.

feudal class of Poles. In the public schools situated in the cities, controlled by the municipal governments, the matriculation of Ukrainians from village schools was forbidden. This, of course, created a gap between the grammar school and the University which could be bridged only by private study.

The University of Lemberg, established for the Eastern, or almost purely Ukrainian portion of Galicia, was allowed to have only ten chairs with instruction in Ukrainian. They would not have had even this small representation in Lemberg if it had not been for the fact that the universities were under the jurisdiction of the Austrian Parliament, a body composed not only of Poles, but of Czecho-Slovaks and Jugo-Slavs and other races as well.

Professor M. Hrushevsky, head of the history faculty at the University of Lemberg, cannot be quoted as a neutral observer, for he is Ukrainian born. But, as the greatest living authority on the Ukraine and the Ukrainians, and a distinguished scholar of international standing, excerpts from his account of Polish misrule are worth consideration. Of agricultural and industrial 'development' under the Polish régime, he says:

"Ruling without restriction, seizing all the land, which is the wealth of the country, the Polish nobility, who hold even now more than half the cultivated ground, have done nothing but pillage the natural resources of the country. They have all but exterminated the forests and greatly impoverished the soil; and it is hardly an overstatement to say that they have made a pauper of the peasant. They have introduced none of the progressive methods of agriculture, and, with the exception of distilling, have

inaugurated no new industries. At the present time the country is without any kind of factory or mill industry, the development of which encounters immense difficulties-obstacles put in the way by the feudal classes which fear the democratizing influence of industrial development."

The long and the short of it is that the history of Polish rule in Galicia is a history of exploitation and revolt of Ukrainians. Since the first great revolt of Ukrainians in 1648, they have never been reconciled to being a part of the Polish political organism. The suppression of their spirit of independence has not tamed the hatred of historic Poland which they have felt from time immemorial. Today there is not a single political group of Ukrainians which will support Polish domination. Such extremes as the Socialist and Church parties unite in condemning and fighting the Polish claims to Eastern Galicia.

The Polish assertion that the new Poland should include Eastern Galicia because Poles own at least thirty-five per cent. of the land is one that does not carry much weight since the downfall of the Hapsburgs. The ownership of this land dates from feudal times, and continues into modern, something very like a state of feudalism. It is so obviously unjust, at the outset, that a landed aristocracy should own and control such a large proportion of the land where another people is preponderant, that there will be few moderns to sympathize with a vested right based on this fact.

With stubborn assurance, unmindful of the new era in which we are living, leaders of Polish political thought persist in refusing to recognize the Ukrainian or Lithuanian national movements. What has been

positive and natural in their own revolt against the domination of Russian Slavs seems to them to be only the result of German intrigue in the case of the Ukrainians and Lithuanians. What were called revolutionary outbreaks in the Polish opposition to Russian rule are called anarchy when similarly occurring in Lithuania or Galicia to the discomfort of the local Polish nobility.

It does not occur to these Poles of the old school to view the loss of Polish minorities in Eastern Galicia as a necessary disadvantage which can be compensated by the acquisition of Ukrainian ethnographic islands in compact Polish territory. Not only are the motives of the Ukrainian renaissance suspected by the Polesthey are unwilling to recognize even the existence of national feeling in the Ukraine, although it has been manifested through centuries of adversity. They are still living in the conception of the absolute superiority of the Polish nation-a self-hypnosis not dissimilar to the state of public opinion in Germany during the war.

It is a great pity that this is the case, but the causes are deeply rooted in Polish history and in the present political fabric of that truly great country. National pride, heightened by centuries of suffering and oppression, is partially responsible for this blindness and there are the economic causes, too.

In spite of all this-political traditions, nationalist feeling, historic misconceptions, and incongruity of temper the Ukrainians believe that the age-old Polish-Ukrainian disputes can be settled for all time by the simple expedient of resorting to plebiscite. They have offered time and again to settle the dispute over Galicia in this democratic fashion. Their offers have been either ignored or met with bad faith, as in

the case of the Paris Agreement of March, under which hostilities were to be suspended as a preparation for a plebiscite to be obtained under Entente control. Premier Paderewski was unable at that time to fulfil Poland's pledges that the armistice would be respected.

To quote, in conclusion, from an editorial published in The Evening Post of May 22, 1919, "Mere selfinterest would dictate to the leaders of Polish nationalism a policy of moderation at a moment when the Peace Conference is engaged in the delimitation of the country's national boundaries. It certainly does not help Poland's case against Germany . . . that doubts should arise concerning Polish policy towards other races. Things have reached a pretty pass if the Supreme Economic Council at Paris is discussing the advisability of withholding food from Poland as a means of enforcing the new Government's pledges regarding the cessation of war with the Ukrainians.

The world may have been prepared for an upflare of nationalist zeal in those countries which have won their independence after centuries of oppression; but a nationalism that runs riot is one that cannot be tolerated in the interests of permanent peace in Europe."

TEXT OF THE TREATY SIGNED BY POLAND AND THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS

Reprinted from The New York Times, July 2, 1919

The United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, the principal allied and associated powers, on the one hand; and Poland, on the other hand:

Whereas, The allied and associated powers have, by the success of their arms, restored to the Polish nation the independence of which it had been unjustly deprived; and

Whereas, By the proclamation of March 30, 1917, the Government of Russia assented to the re-establishment of an independent Polish State; and

Whereas, The Polish State, which now, in fact, exercises sovereignty over those portions of the former Russian Empire which are inhabited by a majority of Poles, has already been recognized as a sovereign and important State by the principal allied and associated powers; and

Whereas, Under the treaty of peace concluded with Germany by the allied and associated powers, a treaty of which Poland is a signatory, certain portions of the former German Empire will be incorporated in the territory of Poland; and

Whereas, Under the terms of the said treaty of peace, the boundaries of Poland not already laid down are to be subsequently determined by the principal allied and associated powers;

The United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, on the one hand, confirming their recogni