Prof. Jacques Maritain Denounces Giraud’s Abrogation of Cremieux Law

The Ecole Libre des Gautes Etudes, a French institution of higher learning in the United States, issued a statement today criticizing as “unjust,” “profoundly regrettable” and “contrary to all the traditions of French law” the deprivation of citizenship of 100,000 French Jews in Algeria. Professor Jacques Maritain, noted French author and philosopher, formerly of the Catholic Institute of Paris, signed the statement as president of the Ecole Libre.

Without naming General Henri Giraud, and pointing out that the Ecole Libre “remains outside of political vicissitudes,” the declaration analyzed Giraud’s abrogation last month of the Cremieux decree of 1870 by virtue of which the Jewish population in Algeria has held citizenship. It pointed out that the Jews affected by Giraud’s action “are French because they are the sons of Frenchmen.” Giraud is high commissioner of French North Africa, under Anglo-American military jurisdiction.

The text of the statement of the Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes follows:

“The Ecole Libre des Hautes Etudes is an institution of higher learning and of disinterested research which, by its very aims, remains outside of political vicissitudes. Yet, precisely because it endeavors to perpetuate the traditions of French culture, of the French spirit, and particularly of French law, the Ecole Libre has felt it its duty to give an impartial and objective opinion on a question which is currently dividing public opinion: that of the abrogation of the Cremieux law in Algeria. The Ecole Libre believes that the following statements are of a nature to enlighten the public mind.

“I. It is a profoundly regrettable contradiction that a law of the French Republic should have been ‘abrogated’ at the very same moment when Algeria solemnly proclaimed its return to the laws of the Republic.

“II. This abrogation is unjust in itself and is contrary to all the traditions of French law, because:

“a.) It penalizes retroactively persons who are in no wise guilty of any offense, and thus infringes upon the principle of non-retroaction of laws which in all civilized countries is the very safeguard of acquired rights.

“b.) It deprives of their citizenship men who are French by birth. For the Cremieux decree was applied at a specific moment: in 1870-71. At that moment all native-born Jews who, within a short space of time, fulfilled the necessary formalities, became French citizens by virtue of the Cremieux decree, thus abandoning their rights under their personal status and submitting to French civil law. Since then, their children have been French, not through application of this law, but because they were born of French parents. The one hundred thousand men who were deprived by Vichy and who are now again deprived of French citizenship did not themselves benefit by the Cremieux decree: it is their fathers and grandfathers who so benefitted. They themselves are French because they are sons of Frenchmen.

“c.) In modern legislative practice, the withdrawal of citizenship rights is a very serious penalty meted out to nationals who have committed the crime of espionage or treason. As a result of the abrogation of the Cremieux law, a whole category of citizens find themselves thus penalized for the sole reason of being Jewish-a sanction which is without precedent except under racist law.

“III. The normal way to remedy the unequal treatment of which Algerian Arabs may be complaining, is progressively to lead to French citizenship those of them who will have proved their sincere desire to become a part of the French community. In the face of the dangerous excitations of German propaganda, it is not by depriving the Jews of their rights that the Moslem population should be protected against this propaganda, but by giving to the Arabs of Algeria the assurance that the day the French people is able to express its will, their legitimate claims will be firmly defended, provided they will have loyally cooperated towards victory over the enemy.

“IV. The exceptional circumstances created by the state of war and by the troubled situation in North Africa forbid the turning of any protest, even legitimate, into an occasion for agitation in Algeria. If the Jews of Algeria, therefore, abstain from such agitation, this does not mean that they recognize the invalidation of their rights. As for the Frenchmen who are the guests of the free nations, it behooves them to assert the principles of justice involved in a question which concerns part of the national territory, all the while endeavoring to promote the union of all in the struggle against the enemy and evincing every confidence in the United Nations.

“V. It should also be stated that if patriotic duty and concern about victory sometimes demand the temporary acceptance of factual situations in which certain rights are sacrificed, nevertheless, the abrogation of a law of the Republic without the consent of the French people is and remains by nature an act without juridical value. We believe that the French administration in Algeria would fulfill a duty and honor itself by revoking as soon as possible this unjust measure. Moreover, as soon as France has recovered her freedom, the provisional government of France will have the moral obligation to declare null and void the abrogation of the Cremieux law-assuming that this will not have been done in the meantime. And when the sovereignty of the French people is again able to assert itself, we have no doubt that the Jews of Algeria will have their rights corroborated, at the same time as a fair and equitable status will have to be found for the Moslem population.

“VI. Finally, if those who today declare themselves in favor of a measure contrary to law, in the name of expediency, give as their reason the unequal treatment of the Arabs-an argument whose validity we deny, because unequal treatment is not remedied by an even greater injustice-still we feel that such an argument deserves to be discussed and refuted.

“But if an attempt were made to justify the abrogation of the Cremieux law merely as a measure of appeasing the anti-Semitic feelings developed by German propaganda and by the servility of the Vichy regime towards Nazi Germany, such an argument would deserve only to be branded as unworthy of the cause for which the free peoples are fighting. A precedent of this kind would involve the greatest dangers for the future reconstruction of Europe and cannot be accepted by the human conscience. Anti-Semitism is the vehicle of all Nazi poisons, and in no event must any concessions be made to it.”