships it can not be unknown that that constitution bears a striking family resemblance to that of our own country.' "Gentlemen, the progress of things is unquestionably onward. It is onward with respect to Hungary. It is onward everywhere. Public opinion, in my estimation at least, is making great progress. It will penetrate all resources, it will come more or less to animate all minds, and in respect to that country, for which our sympathies to-night have been so strongly invoked, I can not but say that I think the people of Hungary are an enlightened, industrious, sober, well-inclined community, and I wish only to add, that I do not now enter into any discussion of the form of government which may be proper for Hungary. Of course, all of you, like myself, would be glad to see her, when she becomes independent, embrace that system of government which is most acceptable to ourselves. We shall rejoice to see our American model upon the lower Danube, and on the mountains of Hungary. But that is not the first step. It is not that which will be our first prayer for Hungary. That first prayer shall be that Hungary may become independent of all foreign power, that her destinies may be entrusted to her own hands, and to her own discretion. I do not profess to under 135546-1963 |