The situation in Schleswig serves to illustrate how, in order to effect a permanent settlement satisfactory to all parties, a plebiscite is indeed essential, for the drawing of the boundary line according to statistics of race and language, a method seldom satisfactory if what is wanted is to fulfill popular the following official communication, made public by the Ritzau Press Bureau on January 25, 1919.

The North Schleswig question is for Denmark an exclusively national question. The Danish nation hopes and longs for the return to the kingdom of Denmark of all who speak and feel Danish, but we have no interest in the question beyond that of nationality. Denmark's strength as a State would not be increased by the possession of a greater part of Schleswig than that in which the people really desire to be united with us; such possession would only create great political and administrative difficulties.

All the parties of the Rigsdag, and through them an overwhelming majority of the Danish people, have declared, in the Rigsdag resolution of October 3, in favor of a solution along purely national lines as the only one that accords with the desires, sentiments, and interests of the Danish people. This is exactly the same viewpoint as that of the Danes in North Schleswig, as expressed in the resolution passed by the North Schleswig Electoral Society at its meeting in Aabenraa, November 17.

We are therefore bringing before the Peace Conference the demand formulated by the people of North Schleswig for a solution of the problem on the basis of the self-determination of nations by means of a popular vote. This Government agrees with the Danes in North Schleswig that a plebiscite would form the surest foundation for our reunion in the future. In accordance with Article 1 of the Aabenraa resolution, this Government believes that the correct procedure will be to have "North Schleswig regarded as a unit, so that the inhabitants by voting yes or no may indicate whether or not they wish to be reunited with Denmark."

The unquestionably Danish part of Schleswig is described in Article 2 of the Aabenraa resolutions as follows: North Schleswig is that part of the Duchy of Schleswig bounded by a line running from the southern point of Als, through Flensborg Fjord to the Kobbermölle Bay and along the Krusaa south of Fröslev, so that Padoberg will be the boundary station, then following the waterways between Slogs and Kaer herred, Skelbaek, Söndenaa, and Hvidaa, to the point where Hvidaa turns to the north, when the line runs straight out to the Western Sea and thence out to the northern point of Sild."

In central Schleswig, on the other hand, a fair determination can be arrived at only by voting in districts, as indicated in the Aabenraa resolution. If any hindrance should arise to prevent a plebiscite of the Danes in North Schleswig - which the Government has no reason to apprehend — then the line indicated in Article 2 of the Aabenraa resolution must be made the basis of the regulation, since there is no doubt but that the population north of this line can with safety be added to Denmark even without a vote.

The Aabenraa resolution, Article 5, declares that, as a matter of course, any districts south of the line that express a desire for it should have a right to vote separately on whether or not they wish to return to Denmark. In case anything should prevent a plebiscite of these people also which the Government has no reason to apprehend - it would still be possible to receive back individual parishes which have an unquestionably Danish-speaking majority, in accordance with the petition signed by 876 men and women over twenty years of age in this district and sent in to this Government. There are, however, some communes from which no petition has been received.

In the case of Flensborg and its immediate vicinity conditions are very different. We can not consent to have these districts reunited with Denmark unless the inhabitants express a desire for it through a free vote, since without a doubt the majority of the people there are Germans. The petition from Flensborg is signed by 3,401 men and women over twenty years, whereas the total population of that age must be estimated as

desires, would be most inaccurate here. Even the Danish authorities agree that although statistics yield a sufficiently definite language frontier, which would leave to the south a large Danish minority in only one place, namely, Flensburg, yet, in the triangle between this line, which juts down southwest of Flensburg, and a line drawn, roughly, westward from the city, the population, though Danish in language, is only exceptionally so in sentiment.1 Nor can credence be given to an interpretation of votes in recent elections under German rule, for in this region of sparsely populated moorland many of the people of Danish language and sympathies have bowed before the storm. There is this further objection that a division according to statistics would disregard the historic desire for unity in the smaller group, a desire which led the refugees in Copenhagen in 1848 to protest that they preferred unity under Germany rather than division. This objection has an historic claim to consideration although it is possible that the events of the past seventy years have rendered its importance merely academic.

THE ISLANDS OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN, WEST INDIES, 1868

The first plebiscite regarding a cession of sovereignty ever held in the western hemisphere is that which was held in the islands of St. Thomas and St. John, in January, 1868, on the question of their cession by Denmark to the United States. It is a matter of some interest that both the vote and the insertion of the clause referring to it in the treaty between the two Powers, 40,000. This Government is taking steps to have the Peace Conference guarantee the freedom of the plebiscite in accordance with the desires of the Danish North Schleswigers as expressed by the second Aabenraa resolution of December 30, 1918. Translation. From The Nation, April 5, 1919.

1 This statement is taken from the article by H. V. Clausen, "La situation des langues en Nord-Slesvig après 1864," in Manuel historique, p. 341. See map on opposite page, which is a copy of that accompanying the article. According to the author's comment, the colored part represents all of that part of Schleswig in which Danish is spoken by the majority of the families owning land. To the south of this region there is only one place, namely Flensburg, where there is any considerable Danish speaking minority, the number there being about 4,000. The figures given on the map are of two kinds. In North Schleswig these figures are in three sets (see note 1 on map). In the middle portion of Schleswig, where the Danish language is still dominant, namely, that part contained in the triangle bounded on the east by the peninsula of Anglia and on the west by the Frisian territory, there is only one numeral under each commune (see note 2 on map). This difference in the method of evaluation is caused by the difference in the sources from which the statistics are compiled. In middle Schleswig, where the people, "although Danish in language, are only exceptionally so in sentiment," the statistics are based on German works and, in particular, on the work of Adler, Die Volkssprach in dem Herzogthum Schleswig seit 1864. In the north, where it was possible for the Danes themselves to take the statistics in each commune, the figures are more complete and more accurate, except for the cities of Haderslav, Apenrade, Sonderburg and Tondern, where only an approximate result could be secured.

were directly due to the presence of Article 5 in the Treaty of Prague of 1866. Owing to the fact that the treaty with Denmark was never ratified by the United States and that thus the cession was never completed, the circumstances of the affair have been largely forgotten.

During the American Civil War the Government of the United States had felt the need of a coaling station in the West Indies for which the three small Danish islands of St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John, the last two with excellent harbors, were well suited. The islands had no great area or population, St. Thomas being 12 miles long and 3 wide, with about 13,000 inhabitants, St. Croix, the largest one, being twice as large in area and population, and St. John being about the same area as St. Thomas but with a much smaller number of inhabitants. The people of the islands were largely negroes who had been freed but not enfranchised, and, although Danish subjects, the language in common use was English. According to a Danish estimate made at the time there were in the three islands, even including the military force and the government employees, only about 200 people whose mother tongue was Danish.1

In pursuance of his policy of territorial expansion, and while the need of a coaling station in the Caribbean was still a matter of public concern, Secretary Seward on July 17, 1866, intimated to General Raaslof, the Danish Minister at Washington, that the United States would be willing to pay five million dollars for the three islands, which were not only a source of debt rather than of revenue to Denmark but were of little use to her in any other respect. Her treasury, too, had been depleted by the recent disastrous war with Prussia and Austria. Yet, coming as it did so soon after the loss of Schleswig and Holstein, the proposal of a further reduction of her territory did not appeal to Denmark. Fear of opposition from Great Britain and, more especially, France, also deterred her from accepting the American offer. Although certain informal conversations took place regarding the matter, it was not until May 17 of the following year that the official Danish reply was delivered to Mr. Yeaman, the American Minister at Copenhagen. The answer was a counter proposition. Denmark would sell the smaller islands for ten million and St. Croix for five, if the consent of France, which was necessary for the transfer of the latter, could be obtained, but for any cession

1 Faderlandet, Copenhagen, Aug. 29, 1867; United States, Compilation of Reports of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Sen. Doc. No. 231, pt. 8, 56th Cong., 2d sess.), p. 186.

2 Documents, post, p. 945. The sum fixed was that suggested by General Delafield as a most generous compensation in his report to Mr. Seward on July 9, 1866, regarding the value of the islands. U. S. Sen. Doc. No. 231, pt. 8, 56th Cong. 2d sess., p. 178.

3 The question raised as to the cession of St. Croix grew out of the provisions of Article 5 of the convention signed at Copenhagen June 15, 1733, by which France ceded the island to the Danish West India Company. The article provided that the Danish