Exposé: Podkarpatska Rus

Foreword

This text, first published in 1921 with the title Exposé byvšoho gutbernatora Podkarpatskoj Rusi, o Podkarpatskoj Rusi, elaborates on why a man of great potential, who returned to his homeland after WWI to secure the rights and autonomy of his people, resigned from his governorship of Subcarpathian Rus after less than a year in office. Though little was accomplished under his leadership, as he was unable to make headway against an incompetent and sometimes malicious Czechoslovak bureaucracy, this work sheds a unique perspective on the challenges facing Rusyns in their mission for autonomy during the interwar period. Moreover, it illustrates an era of greater ambition by the leaders of our nation. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from reading about their thoughts and experiences.

Minor adjustments have been made in regard to formatting in both language editions, as the original was poorly formatted in certain sections. In the Rusyn language edition [not included here], the unique peculiarities of the text were kept as close as possible to the original to ensure its authenticity.

– S

For the purposes of this exposé, it is not necessary to recount everything that was done by American Rusyns during and after the World War in the name of liberating their brothers in former Hungary in detail. I think it is enough to say that the American National Council of Rusyns, representing some 500,000 Rusyns in the United States, assembled in Homestead, Pennsylvania, on July 23, 1918. There, the following resolution was adopted:

Subcarpathian Rusyns should gain full independence. If this were not possible, then
Subcarpathian Rusyns should unite with their Galician and Bukovynian brothers. If this were not possible either, then they should gain
Autonomy.

This protocol was incorporated into the Memorandum personally delivered to President Woodrow Wilson on October 21, 1918. As per President Wilson’s advice, the first two wishes were impractical and would certainly not be met with favor by the Allied nations. Acting according to the instructions of the American National Council of Rusyns, I, as their authorized representative, have been focusing all my efforts on obtaining autonomy.

On October 23, 1918, Rusyns were accepted as members of the Mid-European Union and thus were recognized by the nations represented in this Union, namely: Czechoslovaks, Poles, Yugoslavs, Ukrainians, Litvins [likely Lithuanians or Belarusians], Romanians, Unredeemed Greeks, Italian Irredentists, Armenians, Albanians, and Jerusalem Jews, as a distinct, separate nation, and as such, governed by the well-known Wilsonian principle of self-determination, they were free to establish the form of their future government.

The aforementioned Union of October 26, 1918, solemnly proclaimed the following in the Philadelphia Independence Hall:

“We …, on behalf of ourselves and our brothers back home, do hereby solemnly declare that we place ourselves, all our people and resources, in the hands of our allies to be used against our common enemies and for the whole world to know that we bear in mind the essential doctrines which will be embodied in the constitutions that are to be adopted by the peoples of our respective independent states … have adopted and signed the following [principles] as the basis of principles for all sovereign nations:

All governments gain their true power through the consent of the governed (the people).

There shall be no secret diplomacy…

The signatories to this declaration and the representatives of the other independent peoples… on behalf of their respective peoples hereby pledge that the principles defined herein shall be incorporated into the organic law of any government established by our respective peoples afterward.

Signed by:

Т. G. Masaryk, v. r. (on behalf of Czechoslovaks, the president of the Union).

Gregory Ignatius Zhatkovych, v. r. (on behalf of Uhro-Rusyns).

Ten other representatives signed the same document.

Although the aforementioned principles were extracted from the so-called Declaration of Independence of the Persecuted Peoples of Mid-Europe proclaimed on October 26, they had already been fully discussed and accepted on October 25, 1918. On that day, when I, as a representative of the American Rusyns, and through them the Rusyns of Hungary, in the presence of five officials and members of the American National Council of Rusyns, conferred with President T. G. Masaryk at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia (the act of the American Rusyns was confirmed later—on May 8, 1919, by the Central National Council in Uzhhorod) about the possibility of creating a federation of Rusyns and Czechoslovaks. In response to this question, he (President Masaryk), as a representative of Czechoslovaks, said he would agree to a federation of Rusyns with Czechoslovaks if “If Rusyns decide to join the Czechoslovak Republic, they will form a fully autonomous state,” and in response to the question about what borders he would agree to for Subcarpathian Rus (then called Ruthenia), he answered: “The borders will be defined in such a way that Rusyns will be satisfied.”

The main steps and agreements were as follows: a fully autonomous state in a federation with Czechoslovaks and borders that would satisfy Rusyns.

Following these promises, all of which were much-publicized in the American Ruthenian newspapers, the American National Council of Rusyns unanimously adopted the following resolution in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on November 12, 1918:

“Having the most extensive independent rights as a state on a federal basis, Uhro-Rusyns should join the Czechoslovak Democratic Republic under the condition that all the original Uhro-Rusyn counties should belong to our country: Spiš, Šariš, Zemplín, Abov, Gemer, Borsod, Ung, Ugocsa, Bereg, and Máramaros”.

(Extract from the minutes dated November 12, 1918)

On the next evening, November 13, I offered the unified copy of the aforementioned minutes to President Masaryk at the Czechoslovak Embassy (Legation) in Washington. Having read them, he expressed to me his great joy over the satisfactory and rapid way in which the proposed union was going forward. He also warned me that it was just a National Council members’ decision that might be opposed at the Peace Conference in Paris. Then we discussed the upcoming plebiscite, which—as I had assured the president—would undoubtedly reaffirm the National Council’s decision and resolution.

The aforementioned minutes from November 12, 1918, as I later learned, were handed over by President Masaryk to a certain Captain Pisetskyi, who on February 13, 1919, showed them to Dr. Symeon Saba, the chairman of the Uzhhorod Ruthenian Council. The Council had expressed a desire to have an autonomous Subcarpathian Rus (they called it “Ruska Krajna”) incorporated into Hungary. He also showed them to other members of the Council as proof of the American Rusyns’ desire and as an indication of what Rusyns would gain if they were incorporated into the Czechoslovak Republic.

The American Rusyn plebiscite yielded the following results:

In favor of the union with Czechoslovakia — 67%

Ukraine — 28%

Russia — >1%

Hungary — 1%

Galicia — 1%

In favor of full independence — 2%.

With an overwhelming majority, it confirmed the National Council’s decision and resolution. The plebiscite results together with the November 12, 1918, meeting minutes were submitted to a joint commission consisting of myself as chairman and J. G. Gardoš as secretary-treasurer, to be proposed to the Peace Conference in Paris. Commissioner Pergler cabled the results of the plebiscite to Dr. Beneš in Paris.

The commission arrived in Paris on February 13, 1919. There they met with Dr. Antonii Beskyd, the chairman and representative of the Pryashiv National Council, and immediately organized a joint commission representing all Rusyns. This joint commission conferred with Dr. Kramář and Dr. Edvard Beneš—the Czechoslovak representatives to the Peace Conference. The commission provided them with the following evidence of the desire to join the Czechoslovak Republic, in addition to the aforementioned plebiscite and the minutes of November 12, 1918, viz:

A copy of the Pryashiv Ruthenian National Council’s minutes dated January 7, 1919.

A copy of the Svalyava National Council’s memorandum dated December 16, 1918.

The aforementioned documents were attached to Memoir No. 6. After the Ruthenian Commission offered to revise and correct it, it was approved as honestly describing the facts, based on which the proposed Czechoslovak-Ruthenian Union was sought. This Memoir No. 6 proposed the following mutually agreed facts:

1. Subcarpathian Rus (referred to as Carpathian Russia in the relevant Memoir No. 6) is a state, quoting page 11: “Only four Romanian villages ended up in the Ruthenian State. They were taken from Romania as compensation for the small district of Ocna-Slatina, with its salt mines, which are crucial for the States of Czechoslovakia and Ruthenia.”

2. The borders of Subcarpathian Rus were provisional and could be changed and improved through a special treaty between the Czechoslovak State and Carpathian Russia. Quoting page 12, lines 4–9: “The Ruthenian-Slovak border is established on a provisional basis… this border (Ruthenian-Slovak) may be changed and improved, if desired, through a special treaty between the Czechoslovak State and Carpathian Russia.”

3. The actual number of Rusyns is 567,867. Quoting page 2: “According to the data from all the parishes in Hungary, there were 537,867 Rusyns in 1910 there. It makes the total 108,000 (25%) higher than the number indicated by the statistics published by the State of Hungary. However, the number of Ruthenian speakers in 1910 was 567,867. This is the true size of the Rusyn population in Hungary.”

4. Rusyns live in compact groups in … the counties of Šariš, Spiš, Zemplín, Uzhhorod, and Bereg. The counties of Máramaros and Ugocsa are inhabited mostly by Rusyns. Quote from page 2.

5. The Union is only possible by consent between the two states. Quoting pages 9–10: “But it must be clearly understood that the union of this territory and the Czechoslovak Republic will be possible only if Rusyns themselves accepted and desired it.”

The aforementioned memoir, along with its documents and appendices, was offered to the Peace Conference by the Czechoslovak delegates. Given the foregoing points and the evidence that will follow, there is not the slightest doubt that Rusyns envisioned this union as synonymous with a federation with the Czechoslovak state, within borders satisfactory to Rusyns, i.e., fair and just borders.

Through the mediation of Dr. Beneš, the Ruthenian Commission in Paris had an audience with Colonel House on February 17, 1919. In the absence of President Wilson, he was head of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace. On February 24, 1919, they also met with Mr. Tardieu, a member of the French Commission to Negotiate Peace, who was then the chairman of the omnipotent ten-member committee. On behalf of Rusyns, I promptly proposed the Czechoslovak-Rusyn Federation to both of these world-renowned men and diplomats. I presented them with copies of the necessary informative documents, including a brief history of the Rusyns’ actions up to that day. I informed Dr. Beneš of the nature and outcomes of these meetings through letters dated February 22, 1919, and February 25, 1919. It is worthy of note at this point that both President Wilson and the U.S. Department of State (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) were already aware of the actions, especially those of the American National Council of Rusyns dated November 12, 1918, responses to which, particularly a congratulatory letter from President Wilson, were dated November 19, 1918, and November 27, 1918, respectively.

On March 3, 1919, after being informed that the union proposed based on the presented facts had been met with a favorable decision by the so-called Special Five-Member Commission, the Ruthenian Commission handed over their further demands to Dr. Karel Kramář and Dr. Edvard Beneš on March 4 and 3 respectively. The demands are now known as the Fourteen Points. In the afternoon of March 4, the American Rusyn Commission conferred with President Masaryk and offered him copies of all the aforementioned documents, including copies of the Fourteen Points. The Commission then traveled to Bratislava, where they conferred with Minister Dr. Šrobár, and then headed to Subcarpathian Rus. They arrived in Uzhhorod on March 15, 1919.

Before arriving in Uzhhorod, the Commission conferred with representatives of the Pryashiv Ruthenian National Council in Pryashiv, which approved everything that had been done up to that day and authorized the American Commission to work in the interest of the three united National Councils, namely: the Pryashiv, Uzhhorod, and Khust Councils. Each of them wanted autonomy for Subcarpathian Rus but sought a federation and union with different countries, namely: the Council of Pryashiv—with Czechoslovakia, the Council of Uzhhorod—with Hungary, and the Council of Khust—with Ukraine. The efforts to bring these three councils to a common understanding and cooperation have been made with extraordinary speed and success. Although I had to leave for Paris at the end of April to seek permission from the Peace Conference for the Czechoslovak army to occupy the territory east of the Uzh (Ung) River, which was then occupied by the Magyar Bolsheviks, the three Councils assembled and came to a complete agreement on May 8, 1919, in Uzhhorod—the day I returned from Paris.

At the aforementioned assembly on May 8, the authorized representatives of all three independent Councils formed a unified central council named the Central Ruthenian National Council and, among other things, unanimously approved the action of the American Rusyns. The following are excerpts from the minutes of this assembly, describing the facts regarding the problems discussed in this exposé, viz:

Page 5:

“Dr. Iliia Hadzhega analyzes our demands as to the main points of our autonomy. A famous writer once said that only the peoples who are of one tribe, one mind, and one heart can be federally united. Our American brothers saw this and asked Wilson (Glory! Glory!) for us to unite with Czechoslovaks. His resolution:

“The Czechoslovak State and Carpathian Rus united in a single state with a common right of citizenship represent a single state, which in foreign, military, and financial affairs shall be governed jointly, while in other matters the Ruthenian State shall govern itself independently with its legislature and government. The command language of the troops recruited in Rus shall be Ruthenian, with Ruthenian officers.”

Approved unanimously.

Page 8. Avgustyn Voloshyn:

…emphasizing the importance of uniting all forces, proposed a report on uniting the Councils of Khust, Uzhhorod, and Pryashiv into the Central National Ruthenian Council. Its goals would be: 1) to protect the interests of the Ruthenian people in general; 2) preparing to form the administration and hold educational activities of our Ruthenian State. The assembly adopted this resolution unanimously and enthusiastically.

At the meeting on May 15, 1919, the Central Ruthenian National Council recommended me to President Masaryk as their state’s organizational minister. I was personally entrusted with this the next day, as can be seen in the minutes from May 16, of which I quote the following:

From page 17, typed minutes:

The chairman welcomes Gregory Zhatkovych as the honorary chairman of the Central Ruthenian National Council, and informs him of the unanimous desire of the Council that he should take on the difficult but essential for us task of organizing our autonomy, and that he should be our first minister.

Mr. Dr. Gregory Zhatkovych shall thank the Council for their trust and declare that he is ready to sacrifice all his energy for the good of his people. Due to moral and family reasons, he cannot stay in Europe permanently. However, he is ready to participate in forming the Ruthenian State for a few months, not violating his American citizenship, should President Masaryk approve our proposal.

At the same meeting, the Council explicitly endorsed the action of the American Rusyns, especially the Fourteen Points proposed to the representatives of the Czechoslovak Republic.

Further on page 17:

On behalf of the commission sent to prepare a draft of the treaty and the Ruthenian State’s demands for autonomy, Dr. Iliia Hadzhega will suggest that our commission accepts the Points of the American Commission in their entirety.

The Central Council approves the commission’s decision and, based on the Memorandum of the American Representatives, will draft a plan of their demands, as follows:

First: Rusyns will form an independent state in the Czechoslovak-Ruthenian Republic.

Second: The border of the Uhro-Ruthenian State will be determined by Uhro-Ruthenian and Czechoslovak official representatives.

Fourth: The Uhro-Ruthenian State will be independent in all governmental and internal affairs.

Twelfth: The aforementioned conditions and other agreements and arrangements essential for the existence and development of the Ruthenian State and the Czechoslovak Republic will be included in a formal contract to be adopted by the legally authorized representatives of the Ruthenian State and the Czechoslovak Republic.

Thirteenth: Until this final contract is concluded, a provisional or de facto Ruthenian State or territory will be formed. This provisional or de facto State will lay within the following borders: With Romania—the line established by the Peace Conference; with Hungary—the line established by the Peace Conference; along this line to the point where it meets the western border of the Szikszói district; then along the western and northern border of this district up to the Hornád River; then along the Hornád river up to the confluence with the Torysa (Tarcza) river; from there to the north of the Torysa river to the point where the river crosses the border of the counties of Spiš and Šariš; from there the southern border of the Héthárs district and the western border of the Lublán district of the Spiš County to Poprádremete.

This provisional or de facto Ruthenian State shall be governed by an Uhro-Ruthenian minister appointed by the president of the Czechoslovak Republic. This Ruthenian minister shall appoint other officials of the State necessary for the proper administration and management of the provisional or de facto Ruthenian State.

Fourteenth: For all disputes, misunderstandings, or conflicting interpretations of the treaty (special contract), the Czechoslovak State and the Ruthenian State shall have the right to appeal to the League of Nations. This right is granted by the Highest Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to settle such matters. The judge of the League will be final and without appeal for both sides.

It was during these revolutionary times, particularly after the breakup with Hungary, that the Central Ruthenian National Council took the aforementioned step. All three former National Councils declared it openly, and Subcarpathian Rus became what the Revolutionary National Council had declared it to be—a de facto state—despite Memoir No. 6 and the 26 October 1918 recognition.

112 officials and members of the Central Ruthenian National Council formed a delegation that went to Prague. There, on May 23, 1919, on behalf of Subcarpathian Rus, they solemnly offered the aforementioned protocol to President Masaryk and through him to the Czechoslovak Republic. The President and the fifteen-member Special Commission met that afternoon to confer about specific problems and made decisions, particularly concerning Subcarpathian Rus’ organization.

This protocol was sent to Dr. Beneš to be offered to the Peace Conference, as a complete and final proof of the Rusyns’ desire to unite with the Czechoslovak Republic on a federal basis.

President Masaryk had already officially informed the government and people of Czechoslovakia about the possibility of a Czechoslovak union in his so-called First Address in January 1919. He spoke out frankly about receiving this delegation. His words were accurately published in the Narodni Lísty dated May 26, 1919:

In his conclusions, the president noted the constitutional circumstances and that he is not ready and will not decide on his own. Hence, fully authorized representatives of the Subcarpathian people will be summoned since we must immediately move on to forming an administration… President is aware that the statuses of Ruthenians and the Rusyn Republic are quite separate in the legal framework. They decided to join our state of their own volition and first of all, sought autonomy. If necessary, the scope of this autonomy should be constitutionally limited to take care of some common affairs.

In his reply during an open meeting, he emphasized the importance of Subcarpathian Rus to their state, recalling that this problem had been discussed in Switzerland at the very beginning of the War. Albeit, the honorable immigrants in America set on joining the Czechoslovak Republic. Under the guidance of Mr. Zhatkovych the American Ruthenians [editor’s note: Rusyns] sent their appeals to Presidents Wilson and Masaryk. This way the Allies in Paris learned about the Carpatho-Ruthenians’ (Rusyns’) requests and granted them the right to join the Czechoslovak state as an autonomous entity.

The delegation returned to Subcarpathian Rus on May 26, 1919. I, as an officially authorized representative, stayed in Prague to initiate discussions on establishing a plan for the organization of the Ruthenian State.

The first step in this organization was taken at a conference with Mr. President when I offered him the Fundamentals of Organization. The outbreak of the war between Magyar Bolsheviks and Czechoslovakia interrupted the negotiations. They were renewed on July 10, 1919, and then on July 13, 17, and 22, 1919.

On July 22, Mr. President handed over a copy of the Peace Conference’s decision regarding the problem of the Subcarpathian Rus’ autonomy. As well as this, I received the contents of a telegram sent by Dr. Beneš to Mr. President, announcing that the Peace Conference itself intended to establish a permanent border between Czechoslovakia and Subcarpathian Rus. This was surprising to both of us, especially given the facts described above. Before receiving the telegram, the meetings were held under the assumption that, if possible, this border issue would be peacefully resolved between us. I reviewed the terms proposed by the Peace Conference and had only one objection, namely paragraph 2 (par. 11 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain), which determines the Subcarpathian Sejm’s jurisdiction as “local”. This word is found in the Constitution of Czechoslovakia (paragraph 2, section 4), and may be misleading and misinterpreted as “internal,” which is the meaning it has in terms of the rights of an autonomous state in the United States of America. Per President Masaryk’s assurances, this should not cause difficulties since the first paragraph (paragraph 10 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain) guarantees Rusyns the broadest autonomy possible. I accepted the entire text as proposed.

As to the border problem, I immediately informed the president that it was my duty to rush to Paris without delay to ensure that the Rusyns’ case was clearly and accurately presented and that all the facts and existing statistics were offered to the Peace Conference. For, as stated in Memoir No. 6, the Magyar statistics could not be relied upon.

At President Masaryk’s urging, his private secretary, Jaroslav Císař, immediately procured an Orient Express reservation for me, which is how I left Prague on the same afternoon. Arriving in Paris early on the 14th, I conferred with Dr. Beneš, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who briefly informed me of the reasons for the unexpected decision of the Peace Conference. He announced that the Peace Conference had been refocused and, for their reasons, wanted to establish the borders of Subcarpathian Rus as small as possible. He went on to express his fear that the borders, despite my best efforts, would not be satisfactory to Rusyns, and concluded that the Peace Conference intended to establish the border along the Ung River.

I, of course, protested vigorously, stating that the main reason for our union was to ensure that Rusyns would not be divided into two or more parts. I then discovered that the Conference’s position was not just unfair but unbelievable. I could not see how the way the border was to be established could be in the Peace Conference’s best interest, and I remarked that I was sure if we agreed among ourselves on the borders, the Conference would accept it. I advocated for the border described in paragraph 11 of the minutes of the Central Ruthenian Council dated May 16, 1919. Dr. Beneš reviewed the map. Once he saw that it included the Ľubovňa district in Spiš County, the entire area north and east of the Torysa and Hornád rivers, i.e. parts of Šariš and Spiš Counties, and the entire Zemplín County, he immediately responded that he was sure that Slovaks would not accept it. I informed him that I was not negotiating with Slovaks but with the Czechoslovak government based on the agreements reached and proposed by the Peace Conference. So it was impossible to reach any agreement or decision. But after a further discussion, it was mutually agreed that the best way out of the predicament would be to demand that the Conference should only establish provisional borders and that the right to determine what further territories would be incorporated should be left to the peaceful mutual agreement between Czechoslovakia and Subcarpathian Rus only. Dr. Beneš agreed and promised that this would happen. When I asked him what kind of guarantees I had that the Peace Conference would accept this agreement, he replied, “I promise you that the Peace Conference will do as we have agreed, and if they don’t, I promise you that I will not sign the Peace Treaty (provisions).” As he said that, as I remember very clearly, we shook our hands in agreement.

With the help of Dr. Beneš, I booked an Orient Express ticket and left Paris for Prague the same evening. Before I left I received a letter from Dr. Beneš. In this letter, he wrote that he informed the president about the detailed reasons that guided the Peace Conference as well as about the agreement we had reached.

I arrived in Prague on the 26th. I delivered Beneš’s letter to the president on the same day. I wrote to him the following, “If such borders (specifically the Uzh River) were established, it would be futile for me to explain the justice of this to my people.” After much deliberation, I have prepared a draft of a provisional agreement, which I enclose herewith… I honestly believe that this is the bare minimum that can be expected to be accepted by Rusyns, and I sincerely hope that the procedure will be accepted by you without substantial changes.” The letter is dated July 26, 1919.

The aforementioned provisional (preliminary) agreement provided the resolution of the border dispute in the following manner:

Paragraph One:

As from October 1, 1919, and onward, and until the conclusion of a formal agreement specifically mentioned and described in the fifth paragraph of this agreement, Subcarpathian Rus (Rusynia) will consist of and include the following designated territories:

A. All the territory east of the Ung River has been or will be ceded to the Czechoslovak State by the Magyar government according to the decisions of the Peace Conference.

B. All the territory west of the Ung River, including parts of Spiš, Šariš, Zemplín, and Uzhhorod counties, which are particularly and extensively described in the “Map of Subcarpathian Rus west of the Ung River”… (Based on Tomaszewski’s ethnographic map of 1906, published by the University of Petrograd based on Magyar statistics from 1900).

Paragraph Three:

The territory particularly defined and described in the “Map labeled Exhibit B”… will be known and defined as a disputed territory, and in that disputed territory no census will be conducted before May 1, 1920. From May 1 until August 1, 1920, there will be censuses prepared, conducted, and completed by joint two-member committees—one member will be appointed by Czechoslovakia and the other by Subcarpathian Rus—the inhabitants of the disputed territory. The disputed territory in the counties of Spiš, Šariš, and Zemplín will be administered by Czechoslovakia, while the disputed territory in the county of Uzhhorod will be administered by Subcarpathian Rus. Rusyns will have complete freedom of speech and press as well as the right to convene and hold assemblies in the disputed territories administered by Czechoslovakia.

Paragraph Five:

When establishing the final border, attention should be paid not only to the ethnographic data specified by the above-described census but also to the economic, geographic, and administrative requirements of Subcarpathian Rus.

I was summoned to a conference with the president on July 29, 1919. Minister of Internal Affairs Švehla participated in it, too. The president opposed the form of the agreement claiming that such an agreement can only be concluded between two sovereign states and that Subcarpathian Rus did not have its constitutional representatives yet. After a three-hour conference, we reached a verbal agreement, which—as agreed between us—would be put into writing, and as President Masaryk told me, “The two of us will finish it.”

It should be mentioned here that during this conference the president handed me a cablegram that he had received from the American National Council of Rusyns. It enclosed a copy of his handwritten response to this. In the cablegram, they asked if the facts that I had been shot by Czechoslovak soldiers and that I was in the service of the Magyar Bolsheviks were based on the truth. The contents of this telegram, as well as the advantage of obtaining approval from the American National Council for the aforementioned agreement, led me to consider it proper to visit America to personally refute the news spread by the enemies of the Czechoslovak-Ruthenian Union and to secure approval for this agreement, which, in some matters, differed from what Rusyns demanded.

Believing that matters would move forward quickly from that point on, I first informed Dr. Beneš with a letter dated August 1 that on July 29, at the conference, the President and the Minister of Internal Affairs had agreed on the way the Rusyn case should be handled, and that among other things “an agreement had been reached as to the border problem, as communicated to you at the conference on July 24.” A few days later I made the necessary arrangements through him to leave Le Havre, France, on August 16. I was confident that the formal preparation and signing of the already thoroughly established agreement would not take more than a week or ten days. Having prepared a draft of my accedence, I waited for the promised call, and since I did not hear anything for a week, I urged the matter with a letter dated August 6, 1919. Ultimately, since I had not received either the call or the documents by the morning of August 12, I went to the office of the president’s private secretary, Jaroslav Císař, and told him that I was obliged to leave for Paris that afternoon and demanded an audience with the president. The president replied that he was busy, and since I was prepared for such a contingency, I handed his secretary a copy of the so-called Proclamation of August 12, 1919, which contained the essence of the July 20 conference agreement, along with a personal letter to immediately inform the president that I would be waiting for a reply. In this letter, among other things, I wrote:

My work in America will be greatly hampered as I do not have a formal written report on the actions agreed upon at the conference of July 29, which I hope to secure approval of by the American National Council of Rusyns. If the National Council has absolute confidence in my unconfirmed report, it may let me accomplish my mission indirectly. It will be a delicate job but I am confident that I may achieve it.

The names of the other four members of the Ruthenian Autonomous Commission who have agreed to serve are as follows: Maj. Yevgenii Puza, Khust, Máramaros district; Dr. Yulii Brashchaiko, Khust; Professor Avgustyn Voloshyn, Uzhhorod; Dr. Vladymyr Turkyniak, Pryashiv, Šariš district.

I have a great need for the map of Tomaszewski, which I left with Your Excellency, and I would like to ask that it be entrusted to me through Mr. Císař if it were not possible for you to grant me an audience before I leave this afternoon.

I have prepared a report for the Central Ruthenian Council in Uzhhorod, which I enclose herewith. If you find the report decent, and worthy of publicity, would you be so kind as to arrange for it to be sent to Uzhhorod?

The private secretary took the letter and the report to the president and came back shortly afterward to inform me that the president was sorry that he could not receive me, but would briefly review the proposed matters and asked me to wait for a short while. I waited for about an hour, maybe less. When Mr. Císař went to see the president again, he returned with a report addressed to the Central Ruthenian National Council in Uzhhorod and said: “The president says that everything is in order.” I responded: “Very well then. I will deliver it to the Council myself, but I must have the president’s signature to confirm that everything is in order, as you say, and meets the conditions of the verbal agreement of July 29.” Mr. Císař replied: “The president is very busy. He said that everything is in order, and since I am authorized to attest to the truth of such facts in all such matters, everything will be in order.” After saying this, he took the report and wrote the following at the end of it with his hand:

Seen by the President of the CzSl. Republic 12/VIII. 19. Jaroslav Císař, Private Secretary.

Mr. Císař also informed me that the map of Tomaszewski, which I had asked for from the president, was not in the president’s possession, as he had passed it on to a commission.

That same afternoon, before I left, I had personally handed the signed report in the manner described above to Vasyl Takach, secretary of the Central Ruthenian National Council, who was in Prague. I also let him and the only other witness, Professor Spala, testify to the accuracy of the copy that was to be offered to the American Rusyns. This report, which is now known as the Proclamation of August 12, 1919, is reproduced verbatim as follows:

To the Central Ruthenian Council in Uzhhorod,

Honorable Mr. Chairman! Honorable delegates! After several meetings with President Dr. Masaryk and a meeting with the Minister of Internal Affairs, Dr. Švehla, I am pleased to inform you that the Czechoslovak government has appointed me President of the Ruthenian Autonomous Directorate. (Note: Decree of appointment No. 306/19 R.T., signed by Tusar). Other than me, the Directorate will consist of four other members, who will be appointed shortly.

The members of the Directorate will act in agreement with General Hennock in those parts of our state that are not governed by the authorities of the Czechoslovak Republic until the Peace Conference finally decides on some matters of our state. Upon the resolution of these matters, according to the Peace Conference’s decision, Mr. President of the Czechoslovak Republic will appoint the first governor of the Rusyn Autonomous State. Also, then the border between Slovaks and Rusyns will be established.

Our state will permanently own the Ľubovňa district of the Spiš county, the entire Bereg, Máramaros, and Ugocsa counties. The other territories that we wished for shall remain neutral until the national census is conducted. The census shall be conducted under the guidance of a committee consisting of Rusyn and Czechoslovak members.

The neutral part of Uzhhorod district shall be governed by our authorities. The Rusyn state shall be independent in matters of language, school, church, and all internal affairs. It shall have its own National Assembly in Uzhhorod. It shall also have representatives in the National Assembly in Prague. At the moment, I am obliged to go to America for official business, so that material and moral cooperation between the American Rusyns and you is ensured as soon as possible.

The borders between Romanians and us have not been defined at the Peace Conference yet.

Please accept the assurance of my highest consideration,

Prague, August 12, 1919.

Yours truly, Zhatkovych.

During my stay in America, the Proclamation of August 12 was published verbatim in American Ruthenian newspapers. All the facts therein were included in the report I offered to the American Congress of Rusyns. It was attended by delegates from all the Ruthenian organizations in the United States of America and was held in Homestead, Pennsylvania, on September 15 and 16, 1919. At the Congress, I publicly declared that “Subcarpathian Rus will have autonomy in the truest and fullest sense of the word,” and that the border will be established in the manner described in my proclamation, so in this delicate matter “Rusyns and Czechoslovaks will get what they are rightfully entitled to.” Excerpt from the printed report of the President of the Directorate.

Upon hearing this report directly from the mouth of their representative to the Peace Conference and the president of the Directorate ruling their homeland, the Convention approved the plan described and burst into a joyous demonstration that lasted ten minutes.

During my stay in America, which was quite successful, I also received the glorious Mid-European Liberty Bell of the Year 1918 from the Mid-European European Union. It rang on October 26, 1918, when the Declaration of Independence of the Persecuted Peoples of Mid-Europe was read and proclaimed to the entire world by President Masaryk personally.

Upon my return to Prague, I in person delivered a copy of the minutes of the aforementioned Congress of Rusyns to President Masaryk, as well as a copy of my report presented at this Congress, copies of the American newspapers, especially the American Rusyn Weekly, in which the exact copies of my appointment as President of the Directorate and the Proclamation of August 12, 1919, were published. The exact time of this delivery was October 13, 1919.

Filled with enthusiasm, which the American Rusyns supported the Union with, not only was I dissatisfied, but I was completely disappointed when I learned that nothing had been done regarding the agreements (treaties) and promises. I later was informed that the government had sent a certain Dr. Brejcha to lead the civil government, the main goal of which seemed to be to divide Rusyns into as many factions as possible. He authorized censoring the fact that I had been appointed President of the Directorate from the domestic newspapers. Although he had personally left me his name card on July 29, after the conference, he forbade the newspapers to publish the Proclamation of August 12, 1919 and authorized censoring it in its entirety.

I strongly objected to it both in my letter and when meeting President Masaryk personally on October 13, 1919, but the president said that he had been waiting for my return and that from that moment on things would be going forward quickly. As he said, “Everything will be in order”. I conferred with President Masaryk and Minister Švehla on October 16. It resulted in the fact that immediately upon Dr. Brejcha’s arrival from Uzhhorod, which was expected any minute then, Minister Švehla, Dr. Brejcha, and I would meet and develop the details of the so-called General Statutes for the Organization and Administration of Subcarpathian Rus together. Minister Švehla promised me that he would summon me as soon as Dr. Brejcha arrived.

However, I had not been summoned until October 21, even though Dr. Brejcha had been in Prague for at least four days by then. At five o’clock in the afternoon of the said day, Minister Švehla, in Dr. Brejcha’s presence, handed me not the plan that we were to discuss, but the General Statutes for the Organization and Administration of Subcarpathian Rus K. ch. 21,333/19 m.r. by the Ministerial Council. At the same time, I was informed that Dr. Brejcha would be returning to Uzhhorod that evening and they had no more spare time. Upon reviewing this “K. ch. 21,333/19 m.r.” I resolutely disagreed with it, saying that it was unpolitical, incomplete, unjust, and inconsistent with the existing agreement. Minister Švehla and I tried to reach some kind of compromise, but when at 8 o’clock Dr. Beneš said that in his opinion there was no use in reaching a compromise and that he had to leave the meeting in order not to miss his train, our conference was over. In a few minutes, Dr. Beneš left the room, and I with Minister Švehla agreed that I would put my objections in writing and confer on this matter with Foreign Minister Beneš, who was fully familiar with the intentions of the Peace Conference as to this matter in particular.

Having drafted the detailed objections promised, I conferred with Dr. Beneš and Minister Švehla. I gave each of them a copy of the objections and sent another copy to the president.

President Masaryk summoned me for a meeting on October 30, to which, as I learned upon my arrival, the foreign minister was invited too. The president, though ill and bedridden, greeted both of us with a copy of my amendments and a pencil in his hand. These amendments, titled “Corrections, changes, and additions to the proposed administrative plan”, were reviewed by the president point by point. These plans and their properties were discussed, and finally, we reached a consensus. I accepted the amendments in my copy and the president—in his. The president ordered Dr. Beneš to inform Minister Švehla of this conference’s outcome, and I promised to prepare copies of the agreement we reached.

On November 4, I offered a prepared agreement to Minister Dr. Beneš and then, following his instructions offered it to Minister Švehla and explained to him that this copy of the General Statutes had been approved by the president and Foreign Minister Beneš. Based on this information, Minister Švehla also expressed his approval and promised that he would offer this document to the Ministerial Council on November 6. The unexpected sickness of Minister Švehla—as I was informed—prevented him from offering the document to the Ministerial Council on November 6. Fearing that the matter would be delayed again, I appealed to the president in a letter dated November 8, asking for his intervention in expediting it. The president summoned me for a conference on November 10. Having made several minor corrections in my copy of the General Statutes himself, he told me that he would speak to Minister Švehla after our conference and inform him of its results. At the same time, he instructed me to speak to Minister Švehla as soon as he finished an audience with him. It happened so that after Švehla met with the president, I spoke to him. At the very beginning of our conversation, Minister Švehla said that he knew that a consensus had been reached between the president and me, to which I showed him the General Statutes approved and in some points corrected with the president’s hand. After reviewing the General Statutes and comparing them to his copy, he promised me that the document, unchanged, along with the agreed Appointment of the members of the Directorate would be proposed for the approval of the Ministerial Council the next day.

It should be borne in mind that the so-called General Statutes for the Organization and Administration of Subcarpathian Rus consisted not only of the part announced to the general audience on November 18, soon after I was appointed to the government, but in fact, consisted of the following sections:

General Statutes for the general audience.
Statutes of the Ruthenian Autonomous Directorate.
Lists of the government officials appointment of and delegation of authority to whom were supposed to be subject to veto power by the Directorate.

Upon making the aforesaid promise, Minister Švehla invited me to come to the Prime Minister’s Office on the following afternoon at 6 o’clock. The Ministerial Council meets there.

On the following afternoon, I arrived at the Prime Minister’s Office at 6 o’clock and at about 7 o’clock Minister Švehla came in and informed me that the General Statutes, unchanged, had been approved with only one exception. That is, the paragraph regarding the right of the Directorate to spend necessary funds for its regular duties was not adopted. About this one exception, he said that the Ministerial Council adopted it in principle, but he reported that it had to be expressed differently. I immediately insisted that it was not a vital point. Then I asked him whether the Directors had been appointed, as agreed. He said that this was fine too, although he noted that it would be a good idea to give General Hennock, the military dictator, the right to appoint a few additional members. He stopped urging this point when I protested saying that I could not keep insisting and arguing about changes forever, especially in this case when I could not accept entrusting such an important right to General Hennock, since it was essential for the members of the Directorate to be in complete understanding and agreement with the president and vice versa. I then informed him that it was the president’s wish that I should go to Uzhhorod without delay and that I had made arrangements to leave Prague on the 14th. Minister Švehla, who—it should be noted—was then entrusted with the affairs of Subcarpathian Rus, promised me when I was leaving that before I departed I would be provided with a confirmed copy of the General Statutes as well as a new title as President of the Directorate, for the reason—as he told me—that a copy of Prime Minister Tesař’s certificate could not be found among the documents of the Ministerial Council. He said that before I arrived in Uzhhorod appointing the Directorate members would be managed by General Hennock, the military dictator. The day I was leaving, on the 14th, I did not get anything but my new appointment as President of the Directorate. Then I talked to Dr. Šaparov, the Minister’s Chief of Staff, and sought an immediate audience with the minister and pushed for a meeting with him. However, I was informed that the minister could not receive me and that on my arrival to Uzhhorod, everything would be done as promised. I went to Uzhhorod, convinced that everything would be done according to the agreement.

Upon my arrival in Uzhhorod and my introduction to the government by General Hennock, the military dictator, to my great surprise I learned that:

The word “soudnictvi” (judiciary) had been dropped from the published statutes.
Appointing the Directors was not entrusted to the military dictator.
The Ruthenian Directorate Statutes, which granted the Directorate the right of veto when appointing and authorizing officials appointed by the military dictator, also did not arrive.
The paragraph regarding the Directorate’s right to spend necessary funds for its regular duties was not just expressed differently but was completely erased.

I protested by sending a letter and a telegram to Prague and received a response saying that the problem would be immediately fixed. When on October 6, during a conversation with Dr. Brejcha, I reminded him that the problem had not been resolved yet, Brejcha recalled that he had received a telegram with the Directors’ appointment and that two of the members whose appointment had been agreed on were removed, namely: T. A. Zhatkovych and Major Y. Puza. Dr. Yulii Hadzhega was appointed in their stead and the information on the whereabouts of Kyrylo Prokop, who was then interned in Poland, was sought. I immediately went to Prague to protest this in person.

At a meeting on December 9, in which other than me participated President Masaryk, Prime Minister Tusar, and Minister of Internal Affairs Švehla, I presented the entire case before them, and after a long debate, it was mutually agreed that the appointment of Dr. Hadzhega, who was appointed instead of T. A. Zhatkovych, would be done. The reason for this was that under Czechoslovak law, two brothers could not be on the same commission. Major Puza will be appointed immediately. Additionally, the Statutes of the Directorate, now corrected with the president’s handwriting, will be sent to the military dictator. These Statutes, among other things, prescribed that:

The Directorate will have the right of veto when appointing and recalling officials appointed by the administrator, the resp. military dictator.

As well as this, it is followed by the president’s handwriting saying:

9/Dec. – Tusar – Švehla – Zhatkovych – R.

With a resolute understanding that the affairs of Subcarpathian Rus would be taken from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in the future and placed in the hands of the prime minister, which indeed happened on January 1, 1920, I returned to Uzhhorod. But things remained unchanged: neither the Statutes nor the appointment of Major Puza were delivered. So on January 19, I went to Prague again, accompanied by the following members of the Directorate: Dr. Brashchaiko, Dr. Toronskyi, and the unappointed Major Puza. On the 26th, we offered the president and on the 27th, the Ministerial Council a copy of the First Central Ruthenian National Council’s protest, as well as the Directorate’s demands. On the 27th, we conferred with ministers Švehla, Beneš, and Hodža. It was then agreed that three committees would be formed to inspect the problems in detail, namely: the Territorial Committee, Constitutional Committee, and Administrative Committee. The Territorial Committee held a meeting, at which Dr. Hrušovský appeared as a Slovak representative. However, no agreement could be reached because Dr. Hrušovský found that their club, more specifically the Slovak Parliamentary Club, had decided to voluntarily cede the territory lying between the rivers Ung and Tsirkva, namely a part of the Uzhhorod district and a very small part of the northeastern Zemplín to Subcarpathian Rus. (Čislo j. 2870 pres. Ministestvo zahraničnych veci. Predmet: Odpoved na č. j. 27367/19 m.r. Rozhraničenie medzi Slovenskom i Karpatskou Rusou). The Directorate strongly objected to this proposal, and the Territorial Commission was dismissed. On the same afternoon, the Constitutional Commission assembled and it dismissed itself having debated for a few minutes. There was a decision that it would meet again as soon as it could get the Administrative Committee’s report. The Administrative Committee never met, and so the whole procedure ended up being a fiasco. I then sent formal demands based on the agreements made and was summoned by the president for a conference on February 10. Ministerial Counselor Dr. Pallier, head of the Ruthenian Department of the Ministerial Mission, participated in it as well.

My demands were thoroughly reviewed and I was promised that the government would send me a formal response. I received the response, signed by Pallier at the bottom. Not only did he not accept my demands, but he also did not address the issues related to borders, autonomy, etc. He only briefly addressed administrative issues.

In response to this so-called Pallier’s Memorandum, I sent a long and detailed list of demands on February 14, outlining the reasons for these demands. I demanded that the Czechoslovak Mission give me a clear response on the resolute projects submitted on January 27 by February 17. If I do not receive a response from the government by then, I will regard this as a denial. The response that was sent to me on January 17 was neither proper nor accurately formatted. I sent an answer to the aforementioned response on the same day, just for the sake of formal confirmation, but it was never delivered. Consequently, I filed my resignation on February 19.

The members of the Directorate expressed their solidarity with me by their resignations dated March 2, 1920. I urged the acceptance of my resignation with a letter dated March 9. This situation lasted a long while. The government did not want to confirm that my resignation had been accepted, and ultimately, through the personal intervention of the president, it was agreed that the border issue would be left for the Sejms of Czechoslovakia and Subcarpathian Rus to decide. In matters of autonomy, the Czechoslovak representatives would not make any decisions that would contradict the decisions of the Peace Conference. I was then forced to agree to accept entering the governor’s office at the resolute request of the prominent Rusyns. The executive decision by the Ministerial Council was published on April 26. Among other things, it ordered the establishment of the Provincial Council. I assumed office under very difficult circumstances, the details of which may be of historical interest, but would not serve any practical purpose here. My first act as a governor was to issue a Manifesto. This Manifesto was prepared, approbated, and issued with the government’s consent. It was printed and disseminated by the governmental agents and countersigned by the Vice-Governor Peter Erenfeld. This Memorandum, inter alia, suggested that:

The final resolution of the Subcarpathian Rus border issue, which under the terms of the aforementioned General Statutes was left to a joint decision by Rusyns and Slovaks, did not lead to anything and is therefore left to the Constitutional Government and Parliament of the Czechoslovak Republic and the Sejm (Parliament) of Subcarpathian Rus.

(Excerpt from the Manifesto of Governor Zhatkovych, countersigned by Vice-Governor Erenfeld, published on June 19, 1920.)

I assumed the Governor’s office fully aware of the enormous magnitude of the work that awaited me, but only under the condition that I was assured that I would get further assistance from the Czechoslovak government. However, I regret to say that this expected assistance was mainly promised but not delivered. I made it clear to the president and others that by assuming the Governor’s office I reserved the right to act in the manner that would facilitate obtaining autonomy by Subcarpathian Rus, to which it is justly entitled under the Peace Conference’s agreements and its decision.

After assuming my office, I heavily focused on a plan that would assure that Rusyns’ autonomy would be respected by the government, which would eventually lead to a friendly understanding between them and their Slavic brothers—Czechs and Slovaks. After three months of familiarization and study of the local circumstances, I went to Prague as Governor for the first time, offering a personal report on the general situation in Subcarpathian Rus. It was decided that elections would be held in January 1921. I offered the government a draft of the Electoral Law, as well as a draft of the Constitution of Subcarpathian Rus in September and October respectively.

After attending the president’s New Year’s Eve audience, along with other Cabinet members, I again conferred with the prime minister on January 30. After expressing my regret at the fact that the promises made had not been kept, I emphasized the importance of the upcoming national census in my letter, and based on the agreements described in detail here, I demanded that: “as regards the census, Rusyn officials shall be appointed along with the Slovak ones in the neutral territories”. The prime minister assured me that he would immediately communicate with Dr. Mičura, the minister holding full-fledged power over Slovakia, and settle this matter.

On January 25, I sent Minister Dr. Mičura a letter No. Č.R. 77, describing the aforesaid and other matters, indicating the legitimacy of my demand and my wish for the Rusyns in Slovakia, especially the League of Rusyns, freedom of speech and the press, the right to hold open meetings in Slovakia so that they could explain the nature and importance of the upcoming census to the local people. Additionally, I emphasized that Ruthenian officials should be appointed alongside Slovak or Czechoslovak census officials. No response has been received regarding this so far. It should be noted that having confidence that at least this government’s promises would be kept, I announced to the people of Subcarpathian Rus that some matters would be resolved. Unfortunately, for some, perhaps, clear reasons those promises were never kept.

During my vacation in Tatranská Lomnica, a designated messenger informed me about the manner in which the census in the disputed territories of the Spiš, Šaryš, Zemplín, and Uzhhorod districts was threatened to be held. My attention was drawn to the government’s terroristic policy of one Czechoslovak administrator. It was the head of the Zemplín district, Slavik, who, in violation of all prior agreements and promises, under his name, authorized by his officials, allowed a certain circular letter to be sent out, in which, among other things, he said:

There are neither Rusyn men nor Rusyn women in Slovakia… And it is quite clear that this is not Rusyn, but just Magyar propaganda…” and so on.

In addition to the aforementioned publicly disseminated circular letter, this top official of Czechoslovakia also issued confidential instructions and orders to his subordinates in his district, viz:

No. 1851/921. To all the administrations in Zemplín. As there have been rumors that part of the Zemplín district is to be incorporated into Subcarpathian Rus, which disturbs the Slovak majority of the district, I publish an excerpt from the Ministerial dictates, which has the full legal power in Slovakia as of 19./I. 1921, No. 1727/21. dept. adm. 1. It states that according to the treaty, which has already definitely and clearly established the border between Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus, in addition to the villages already listed, the following villages still belong to Slovakia: (here it lists a number of villages currently administered by Subcarpathian Rus.) Please inform the people of your districts that the contradicting reports are fictitious and completely fabricated.

Dr. Slavik, District Chief

When I received Slavik’s circular letter in Tatranská Lomnica, I could scarcely believe my eyes. I immediately stopped my vacation and went to Zemplín County by car to take care of the matters personally. After a 4-day stay there, not only did I see that the circular letter had been widely disseminated throughout the county by the county officials, but also I saw that it led to a result that had to be Hughesogrammed [telegraphed via the device invented by David Edward Hughes] to the president, prime minister, and the minister fully responsible for Slovakia on the 14th, as follows:

The circular letter of the Zemplín District Chief Slavik, in which he states that declaring oneself as a Rusyn is Magyar propaganda, has caused, as I witnessed during my journey across the Zemplin district myself, government-backed terror. In the name of Rusyns, I must protest and state in advance that the census cannot and will not be fair to Rusyns in the Zemplín district because of this proclamation of Slavik. Therefore, I demand that immediate steps be taken to ensure the consolidation of the Slavic elements of Czechoslovakia.

Dr. Zhatkovych, Governor

This along with the fact that there have been well-proven cases of denationalization in all parts of the disputed territory led Rusyns to realize that this census would be carried out by a commission fairly consisting of Czechoslovaks and Rusyns.

Having lost confidence in the government’s integrity and good intentions, on March 16, I sent the president my resignation from the Governor’s office.

Nothing was done about this matter until April 12 for the president was sick. Then, I was summoned to confer with him. The conference resulted in an agreement between the government and myself to come to some kind of compromise. Representatives of all the political parties were invited to Prague and were given a hearing by Prime Minister Černý separately and in groups. After they left, my conferences with the government continued. On April 30, I received a formal written response to my written demands from the government. The response assured me of the incompatibility of my respective opinions on the issue of Subcarpathian Rus, so I urged the acceptance of my resignation on the same day. The problems of my resignation and other matters were once again discussed by President Masaryk, Prime Minister Černý, and myself during a three-hour conference on Wednesday, May 3, 1921. By the end of this conference, I again sought the acceptance of my resignation, which was later accepted by President Masaryk in a letter dated May 13, 1921. The letter reads as follows:

Prague, April 13, 1921.

To Mr. Dr. Zhatkovych. I have accepted your multiple requests for resignation from the position of Provisional Governor of Subcarpathian Rus.

I thank you for your achievements during your service to your Republic and your Homeland. I wish you many successes in your work for your people.

Countersigned: Černý, v.r.

T. G. Masaryk, v.r.

In addition to the aforesaid, the prime minister said:

I, too, on behalf of the Czechoslovak government, along with the president extend my full and heartfelt gratitude to you.

Prime Minister: Černý, v.r.

That is the story. And, I must say, it is a sad story.

About the past only. I am fully aware that it is easy to criticize. So in order to eliminate the idea that this exposé was written only to indicate what should have been done and was never done, I will now suggest specific steps that should be promptly taken by the government and parliament of Czechoslovakia in case they want to convince Subcarpathian Rusyns and the great civilized world abroad that they are treating their Slavic brothers, who voluntarily united with Czechoslovakia, fairly and justly.

For the sake of a complete understanding of what Rusyns are entitled to, in addition to knowing the preceding history, it is necessary to learn and carefully review the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers, and Czechoslovakia in Saint-Germain-en-Laye on September 10, 1919, viz:

PART TWO

Paragraph 10

Czechoslovakia shall recognize the Ruthenian territory south of the Carpathians within the borders defined by the major Allied and Associated Powers as an autonomous entity within the Czechoslovak State and shall grant it the fullest autonomy, equal to that of the Czechoslovak State.

Paragraph 11

The Rusyn country south of the Carpathians shall have a separate Sejm. This Sejm shall exercise legislative power in all matters of language, schools, religion, local administration, and other matters authorized by the laws of the Czechoslovak Republic. The Governor of the Rusyn country shall be appointed by the President of the Czechoslovak Republic and shall be responsible to the Sejm.

Paragraph 12

Czechoslovakia shall ensure that the officials in the Rusyns country shall be elected from among the inhabitants of this territory as much as possible.

Paragraph 13

Czechoslovakia guarantees the Rusyn country an adequate representation in the Parliament of the Czechoslovak Republic, which will include ambassadors elected under the Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic. However, these ambassadors shall not have the right to vote on the legislative issues that the Ruthenian Sejm is responsible for.

Additionally, based on the aforementioned paragraph 10, Subcarpathian Rus is entitled to all those autonomous rights that do not contradict the Czechoslovak State’s unity. After international law, customs, and business etiquette, which differ from those within a single state, there are affairs that may hinder the direct and free communication of this state with other sovereign states. For example, all negotiations and agreements between two sovereign states can be classified as such. In this sense, such affairs as foreign affairs, railway, telegraph, telephone, post, money, tariffs, army, etc. can be classified as affairs essential to ensure the unity of the state. But it would be a far-reaching conclusion to say that the affairs of a local administration of an autonomous entity contradict the unity of a republic. Especially if each of the 48 autonomous entities—states in the United States—has full autonomy in its local affairs or its domestic affairs, which, as far as we know, is the case there. Keeping the history of Subcarpathian Rus in mind, having proof based on international law before us, and with the precedent regarding the states’ rights observed in the United States of America, the word “local” in Paragraph 12 of the Peace Conference’s decision does not leave room for doubt that the words “local matters” are exactly similar to the words “matters of the interior”.

The word “local” has to and will have to be interpreted as “interior” (see Pt. 5 of Dr. Zhatkovych in the Autonomy of Subcarpathian Rus brochure, published by the Rusyn Information Bureau, Homestead, Pennsylvania), and as put in Paragraph 13, Subcarpathian Rus in its current provisional borders is entitled to an adequate representation: 14 ambassadors and 7 senators instead of 9 ambassadors and 4 senators, as defined by the current Czechoslovak constitution. This constitution has been prepared and adopted without the knowledge or consent of at least one or a few Rusyn representatives.

In the name of the very half a million of the American Rusyns who made the present Czechoslovak-Subcarpathoruthenian Union possible, I have demanded, and I still do that the Czechoslovak government and parliament satisfy the following requirements identical to those of the political parties as well as other representative bodies of Subcarpationa Rus regardless of their ethnicity, political stance and religion, namely:

Canceling the statárium (martial law).
Adopting my project of the Electoral Law for holding elections to the first Subcarpathian-Ruthenian Sejm. (Guaranteeing the right of representation only to permanent residents).
Holding the elections to the Subcarpathian-Ruthenian Sejm as soon as possible. (Prosperity, peace, and unity cannot be achieved until this representative body is formed).
Appointing a Rusyn as Governor of Subcarpathian Rus and granting him full authority in autonomous affairs.
A governmental proclamation stating that the current Rutheno-Slovak border is only temporary (see Pt. 4 of The Slovako-Subcarpathian Border brochure, published by the Rusyn Information Bureau, Homestead, Pennsylvania, USA). Incorporating the so-called Makovica in the Šariš district at the expense of the Zemplín district and those parts of Uzhhorod district that are not yet in Subcarpathian Rus, to the latter. Public acknowledgment of the fact that the permanent borders between Subcarpathian Rus and Slovakia will be established in the manner agreed upon by the representative of Czechoslovakia (Dr. Beneš, Minister of Foreign Affairs) and the representative of Rusyns (Dr. Zhatkovych) in Paris on July 24, 1919, more specifically: friendly, mutually established between Czechoslovakia and Subcarpathian Rus, and never unilaterally and arbitrarily.
To rectify the injustice done to Rusyns during the national censuses conducted on February 16–23, 1921, in the Ľubovňa district in the Spiš county, in the Šariš and Zemplín counties, and in those parts of the Uzhhorod district that are ruled by Slovakia, through appointing of an investigative commission consisting of equally Rusyns and Czechoslovaks. This commission should investigate the complaints about denationalization locally.
To erase the parts of the Czechoslovak Constitution that thoroughly attempted to misinterpret the spirit and meaning of the Treaty of Saint-Germain (without a constitution or obtaining an approbation for this from at least one or some Rusyn representatives) and to include the aforementioned paragraphs 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Saint-Germain Peace Treaty Ipsissimis Verbis in this constitution in order to resolutely declare that these paragraphs are essential and can be changed only with the approval and permission of the Sejm of Subcarpathian Rus. (see Pt. 3 of The Crisis of the Constitution and the Once Governor of Subcarpathian Rus brochure, published by the Rusyn Information Bureau, Homestead, Pennsylvania, USA).
Adoption of my project for the Constitution of Subcarpathian Rus (see Pt. 4 of What the Constitution of Subcarpathian Rus should be Like brochure, published by the Rusyn Information Bureau, Homestead, Pennsylvania, USA.) or leaving this matter to the mutual agreement between the Government and Parliament of Czechoslovakia and the governmental Sejm of Subcarpathian Rus.
Immediately confiscate the Schönborn’s dominion and all the large dominions in Subcarpathian Rus, and promptly implement the land reform law. In this sense, establish a specific maximum land quantum that can be owned by a person under current laws.
To repair the damage caused to poor Rusyns by replacing the old Austro-Hungarian money with the current Czechoslovak currency, as much as possible.
A mandatory statement from the government of the Czechoslovak Republic about the fact that the ultimate appointment of the officials of Subcarpathian Rus will not be carried out until the Sejm of Subcarpathian Rus is formed.

Since my resignation, an increasing number of newspapers in Czechoslovakia have been attributing goals and intentions to my current political activities that are untrue and not based on facts. My future political activity, just as before, will be limited to helping Subcarpathian Rus to obtain what it is entitled to within the Czechoslovak Republic under all the treaties and agreements of the Peace Conference, more specifically: full political, cultural, economic, administrative, and ethnic autonomy and self-government—all these within fair and just borders.

It has often been said by prominent Czechoslovak representatives, who largely agreed with my view of the Rusyn problem, that if there were mistakes and wrongs committed by the government as well as other government officials, they should not be attributed to malice, but simply to the ignorance of those people regarding the problems of Subcarpathian Rus. I will not be arguing about this—everyone will draw their own conclusions. However, for my part, I must state that for Rusyns the outcome would be the same regardless of whether it may have been done out of malice or ignorance. It caused injustice and damage to the rights and privileges of Rusyns anyway. The Rusyn problem cannot be ignored or treated carelessly any longer. The Rusyn problem must be assessed in a serious and fair manner. It must be thought over and from now on not entrusted to people who—pardon me—are not at all familiar with the decisions of the Peace Conference.

Rusyns voluntarily united with their Slavic brothers—Czechs and Slovaks. Rusyns, as a God-fearing, honest, reliable people, will be faithful and loyal to the Republic. However, they also demand, and rightly so, that the Republic be faithful and loyal to them.

I have never been, nor will I be, an advocate of centralization and blind chauvinistic bureaucracy—the two factors that have largely contributed to the problem of Subcarpathian Rus being in such a horrible condition today.

When considering the problem of Subcarpathian Rus it is a must to always bear in mind the fact that Dr. Beneš, Minister of Foreign Affairs, personally informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on May 25, 1921, about the following: the Peace Conference holds authority over Subcarpathian Rus.

With a clear conscience, not only as a Slav and Rusyn but also as a person to a large extent responsible for the current Czechoslovak-Subcarpathoruthenian Union, I sincerely recommend that not only for the sake of honor and justice but also in the interest of future prosperity of the entire Czechoslovak Republic, Subcarpathian Rus be promptly granted full political, cultural, economic, administrative and ethnic autonomy within fair and just borders.

In a nutshell, using the words of Lloyd George, the Rusyns only ask for “Fair play”.

DR. G. I. ZHATKOVYCH,

Former Governor of Subcarpathian Rus.

1921.

English Translation by Kanstantsin Loichyts

Editing and Typesetting by Starik Pollock