Page:America in the Struggle for Czechoslovak Independence (1926).pdf/87

RV 83

merely dynastic it is evident that there was never any legal merger of the two countries, nor can Bohemia be held legally bound by any laws passed by any legislative assembly except a Bohemian assembly meeting in Bohemian territory. The situation was well stated by Charles Pergler, Vice-President of the Czechoslovak National Council, in a speech delivered at the State University of Minnesota, in which he said:

“For that matter, the fact cannot be over-emphasized that the Czechs were deprived of the national state then once had, by force. In demanding independence, Czechs can plant themselves not only upon the proposition that any nation has the right to self-government, but also upon laws and constitutions which have never been repealed or abrogated with the consent of the Bohemian people.

“Almost four centuries ago Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia (with the two Lusatias) constituted an independent kingdom, just as Hungary was then an independent kingdom. In 1526 Czechs called the Hapsburg dynasty to the Bohemian throne for practically the same reasons and on the same conditions as the Magyars. Together with the Pragmatic Sanction, the terms under which the Hapsburgs were called to the Hungarian throne formed what we might call the legal foundation of the Hungarian revolution in 1848. The Czech case, legally speaking, is every bit as strong, if not stronger, as was the Magyar case in 1848. The compact of 1526, together with the coronation oaths and a large number of historical documents, too numerous to be here mentioned, form