The following minute from the Comptroller-General of Customs and Public Trustee has been referred to me for advice:

By his will A.B. (deceased) late of 366 Little Collins Street, Melbourne, bequeathed one fifth share of his estate to one Fanny Frankenstein of Danzig.

2. Article 105 of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany reads:

On the coming into force of the present Treaty German nationals ordinarily resident in the territory described in Article 100 will ipso facto lose their German nationality, in order to become nationals of the Free City of Danzig.

3. The question arose as to whether, in view of Article 105, Fanny Frankenstein should be considered to be a German national whose property, rights and interests at 10 January 1920 (the date of the coming into force of the Treaty) were subject to the charge referred to in regulation 20 of the Treaty of Peace Regulations.
4. In his within memorandum of 9 August 1920⁽¹⁾ the Secretary, Attorney-General's Department, stated that, so long as it was clear that Fanny Frankenstein had lost her German nationality, there was no legal objection so far as the Commonwealth was concerned to her receiving direct her share of the estate of the late A.B.
5. As a result of the receipt by the Public Trustee of the within copy of letter dated 10 March 1920, written by the British Consul at Danzig, wherein it is stated that Fanny Frankenstein-
1. was at the date of the writing of the letter resident at Danzig;
2. had lost her German nationality through Peace Treaty and held only the status of a citizen of the Free City of Danzig,

the Minister approved of the remittance direct to Fanny Frankenstein of her share of the estate and the solicitors for the executor were informed accordingly.

6. In their within letter of 20 July 1920 the solicitors for the executor ask whether, in view of the recent English decision in The Blonde [1921] P. 155, the Public Trustee's consent to the remittance direct to Fanny Frankenstein of her share of the estate still holds good or whether such share should be paid to the Public Trustee in accordance with Article 297 (b) of the Treaty.
7. Advice is requested as to whether, in view of the decision quoted, copy of which is set out herein, Fanny Frankenstein's share of the estate of the late A.B. should be deemed to be subject to the charge created by regulation 20 of the Treaty of Peace Regulations.

The question at issue in the case of The Blonde related to three German vessels seized as prize in British ports during the war. At the time of seizure they belonged to a German corporation situated at Danzig. Inasmuch as the property claimed by Fanny Frankenstein was not during the war liable to condemnation as was the property in question in The Blonde case there appears to be a distinction between the issues in that case and in the case now under consideration.

However Article 297 (b) was considered and interpreted in The Blonde case and it was decided that the Treaty shows that it was the intention of the contracting parties upon the conclusion of the Treaty to leave the citizens of Danzig in the same position internationally as were the citizens of Germany as a whole, that is, to leave them subject to the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to retain and liquidate their property, rights and interests-to deal with them in fact (so far as international law was concerned) as though they had been German subjects and were remaining German subjects.

It was further pointed out that the citizens of Danzig are not covered by the proviso to Article 297 (b).

Applying the above decision to the present case it appears that the property of Fanny Frankenstein is liable to retention and liquidation.

It is suggested that in the circumstances the property should be formally released from the charges mentioned in regulation 20 of the Treaty of Peace Regulations.

[Vol. 18. p. 50]

(1)Opinion not found.