THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940

Freedom of assembly and association, the most significant right besides the freedom of the press, was restricted in the same manner throughout the period of Romanian rule. Each of the Romanian constitutions explicitly guaranteed freedom of assembly. According to Article 28 of the Constitution of 1923, "Romanians have the right to assemble peacefully and unarmed in order to discuss all problems without distinction as to race, language, or religion, while observing the laws which regulate the exercise of this right. Prior authorization is not required for such activity . " In spite of this provision of the Constitution, the Romanian executive placed strict restrictions of the exercise of this right during the fifteen years of the state of emergency and, in several places, made the exercise of this right altogether impossible. Since, as we have seen, the state of emergency was applied primarily in the areas

642

inhabited by Hungarians, particularly before 1928, the restrictions also hampered primarily the Hungarians right to assemble.

From the beginning of the occupation to 1928, that is during the first ten years of Romanian rule, it was primarily the military authorities, while later it was the civilian and police authorities that placed restrictions of the right of assembly. The process was never uniform. In some places, meetings could only be authorized by the military, elsewhere it was the police, and in some areas three authorities had to concur. There was no preferential treatment of any kind as regards the purpose and character of the meeting; prior authorization was required indiscriminately, whether the meeting was of a religious, cultural, or political nature. In most places, however, the military played the primary role as a result of the nature of the state of emergency. In general, the military authorities intervened in all matters, in a decisive way. It was they who decided whether a meeting should or should not be authorized. As Sorban noted in his leaflet already cited: ,'High- ranking officers from the Old Kingdom now played a role in politics, in administration, in transportation, in the press, and even in literature and the arts. They hit upon a new concept of esthetic beauty: "What I say is beautiful is beautiful, because it is beautiful, otherwise I cut you down!" Then Sorban comments: "But is it really necessary that Transylvania remain under a military caretaker even today?" ²⁶ This military caretaking government lasted until 1928, and from 1918 to 1940 along the borders; in other areas of the country it resumed from 1933 to 1940.

If a Hungarian cultural association or diocese planned to organize a meeting, a cultural event, or some religious assembly, it had to request prior approval. In the villages, the authorization came from the notary or the sheriff, whereas in the towns it was the superintendent of police, the governor of the county and the military command. As mentioned, in most cities authorization had to be granted by all three entities. This procedure hampered the orderly existence of Hungarian cultural associations, religious gatherings and disrupted to a considerable extent. There were times when the E. M. E. was unable to function at all because of the difficulties in securing permissions for meetings. As an expert on the history of the E. M. E. reported in one of his articles, the state of emergency signified that it took six to eight days to secure authorization for conferences or meetings, provided one took the applications everywhere in person and was lucky enough to get them approved on the first try. Therefore, they usually turned to some clever younger man to run these errands, since the procedure required a great deal of perseverance and physical effort. At the beginning of 1928, the

643

association hired a new young secretary. Since he was not familiar with the difficulties involved in securing authorizations, Baron Sandor Mansberg, the vice-president, sent him special written instructions containing detailed information. The instructions ran as follows:

The application is to be addressed to the command of the Army Corps, in three original copies; the first of these requires an eight lei stamp, the others one lei each. Copy one goes to the Siguranta, by the railroad, Str. Basarab, corner house, first floor. Secondly, after the Siguranta peruses the application, it goes to the police superintendent (two-lei application, an eight lei stamp, Room 2 on the first floor, through the lobby, to the room opening on the street. Thirdly, if the superintendent signs it, the application is to be carried to the county office, ground floor, on the right hand side (one copy of the application remains here). It is to be registered, and a pertinent dossier is prepared in the nest room. On the first floor, the secretary takes the original copy, to be signed by the prefect (it is registered on that floor as well). Fourthly, once the Siguranta, the police and the county office have signed the application, it goes to the army corps headquarters (Str. Regala 19, V, 21) where it is to be submitted with an eight lei stamp, and whence it would be sent to Major Gutean at the barracks on C. Dorobantilor. The latter will ,'elaborate" it and submit it to the General for his signature (the General signs on Wednesdays and Saturdays). Then it is returned to the barracks, where they make out a transmittal slip and send it to the police. The following day the authorization may be retrieved from the office of the Police Superintendent (with a five lei stamp).

The entire process pertained to a cultural event against which no Romanian authority had ever raised a serious objection on grounds of national security. These were the circumstances under which the E. M. E. was forced to struggle in Kolozsvar, the center of intellectual life in Transylvania, for an entire decade, from 1918 to 1928. The officials of the association sent various memoranda requesting that the lengthy procedures be simplified, in consideration of the cultural function of the association, but these requests went unheeded.

The state of emergency was lifted from 1928 to 1933, except for the strip along the borders. During this period, freedom of assembly should not have been curtailed in any way, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. But the Romanian authorities still paid no heed to

644

the right of assembly guaranteed by the constitution. As mentioned, the text of the constitution specified that prior authorization for the exercise of this right was unnecessary; in spite of this, prior police authorization was required by the police for any meeting or assembly to be held in areas inhabited by the Hungarians. The prefect of the county of Odorhei issued a directive in September 1932, requiring application for holding any public meeting. This circular made the securing of prior authorization mandatory throughout the county. These applications had to be submitted to the county office at least ten days in advance along with the recommendation of the local police of sheriff. ²⁷ Similar restrictions prevailed in other areas inhabited by Hungarians.

According to a directive issued on December 30, 1933, the military authorities were once again authorized to forbid or dissolve any gathering regardless of the number of participants or of the venue if, in their estimation, such gatherings or meetings would cause a disturbance. ²⁸ These provisions were rendered even stricter by the Act of February 11, 1938. They were also rendered simpler, however, by specifying that military authorization was the only one required for holding meetings. General Cristea Vasilescu, the commander of Army Corps IV of Cluj, prescribed the following in his directive number 1 of February 23, 1938:

Under the state of emergency, in the district of the IV Army Corps, any meetings and gatherings that have not been authorized by the Army Corps are forbidden in Cluj or without the permission of the local command in those areas where military units are stationed, or without the permission of the local county authorities in other areas of district. Permission issued by the police headquarters in the towns and by the county office in the communities is required for betrothals, weddings, baptisms, village balls, conferences, soirees and cultural events. Permission has to be requested ahead of time, indicating the objective, venue, and exact time of the gathering in the application. If these prescriptions are not observed the organizers as well as the participants are considered in contravention of the order.... All those contravening the order will be subject to court-martial and, in accordance with paragraph 5 of royal decree 856/1938, will be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month to two years and to the payment of a fine as stipulated in paragraph 25 of the law code.

645

These provisions completely paralyzed the life of associations in most places. Once again, a meeting of even two of three individuals became a danger; after all, even for a christening held in someone's private home, permission had to be requested from the army corps headquarters. We have seen the situation resulting from this directive in the religious and ecclesiastic life of the Szekely area. It completely halted the Bible-reading circles, the presbyters, as well as this sort of religious or ecclesiastic meeting, at times rendering the very administration of the churches an impossibility. This terrible nightmare lasted all way to the Vienna Arbitration Treaty (Award) of August 30, 1940, and continued in southern Transylvania for years thereafter.

In most places, the masses of Hungarians were completely deprived of the right of association and meeting as a result of the state of emergency, in effect for fifteen years. Enormous patience and perseverance were needed to secure the prescribed permission under the circumstances. Innumerable times some meeting would be announced in the press weeks in advance, and the participants would appear at the usual place and at the announced time only to be informed in a few lines tacked to the door that the meeting has been postponed because the authorities had not granted the permission requested.

There was no time to publish this information in the press because no one knew until the last moment whether or not permission would be forthcoming. The result of the process was exactly as the Romanian authorities expected: fostering disinterest on the part of members in the activities of their association. Hungarian papers and the reports of associations are filled with invitations such as this one: "If the members of the association do not meet the prescribed quorum three times in a row the meeting will be held regardless of a quorum." Thus the official restrictions achieved their objective: in most cases lack of participation prevented the associations from fulfilling their true purpose and performing their task.

It also happened quite frequently that the authorized general assembly was dissolved by the Romanian authorities while the deliberations were already under way. There were notorious cases when some meeting of a sizable congregation was rendered impossible. In the 1934 report by the bishop of the Hungarian Unitarian Church we read:

As regards this past year I feel as if the Lord had been addressing me: do not look back, lest you turn into a pillar of salt! Whichever way I look I see but darkness, smoke rising to the skies, and destruction.... Should I mention the shameful,

646

humiliating treatment which disrupted, with a crudeness reminiscent of a state of war, our synod of consecration and foundation at Cristur? ²⁹

These cases make it clear to what extent the Romanian citizens of Hungarian nationality were deprived of the freedom of assembly guaranteed in the constitution.

As regards to the freedom of association, the constitution contained guarantees similar to those for the freedom of assembly. In spite of this, when it came to applying the law regarding legal persons, the Romanian courts and authorities questioned the legal personality of former Hungarian associations, or failed to recognize them altogether, placing these associations in a position of utmost insecurity. Recognition of the Transylvanian Museum Association, of the Szekely National Museum of Sfintu Gheorghe, of the Teleki Library, as well as of Hungarian Cultural Association of Transylvania was delayed for the duration of the regime, excepting the last one. This recognition was still not granted in spite of the promises contained in the Minority Statute of 1938. The courts granted recognition to legal persons on the basis of a recommendation from the pertinent ministry, but this recommendation was delayed indefinitely. In our chapter on culture we have described the difficulties experienced by new associations in gaining authorization, that is legal recognition. Thus, the right of association of Romanian citizens of Hungarian background was extremely restricted throughout the regime, and the legal personality of the most significant and oldest Hungarian associations and foundations was not recognized. The recognition of the Hungarian Farmers' Association of Transylvania took almost ten years, the Ministry requesting even more documentation, the documentation getting misplaced, etc., until finally their quest was crowned with success in 1929. Thus, the Romanian state leadership restricted the rights of Hungarians in a manner similar to the one employed in other areas.

As we have seen in the chapter on churches, freedom of religion was limited to a single right in Romania: the right to hold service. Indeed, as regards to this freedom there were no restrictions throughout the duration of the regime. Divine services were authorized in all parts of the country, regardless of the language spoken. In some cases, however, even the services were restricted: when held by those churches which

647

were defined as "sects" according to the Romanian ideology. For instance, strong official pressures were placed on the Baptist Church in Transylvania, as well as in the old Kingdom, in an attempt to deprive it of its followers. In 1936, the repression of the Baptists attained such proportions that they invited a retired British general to visit Romania to help settle their problem. The British general visited all the pertinent Romanian ministers, requesting freedom of religion for the Baptist Church. Indeed, the ministers promised this to him orally, and he invariably recorded these promises and discussions in writing to inform his coreligionists. But oral permission and assurances on the part of the ministers did not suffice to grant actual freedom of religion to the Baptists. The general was still on his tour, when the Baptist Churches and prayer-houses were once again closed down; in fact, some of them were even destroyed on the orders of the local authorities Romanian ecclesiastic and legal thinking always regarded the Baptist Church as an anti-Romanian and anti-state cell of foreign agents, hence freedom of worship was never extended to them in practice.

Thus, there was freedom to hold services in most areas throughout Greater Romania, with the exception of the Baptist Church. When it came to national holidays, however, the authorities intervened as regards to the order of service, its form, its timing and, after 1936, even as regards to the text of the prayers to be recited. The gendarmes in the villages, the police or military authorities in the towns prescribed when religious services must be held in the different churches to celebrate the Romanian national holiday. The state officials, often uninformed as regards to ecclesiastic matters, included principles unacceptable to the Protestant Churches. For instance, they ordered the recital of Te Deums, although such a service was not customary in Protestant Churches. The gendarmes and police came with fixed bayonets on several occasions at such services, and it even happened in some villages that the commander of the local gendarmerie entered the church accompanied by his police dog We have seen in the chapter on the churches how consistently the authorities disregarded the freedom of conscience of the Hungarian population. There were plenty of cases, each and every year, where the local authorities, particularly the teachers, would drag Reformed, Unitarian, or Roman Catholic children to the Romanian national churches and compel them to participate in a service that was alien to them. We have seen to what extent it had become impossible in the Szekely areas to hold religious or Presbyterian meetings after 1935, and how often Hungarians were forced to perform labor on public projects on Hungarian Christian holidays. The same process was employed to force Hungarians to participate in the erection

648

of Romanian churches. The Romanian church-buildings erected in the Szekely areas after 1935 were built mostly by Hungarian residents belonging to other churches. Thus freedom of worship, in spite of the pertinent provisions of the constitution and of the laws on religion, was trampled underfoot in these regards throughout the duration of the regime. The Hungarian churches had to fight practically hand to hand combat in order to maintain the continuity of ecclesiastic life and to enhance the faith of the congregation, especially after 1934.

As we have seen, during the first thirty years of the Hungarian regime, the Romanian population could use their national symbols undisturbed, and later under certain restrictions, on the basis of court decisions and authorization granted by the Prime Minister. The Romanian colors were integrated into their folk costumes, which they could wear in the Hungarian House of Parliament or elsewhere undisturbed; the colors could also be used in their folk art, whereas the anti-Hungarian anthem of the Romanians of Transylvania could be intoned freely, in the opinion of the Hungarian courts. The same freedom prevailed in the cult of Romanian historical figures, including the organization of the worship of Abraham Iancu. The Hungarians who came under Romanian rule expected similar opportunities from the authorities.

Once again, the chauvinist principles applied by the Romanian authorities in other areas extended to these issues as well. Presuming anti-Romanian attitudes in the use of Hungarian national colors, the singing of the Hungarian anthem, the statues of Hungarian historical figures from the first moment of the occupation, they banned these ruthlessly.

The successive Romanian cabinets adopted a uniformly negative attitude with regard to the use of Hungarian national colors. Hungarian flags could not be displayed, not even ribbons with the national colors, and those who disregarded these directives were severely punished. Where such attempts were made the courts passed sentences and the gendarmes committed atrocities. In 1926, before the Averescu cabinet came to power, the Hungarians of Transylvania reached an agreement with Averescu's party to support the government at the polls. In order to ensure success the Minister of the Interior, Octavian Goga, had authorized the voters in some of the Szekely counties to march to the polling places under the Hungarian flag. This authorization had a lot to do with the fact that the Averescu

649

government obtained such large numbers of votes in the areas inhabited by Hungarians. After the fall of the Averescu government there were no prospects for any similar authorization. Hungarian colors were persecuted, whether in folk costumes, in folk art, in Szekely decorative entrances or fancy wood-carvings, ³⁰ as were those who combined red, white and green [the Hungarian colors] with other colors in bunches of flowers or other displays. The Romanian courts and other authorities sentenced large numbers of Hungarians for infractions against these orders. In many places, the issue did not even reach the courts because local authorities determined and executed penalties on their own: usually a terrible beating administered to the suspect. Of course, in spite of these risks it was not possible to abolish the love of the Hungarian population for their national colors, and this love continued to live in their souls throughout the regime.

At the beginning, the singing of the national anthem did not always elicit bans from the Romanian authorities, but soon the issue resulted in solutions unfavorable to the Hungarian population as well. Of course, the singing of the anthem was forbidden in public places or at meetings from the start. When the French general Henri Berthelot visited Cluj in 1919, the masses of Hungarians gathered in front of his hotel to express their wishes. This crowd of several thousand intoned the national anthem. The Romanian military intervened before they could even finish; their commander ordered fire and the last chords of the anthem intermingled with the last sighs of those wounded to death. From then on the anthem could never by sung outdoors under Romanian rule.

In the first two years, the anthem was occasionally sung at religious services. In most places, the Romanian authorities seriously harmed the clergymen involved, but there was no general prohibition. At the beginning of 1923, however, the Minister of Religious Affairs and Education issued a directive banning the singing of the anthem in all churches. In his directive addressed to the bishop of the Reformed Church (number 14.005/1923) we may read the following:

Since we found out that the Hungarian anthem is sung in the Reformed Churches of the country it is my honor to request that you take measures that those hymns which may offend the patriotic sentiments of the Romanian people be omitted from the religious services, in order to avoid conflicts between members of different denominations. ³¹

0650

The Governing Council responded to this directive that Psalm 36 of the Psalm book (i.e. Ferenc Kolcsey's anthem) was never officially declared the Hungarian anthem, and even its text is but a brief excerpt from the whole poem. The Governing Council added that prior to this directive, the Ministry had addressed circular 56.22211922 to the civilian authorities, informing them that in the future ,'those hymns which may offend the sentiments of the Romanian people may not be sung in church." Thus, the Romanian Minister had first turned to the civilian authorities, and only afterwards did he turn to the central direction of the church, insisting that the objectionable parts be omitted from the service. Upon the response of the Governing council, the Minister emphasized once again that the Hungarian national anthem may not be included under any guise in the divine service of the Reformed Church of the Romanian state. ³² This second, even more peremptory order closed the issue and the singing of the anthem was definitely banned in Greater Romania.

Even though the text of the anthem contains no derogatory statement regarding any other nation - after all it consists of a prayer and supplication - without any revolutionary trait that might incite anyone, unlike the "Awake from your Dreams', of the Romanians, or the French Marseillaise, nevertheless the Romanian authorities banned the singing of the anthem. Their justification that the singing of the anthem "may offend the patriotic sentiments of the Romanian people was entirely fictitious, because in those areas where the Hungarians lived in compact masses, as for instance in the Szekely areas, there simply was no Romanian resident who could have been scandalized by this song. It is obvious, therefore, that by banning the anthem the Romanian authorities were bent on weakening the national consciousness of the Hungarians and on providing satisfaction to chauvinistic Romanians.

The Romanian authorities and public opinion were equally intolerant with regard to Hungarian historical figures. There was hardly any room for respecting Hungarian heroes in Greater Romania. From the very beginning Hungarian monuments were knocked down and removed. By this deplorable destruction of monuments, the Romanians attempted to prevent the Hungarians under their rule from harboring respect and appreciation towards Hungarian historical figures. The first statue knocked down was that of the poet Petofi at Tirgu Mures, on May 13, 1919; it was then removed to the courtyard of city-hall. On August 18, 1920, the statue of Lajos Kossuth at Salonta [Nagyszalonta] suffered the same fate. The excitement over these destructive acts had hardly died down when, on the following May 7, the

651

bust of Istvan Szechenyi above the well on Szechenyi square in Cluj was knocked over. A few years later, his memorial tablet near the Iron Gate, on the banks of the Danube, was also removed. At the same time the bust honoring the militia of 1848 at Sighetul Marmatiei was destroyed. On April 21, 1923, the Romanian municipal council at Arad had the memorial tablets removed from the Palace of Culture. On April 24, the stained glass windows representing Istvan Bocskai, Gabor Bethlen, Lajos Kossuth, and Ferenc Deak were removed from the Palace of Culture at Tirgu Mures. On July 4, the statue of Saint Laszlo was removed from its site at Oradea and transferred to the courtyard of the bishopric. On January 7, 1924, the statue of Bocskai at Miercurea Nirajului [Nyaradszereda] was knocked down. On July 2, 1925, the monuments of the thirteen martyrs of Arad, and the statues of Kossuth, were removed on orders from the Ministry. On August 8, the "Iron Szekely" monument of Odorheiu Secuiesc suffered the same fate. ³³ By then there as hardly any statue left in Transylvania representing a Hungarian historical figure. After an interruption that lasted a few years, the destruction of Hungarian statues recommenced under the impact of renewed Romanian nationalism. Several Romanian papers raised the issue of the beautiful creation of Janos Fadrusz, the Matyas Hunyadi statue at Cluj. For the time being, however, the statue was saved by the Romanian perception that Matyas was a heroic representative of the Romanian race. The name of Matyas was not inscribed as Matei Corvinul on the statue in Romanian, and this masterpiece survived for the time being. Only for a short while, however, because soon voices were heard once again demanding the removal of the statue. At the end of 1932, one group of students from the Romanian university of Cluj marched to the statue and placed a bronze plague on it, with the words of Nicholas Iorga, the Romanian historian: "You were victorious everywhere, but your own nation defeated you when you attempted to conquer invincible Moldavia." ³⁴ Under the protection of this plaque, in Romanian, the statue adorned the main square without further attacks until 1937. Then Octavian Prie, former under-secretary of education, published an article about the statue in a Romanian newspaper of Cluj. In this article he explained that the Romanians were deceiving themselves in considering Matyas a Romanian. Matyas was a renegade who bore no relationship to the Romanian people; hence the Romanians are not obligated to tolerate his statue in the capital city of Transylvania. Nevertheless, Prie's article had no repercussions, for whatever reason, and the statue of Matyas remained.

652

The other masterpiece of Fadrusz, the Miklos Wesselenyi statue at Zalau, was accorded the same treatment as most Hungarian statues. It was removed in 1936 and transferred to an unknown destination.

Statues were removed from Hungarian towns once again towards the end of 1936. Between 2 and 3 a.m. on September 26, fifteen to twenty Romanian youths surrounded the Main Square at Satu Mare, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. The streetlights were put out and guards were placed at all streets approaching the square. The Romanian police posted here was enticed away. Then they took out the ropes they brought along and looped these around the necks of the statues of Saint Laszlo and Saint Istvan placed in niches on the facade of the church. The two statues were finally yanked down and smashed to pieces, except for the heads. The heads were then carted away. A message on the pedestal said "We shall meet again in heaven." The Hungarian residents of Satu Mare found out about the events the following morning with great indignation. Prompted by this sentiment the police launched a pretend investigation, which ended unsuccessfully, as usual. ³⁵

In the final analysis, the Romanian authorities would allow respect for only one Hungarian figure. The annual Petofi festival organized by the Hungarian choral association at Sighisoara was not hampered. Often the reason for this was that the leaders of the choral association placed the festival under the protection of some member of the royal family.

As discussed, Romanians living under Hungarian rule were in constant touch with the Romanians of the Romanian kingdom. These contacts were easy in both directions because border restrictions introduced after World War I did not yet exist. Passports were issued without much difficulty to the Romanian residents, and Romanians visiting Hungary from Romania were not prevented from entering the country. Scholars, journalists, officers of the army, members of the Romanian royal family, could cross the borders whenever and wherever they liked. They participated in Romanian festivals in Hungary and at assemblies, delivering speeches and encouraging the Romanians to persevere.

The Hungarians who came under Romanian rule enjoyed no such opportunities. In the first year only those who emigrated permanently from Romania and promised never to return to Transylvania were allowed to cross the border. Later it was possible to secure a passport

653

only if the applicant had ample funds, it could not be obtained through normal channels on account of the ambiguous formalities involved. Money, however, could always procure a passport. Of course, not many persons could afford to take that route, hence poor persons, students, and others could visit Hungary only with great difficulty. Of course, it was even more difficult to obtain a passport during the state of emergency. The documents needed to secure a passport were often quite impossible to obtain, especially when it came to military documents. These documents could be secured with relative ease in the period 1928 to 1933, but the difficulties were reintroduced after that. During the last years of the regime, after 1937, a Hungarian could obtain a passport only by resorting to contacts in high places. The military documents needed by the male population had to be issued by the general staff in Bucharest where no application was handled without some special contact. On the other hand, the old Greek proverb, that there is no wall high enough that a mule loaded with gold could not jump, remained true throughout the regime.

After 1930, opportunity arose even for Hungarians living under modest circumstances to visit their relatives in Hungary from time to time. This opportunity was group travel referred to as "sport trains" or "penny trains." So-called collective passports covering four to five hundred persons could be secured at relatively little cost and under rather simplified procedures. On such occasions, one could remain in Hungary for six to eight days, but everyone had to return on the same train at the appointed time, otherwise they would not be allowed across the border.

Contacts in the other direction were even more difficult. The Romanian consulate of Budapest kept close track of those Hungarians whose travel to Romania would not be in the best interests of Romania. They were never granted visas to enter the country. Famous Hungarian scholars or public figures could under no circumstances visit relatives under Romanian rule. As mentioned, Nicholas Iorga's visit to Hungary under the former regime encountered no difficulty, even though the Hungarian authorities were well aware of his anti-Hungarian irredentist attitude. The Hungarians under Romanian rule could experience nothing of the sort. In vain did distinguished Hungarian intellectuals such as Gyula Szekfu or Elek Benedek apply for visas to visit Romania. Certain writers or poets were granted visas to Romania thanks to their acquaintances, but their steps were carefully watched. Dezso Kosztolanyi received a visa thanks to his old Romanian acquaintance, art supervisor Emil Isac, but his Romanian acquaintance or some agent was constantly at his side from the moment of his arrival

654

in order to "assist" him as a matter of "respect." In other words, while Kosztolanyi was able to visit Cluj, he could not meet with the Hungarian leaders there without the presence of some Romanian witness. It was out of the question for Hungarians from Hungary to participate at some meeting to give a speech, to comment publicly. Such intervention would prompt immediate reprisals against the organizers. During the entire regime, the Hungarians under Romanian rule and those on the other side of the border could come into contact only under great difficulties, hence Hungarians on different sides of the border knew little about one another. International solidarity or national unity could exist only for a narrow stratum, while large masses of the Hungarians of Transylvania knew hardly anything about life beyond the borders.

The political life of the Hungarians under Romanian rule started with the signing of the Treaty of Trianon on June 4, 1920. During the period of occupation, until the treaty, the Hungarian population could not participate in elections, that is could not field candidates. One reason for this was that the Hungarian leaders were disoriented by the entirely unfamiliar circumstances; another reason was that their constitutional status was not clear. Even the issue of the boundary lines was unresolved until the treaty was signed, and there was no way of knowing how the representatives of the great powers meeting in Paris would resolve the issue.

Political orientation got underway soon after the treaty was signed. The first sign of this was the publication of the famous pamphlet "Kialto Szo" [Shouting word] by three outstanding leaders: Karoly Kos, Arpad Pal, and Istvan Zagoni. The three authors wrote an essay, each regarding the opportunities and tasks facing the Hungarians under the new constitutional situation. Soon the first Hungarian organization, the Hungarian Association, was founded in Cluj on July 6, 1921. The basic principle of the association was that the Minorities Treaty created minority civil rights, hence these minorities had the right to form public organizations on the basis of national sentiment. The Romanian government, however, did not accept this interpretation and dissolved the Hungarian Association permanently in October 1922.

Soon after the dissolution of the Hungarian Association, on December 28, 1922, the National Hungarian Party was founded. It came about as the merger of two political organizations, the Hungarian People's Party and the Hungarian National Party. The first chairman

655

of the National Hungarian Party was Baron Samuel Josika, its executive director was Dr. Gusztav Haller, and its secretary Dr. Istvan Nalaczy.

The Hungarian Party was established after participation in the first national elections. These elections were announced for March 6, 1922, by the cabinet under the prime minister of the Liberal Party leader, Ionel Bratianu. Voting took place between March 6 and 10. The large majority of the Hungarians of Transylvania had been deliberately omitted from the voters' lists long before the elections.

The Hungarian population was consoled by the fact that it was able to elect its own candidates in the purely Hungarian areas anyway. It did not count on what was to happen, even though it should have had no illusions had it paid closer attention to the last two elections. The Romanian authorities had interfered with the manifestation of the voters' will to such an extent during the elections of 1919 and 1920, that even the Romanians of Transylvania, so used to complaining about Hungarian electoral abuses in former times, were caught unprepared. At the end of the second elections in 1920, the best known newspaper of the Romanians of Transylvania noted sadly: "We have demonstrated many times, with the help of data, names, and documents, that the interference of the Romanian authorities went further than the interference of former Hungarian governments."

The Hungarian population did not pay much attention to the Romanian electoral frauds, hence it was completely unprepared to cope with the devices used against it. The government instructed the local authorities to hamper the work of all opposition parties, and the Hungarian parties first of all. Thirty-four of the thirty-eight candidates presented by the Hungarian Party were declared ineligible on a variety of clever pretexts. While about one-third of the candidates presented by the Romanian parties were rejected, nine-tenths of the Hungarians suffered that fate. The Hungarian candidates were rejected "not individually but as a group," noted a Romanian paper. ³⁶ According to the provisions of the law, representatives had to be nominated by fifty voters and senators by at least twenty-five. The recommendation had to be forwarded to the president of the board of elections by at least ten voters; the president was expected to verify the identity of the voters. In case of rejection, the president had to communicate the reason for the rejection in writing. The law provided that every fifty- thousand voters could elect a representative, and every one hundred thousand could chose a senator. If the provisions of the law had been observed, the Hungarian population would have been represented by at least 25 to 30 delegates and 12 to 15 senators. But the intentions of the

656

government were revealed already at the time of the nomination. As mentioned, 34 of the 38 candidates were rejected under various excuses. The nomination of Jozsef Sandor at Huedin was rejected on the grounds that the signatures were illegible. The nomination of Jozsef Willer at Oradea was rejected because the date appeared at the bottom rather than at the top. That of Imre Pecsy at Zalau was rejected because two different kinds of ink were used for the signatures. Albert Nagy was arrested on the day of the nomination, and when he was set free in the afternoon he was informed that he had been hired as a deputy chairman of elections, which made his ineligible to become a representative.

The nomination of Elemer Gyarfas at Miercurea Ciuc was rejected in the midst of scenes that were deserving of slapstick comedy. His advisors paid a call to the chairman of the elections and were prepared for all kinds of tricks; but reality, and the resourcefulness of the men of the Liberal Party, exceeded all expectations. First, the chairman rejected the nomination on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the candidate was sane. Then those who brought the nomination were able to prove that, the chairman asked them to prove that he was not the owner of a whorehouse. This too was demonstrated. The third objection was that they had not proven that the candidate did not have a criminal record. But those who brought the nomination were once again prepared. Then Ciurea, the chairman of the committee was about to accept the nomination, since he could not think of any more excuses. But the prefect who was present stepped forward and pulled a document from his pocket removing Ciurea from his post as chairman and appointing another in his place. The new chairman rejected the nomination of Gyarfas definitively on the grounds that it appeared, from the similarity of the handwritings, that all signatures were by a single hand.

The elections took place after the nomination had been rejected. As regards to the excesses and unlawful acts committed, these elections exceeded the worst forebodings of both Hungarian and Romanian voters. The Hungarian population, numbering a million and a half, were able to elect but one representative: Gyorgy Bernady. The Romanian National Party of Transylvania also came out with ruffled feathers from the electoral campaign. Iuliu Maniu protested against, the high-handed actions of the government in a cable to the king. In this cable he noted that:

the government intimidated the electors by the most incredible

means. The chairmen of the elections boards rejected nominations. They also interrupted the voting and stole the

657

ballots from the urns in the middle of the night. The elections were the result of the wildest corruption, bribery, arrests, agitations, capture, and detention of candidates, etc. Consequently the day of polling became, in Transylvania, a day of mourning and dejection, drowned in national disgrace and scandal for all Europe to see.

The Romanian papers expressed their concern over the abuses committed against the Hungarians. One of them mentioned that what the Romanians were doing to one another was just business as usual; but what is done to the minorities was most deplorable: "That there should be a government, in the fourth year of coexistence with the minorities, that will exclude them from public life by means of all kinds of lowly acts - this is no longer a purely domestic issue, but may even harm our reputation abroad." ³⁷ The newspaper of the conservatives wrote as follows:

As a consequence of the unification of Transylvania with Romania, two million Hungarians became Romanian subjects two million residents of foreign extraction, all law-abiding subjects, who undoubtedly form a distinct ethnic group. The electoral campaign of Mr. Bratianu ended with the dangerous precedent of depriving these two million residents of even a single representative. The land of the Szekelys is at the heart of the plateau of Transylvania, and the Romanians do not even constitute 1% of the population of this area; yet the Szekelys were not allowed to send their representative to the Romanian parliament. In order to obtain such a result, Mr. Bratianu had to resort to means and excuses that are unworthy of a civilized state. ³⁸

The government itself became aware that it had exceeded the limit with regard to the Hungarians, hence it relented its terror during the partial elections that followed. Thus, Jozsef Sandor and Tibor Zima became members of the Romanian parliament.

The only consolation of the Hungarians after the elections and makeup elections was that some representatives of the Romanian National Party of Transylvania had themselves come to the conclusion that the election process was better under the former Hungarian regime. Among others, Alexandru Vaida-Voevod, former representative in the Hungarian House of Parliament and erstwhile Prime Minister of Greater Romania, made a statement to that effect. During the by

658

elections at Ighiu Ugen] in 1923, Vaida-Voevod was subjected to some sorry experiences. The Romanians of Transylvania nominated Professor Silviu Dragomir to run in the district of Igen. Vaida-Voevod had some beloved acquaintances among the voters in the district from the Hungarian period, when they elected him with great enthusiasm as their representative against the official candidate put up by the Hungarian government party. Now, in an effort to be of assistance, he accompanied Dragomir on his campaign tour and spoke to the voters wherever he could. But seldom was he allowed to deliver a speech, because the government had sent confidential instructions before the campaign to all the gendarme stations in the district. In this circular, the gendarmes were instructed, "to accuse the representatives of the opposition of rebellion, disorderly conduct, disturbance of the peace." All propaganda inimical to the Government must elicit the charge that there has been rebellion, peace and public safety have been disturbed." ³⁹ The gendarmes carried on the instructions contained in the circular. They arrested Vaida-Voevod and Dragomir several times and made them trek long distances. According to the description in one Romanian paper, the gendarmes occupied entire villages, dispersing groups of voters with bayonet charges, and expelled the observers placed by the opposition parties at the urns during the night. They even shot at the supports of Dragomir and missed no opportunity to tamper with the results of the elections. Vaida-Voevod, bitterly disappointed, exposed the actions of the government in harsh words wherever he could. He referred to the Romanian parliament as "a house of thieves," and at the same time told the Romanian voters that "it was better under the Hungarians." ⁴⁰ He exploded when facing the peasants of the community of Circau [Krakow]: "Is it not true, brothers, that it was better under the Hungarians than it is today?" Some of the peasants responded: "Maybe it was better, but maybe things will improve in Greater Romania." Grigore N. Filipescu was so scandalized by these words that he immediately left the election meeting. ⁴¹

Naturally, the election results favored the government. After his defeat Dragomir provided the following account of the electoral campaign in one of the Romanian newspapers: "Whoever reflects that all these happenings - the arrests, the bayonet attacks - were carried out by the gendarmes in a most brutal manner, may assess the terrible condition into which respect for the most basic rights guaranteed in the Constitution had fallen for every citizen of the country...." Then he added: "I have filled many pages with the centuries-old struggles and sufferings of my Transylvanian brothers. But none is as painful and shameful than the murder of the general elections held at Ighiu." ⁴²

659

Vaida-Voevod repeated his report of the experiences at Ighiu at the March 16, 1923 meeting of the Romanian Parliament; in fact, excerpts from that speech were printed in the French-language leaflet of the opposition parties for the benefit of readers abroad. Vaida-Voevod declared in parliament that he would not recognize the legitimacy of that parliament, because it was born of a coup d'etat of cheating, and theft.

Deeply hurt in my feelings as citizen as a lover of justice and t of national freedom which I have defended all through my life, I have decided that I would not enter these halls again because the base procedures resorted to by the present government: against the voters are such as even the notorious Tisza and Andrassy cabinets had never dared commit against the Romanian nation.... It has happened to me personally that I was surrounded by bayonets and rudely chased out of the villages in the district of Ighiu, where I had once, under Hungarian rule, been able to organize and carry out the political struggles of the Romanian National Party. You may imagine, therefore, how they deal with the masses: they become the victims of the abuses of the armed authorities and the objects of persecution by an anarchical administration, while they are also exposed to the system of justice adjusted to the intentions of the government party. ⁴³

Indeed, these observations of Vaida-Voevod did conform to reality. But if such were the procedures employed against candidates of Romanian background, one may imagine the treatment accorded to voters of Hungarian ethnic background. As mentioned, Hungarian candidates were rejected in far greater proportion than those of Romanian background. The later elections held under the auspices of the Liberal Party took place in the midst of similar abuses. The voters received no compensation for the mistreatment they suffered on these occasions. The validity of the elections was decided by parliament itself, which naturally rejected the complaints voiced. Since the courts were subordinated to the power of the Government, they seldom dared to reach decisions which might have harmed the interests of the ruling party. Cicio-Pop, the elderly leader of the Romanians of Transylvania during the Hungarian regime, noted sadly at the time of the validation of the results obtained during the elections of 1927 under the auspices of the Liberal Party: "Under the Hungarian regime we marched to the polls between the bayonets of the gendarmes but could vote openly for

660

the Romanian National Party. Now entire villages were barred from marching to the polling stations, and the Romanian captain in charge of the police forces told his troops, in front of our observers, to shoot down those who approached the station. During the Hungarian regime, if a policeman beat a Romanian voter, we denounced him to the authorities. The Hungarian judge sentenced the man to three years in jail. Nowadays - and I recite these facts with great regret Romanian judges falsify the results of the voting because they have been assured of amnesty: "A country such as ours where the military is involved in politics and the judges forge the votes is a lost country." After the same elections, a Romanian daily observed that "the elections just completed constitute one of the saddest chapters in the political history of Transylvania. In the county of Odorhei, the minority voters were kept away from the polling places en masse. The agents of the Liberal Party voted with identification cards confiscated from the voters. The elections in the counties of Ciuc and Trei-Saune were no different." ⁴⁴

Indeed, the elections of 1927, entailed abuses no less than those omitted in 1922. Because of the considerable terror the Hungarian population, albeit much more politically conscious by then, was able to elect only 8 delegates and one senator. The relatively cleanest election campaign was organized by the Maniu cabinet in 1928, when the supporters of the Hungarian Party were able to elect 16 Hungarian delegates and six senators. Later, elections took place once again in the midst of considerable intimidation. The pressure of the authorities was especially heavy during the general elections of 1933 and 1937. Both elections took place under the auspices of the Liberal Party. In 1937, a hitherto unheard of event took place: the gendarmes fired volleys at the supporters of the Hungarian party to prevent them from approaching the polling station. There were several dead and some seriously wounded.

Thus, the number of Hungarian representative varied considerably during the Greater Romanian regime. They had to struggle against most unfavorable conditions in the House of Delegates and the Senate. They attempted to fulfill their difficult calling in the midst of physical insults, constant spiteful interruptions, mockery, slander in words and in writing in the press. They achieved little in this atmosphere of antagonistic chauvinism. They struggled outside the parliament as well, intervening at the ministries and defending the Hungarian plaintiffs in front of the authorities against the abuses they suffered. The best known among them were oft mentioned in the Romanian press as well: Jozsef Willer, Elemer Gyarfas, Jozsef Sandor, Ferenc Laar, Nandor Hegedus, Elemer Jakabffy, were often signaled out by the

661

Romanian journalists and presented in a consistently negative light to the Romanian readers. The editor-in-chief of the Romanian daily Curentul delivered an attack against Nandor Hegedus in a lead article, because Hegedus had sent an open letter requesting him to let up on the campaign of hatred against the Hungarian population. Thus, the Hungarian representatives had to deal with the most unpleasant environment in both the Parliament and the Romanian press, which further limited their already meager opportunities.

The political weight of the Hungarian population, however, was not determined by the number of their representatives in parliament. The material conditions of the population, its political consciousness, as well as world public opinion were far more significant. The Hungarian representatives lived under far less favorable material conditions than had their Romanian counterparts under the Hungarian regime. As a consequence of the deliberate policies of impoverishment all strata of Hungarian society had to suffer financially and, of course, this affected the results of the political struggles as well. Domestically, the Hungarian population hardly had any influence. It had to thank foreign public opinion for its political clout and for most of the results achieved in its defensive struggle. Every Romanian cabinet was wary of creating a negative impression abroad. As long as the prestige of the League of Nations was relatively unscathed, that is until 1934, the complaints filed with this body occasionally bore fruit. The government sacrificed enormous sums to obtain favorable echoes from the public opinion abroad and on some more difficult issues it spared no expense to make its anti-Hungarian measures appear in a favorable light. We have seen how the government was able to mislead the League of Nations in 1924, by presenting a fake version of the Apponyi laws, at later on it resorted to similar devices to win over public opinion abroad. They did not always succeed, even though Romania availed itself of far more favorable opportunities than Hungary had during the Dual Monarchy. Before World War I, the writers and scientists of Europe had a much higher regard for truth than for the sympathy of the government of some state.

Therefore, in a given case, they might support without hesitation the side of what they deemed to be the absolute truth without regard to any other consideration, and denounce injustice without regard for the opinion of the government concerned. This explains in part the stand taken by Bjornstjerne Bjornson, Lev Tolstoy, and others on the side of the Romanians of Hungary. Moreover, these great writers could receive information from the Romanians of Hungary without the least obstacle or adverse consequence, even though this information was altogether

662

one-sided. The situation changed after the war. Most of the Western powers were interested in maintaining the status quo brought about by the peace treaties signed in the Paris region, and therefore, strove to weaken all the complaints which reached them from the minority groups within the successor states. Romania had close diplomatic ties with France, and managed to maintain excellent relations with official and semi-official circles in Great Britain as well. Therefore, there were few independent-thinking individuals in these countries who might have raised their voice against the injustices committed in the successor states, especially in Romania. Between the two wars, some intellectuals adopted an attitude which the French writer Julien Benda described as "the betrayal of the intellectuals" in his world-famous book of the same title. Benda noted that writers, members of the intelligentsia, had betrayed their calling by not taking a stand on the side of absolute justice merely because of problems of daily life and difficulties in making ends meet. The validity of Julien Benda's statement was apparent in the issue of the oppressed minorities living under foreign rule. Those who spoke out in the cause of truth, without regard for the antagonism of their own government or the government of Romania, were few and far between. Nevertheless, there were one or two well- known intellectuals who did. There were Frenchmen such as Henri Barbusse, Victor Margueritte, and Romain Rolland, as well as Englishmen such as Harold Sidney Harmsworth Rothermere or Carlile Aylmer Macartney. Their intervention improved the opportunities available to Hungarians considerably, as did the intervention of various international organizations of minorities and similar organizations.

By 1934, however, Romania had made itself largely independent of public opinion abroad, especially in the West. The most oppressive measures against the Hungarian minority were adopted between 1934 and 1938, when the impoverishment and repression of the Hungarians assumed even greater proportions than earlier. By late 1937, however, Romania no longer dared undertake the most serious injustices. Thus, it happened that the outcome of the steps taken by Onisifor Ghibu, to transfer the properties of the Order of Premontre and other religious orders to the credit of the state was not ultimately supported by the government, on account of the manifestations of public opinion abroad and of the firm stand adopted by the Holy See. The change of regime brought about in 1938, by the international conjuncture resulted in some degree of improvement but, as mentioned, the situation remained unchanged as regards to the more basic issues.

Local self-government had very little significance in the political life of the Hungarian population. Local autonomy was eliminated already

663

during the first years of the Romanian regime. The Romanians of Transylvania realized themselves what a big mistake this had been, and demanded on several occasions that administrative autonomy be restored. The Liberal Party, however, was not favorably inclined, even though many a Romanian newspaper launched a press campaign for the sake of maintaining or restoring autonomy. In 1923, Lupta pointed to the decline in Transylvania resulting from the elimination of autonomy. It called attention to all the difficulties resulting from centralization in Bucharest. "All matters takes months to resolve, because Bucharest has to be consulted even on the least weighty decisions. It would be the obligation of Romanian governments, the paper noted, to render it impossible for the population of Transylvania to make unfavorable comparisons with the former regime:

We should have preserved the good things about the old system, rather then destroy them. Instead, they preserved only the Hungarian laws of Transylvania, while dismantling many good institutions, including autonomy at the community and county levels which was living reality in former times, providing the population with the opportunity to become directly involved in the government of towns and counties and contributing to the education of the residents of Transylvania in matters of citizenship. ⁴⁵

Unfortunately, neither this warning of the Romanian paper, nor the interventions by Romanians and Hungarians of Transylvania made any difference. Until 1925, there was no autonomy of any kind. Although the Act on Administration passed by the Liberal Party regime in 1925 did bring about a weak version of local autonomy but, as already mentioned, the modifications brought about by frequent laws on administration, as well as the system of interim committees appointed from above, which became endemic in Romania "rendered the autonomy provided by law, weak in any case, completely useless." Except for one or two years, the Hungarian communities and townships with a Hungarian majority were led by appointed councils, the so-called interimar committees throughout the regime, and only by accident - did these committees ever include Hungarians.

It is obvious from our arguments that the Hungarian population in Greater Romania, very seldom enjoyed equal rights with the

664

Romanians. Because of the institutional advantages accruing to the Romanian state-creating population in political, economic, cultural, and other areas, equal rights suffered very serious setbacks. Occasionally, the Romanian courts made praiseworthy efforts to interpret the laws in a balanced manner. But the courts were never entirely independent. They were compelled to carry out the instructions received from the government in electoral and other matters. In matters of national interest, as defined by the government, they abided by instructions from the government. In those cases, where the courts supported Hungarian claims against Romanians - for instance in matters of expropriation of land judgments in favor of, the Hungarians from Deva, from Sincrai from Cirta, etc. - Romanian authorities would not allow the legal decisions to go into effect. Thus, the Hungarians, even if the Romanian courts brought just verdicts, could never know whether these legal decisions could be enforced vis-à-vis the Romanians. Thus, they seldom felt the protection of the laws, and the nowadays oft-mentioned "freedom from fear" feeling was unknown to them in Greater Romania. If conflicts arose among Hungarians, the courts usually brought just decisions. The Romanian Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, was the last hope for many a Hungarian. But when it was a matter of providing justice to a Hungarian party vis-à-vis, a Romanian or vis-à-vis the state, the courts usually avoided the issue or passed a sentence in favor of the Romanian party or the Romanian state. As we have seen, a Romanian court hastened to recognize the illegal arguments propounded by Onisifor Ghibu in 1932, transferring the properties of the Hungarian Catholic Status to the name of the Romanian state in the land registry.

In 1938, the judges ceased to be unremovable. From then on, even the faint hopes placed in the impartiality of judges dissipated. In the last two years of the Greater Romanian regime, during the period of government by decree, the courts were entirely at the service of the government.

In the final analysis, Hungarians under Romanian rule, very seldom enjoyed equality before the law in Greater Romania, and in the political field, very often were handed unfavorable sentences by the Romanian courts. Hence Hungarians harbored very little trust in Romanian judges.

THE NATIONALITIES PROBLEM IN TRANSYLVANIA 1867-1940