Source: https://doctiktak.com/hungarians-and-citizenship-in-croatia-slavonia-1868-1918.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:49:03+00:00

Document:
Kosnica, I., (2015) “Hungarians and Citizenship in Croatia-Slavonia 1868-1918”, Athens: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No: LAW2014-1355.
Introduction From 1868 to 1918, Croatia-Slavonia was an autonomous land in the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown).1 At first, the territory spread over an area of 23,264 square km, but following the unification with the Military Border in 1881 the territory increased to 42,532 square km and in 1869 it had population of 1,142 million people. Following the unification with the Military Border, this number increased to 1,892 million people.2 According to the census of 1880, 92.78% had local citizenship in Croatia-Slavonia. All others had local citizenship elsewhere. Most of them (4.3%) had local citizenship in Hungary.3 The constitutional position of Croatia-Slavonia in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy will be examined first. The analysis of the concept of citizenship will follow. This includes the national citizenship, the local citizenship and Croatian-Slavonian membership. A special focus will be put on the openness, possibilities and acquisition, of local citizenship. After analysing the position of poor Hungarian immigrants and Roma people, the paper will deal with the employment of Hungarians in common Croatian-Hungarian offices and on railways.
The Lands of the Hungarian Crown included the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, the city of Rijeka (Fiume), Transylvania, and the Military Border (Macartney (1971) 2, 7-10). The unity of the Lands was not full since Dalmatia belonged to the Austrian part of the Monarchy. 2 Vranješ-Šoljan (2009) 108, 135. 3 Other groups were Austrian citizens and persons from Bosnia and Herzegovina (2,59%), persons which belonged to one of municipalities out of the Monarchy (0,20%) and persons of unknown local citizenship (0,05%). The data according to: Vranješ-Šoljan (2009) 143. 4 Mason (1997) 4-8. 5 Čepulo (2006) 64.
naturalisation was an appointment in the public office in a municipality. A woman could gain local citizenship if she married a local citizen.1 The Croatian-Slavonian Diet enacted the law on local citizenship in 1870. This law regulated local citizenship only in rural towns and market towns without magistrate, while in cities and market towns with magistrates the law from 1859 remained in force. As in all other citizenship laws, the fundamental principle for the acquisition of citizenship was the principle of ius sanguinis. The law stated here, too, that a foreigner could acquire local citizenship by regular local naturalisation upon request, proof of a dismissal from previous municipality and a proof having adequate income or wealth and good standing. A foreigner was also able to acquire local citizenship by appointment to a service in a municipality and by possession of real estate in a municipality. A woman was able to acquire local citizenship by marrying a local citizen.2 The Croatian-Slavonian Diet unified the rules on local citizenship in 1880. The fundamental principle of the acquisition of local citizenship remained ius sanguinis. The law regulated two ways of regular local naturalisations: explicit and implicit. By explicit, naturalisation local citizenship could be gained if the person submitted a request to a municipal council, proved moral conduct and adequate income or wealth. By implicit, naturalisation citizenship was acquired if the person reported the municipality authorities of the intention of settlement, and should start paying taxes to the municipality. In this case he starts a four year of trial, during which the municipality was not allowed to object his application unless the applicant was unable to support himself financially or was under criminal prospection or found guilty by a court. Citizenship could also be acquired by appointment to the civil service at the municipality. Here, too, a woman gained local citizenship by marrying a local citizen.3 This system system of rules stayed unchanged until the end of the Monarchy. In all aforementioned laws the basic principle of acquisition of local citizenship was the principle of ius sanguinis. The right of local citizenship remained within the family from parents to children. That means that foreigners (including Hungarian local citizens) could get local citizenship only by local naturalisation. Regular naturalisations always needed a request and they always included the criteria of moral suitability and of adequate income or wealth. A specific type of naturalisation, the appointment to a public service in a municipality, was also given by the administrative act. The only way of acquisition of local citizenship that did not include the administrative act was marriage in a case of a foreign woman. As a result, we can say that CroatianSlavonian local citizenship was a quite closed concept.
More on the possibilities of acquisition of local citizenship see in Art. 36-42. [Cesarean patent of 24th April from the year 1859 on the introduction of the new municipal law]; the law with commentaries see in: Mutavdjić (1894) 218-233. 2 Comp. art. 8, 9, 14 [Law article XVI: 1870. of Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Diet on regulation of municipalities and market towns without magistrate]. 3 Comp. art. 3-6, 9-11 [Law from 30th April from the year 1880 on regulation of local citizenship in the kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia].
Some eminent Croatian constitutional lawyers even claimed that this membership should be regarded for national citizenship. They advocated the thesis on federal structure of the Lands of Hungarian Crown and on common Hungarian-Croatian citizenship and separate Hungarian and Croatian-Slavonian citizenships. Čepulo (2006) 74-75. 2 The autonomous Law on the organisation of counties stated that only Croatian-Slavonian Dalmatian citizens (in other words Croatian-Slavonian members) have the right to hold offices. Comp. art. 33. [Law article XVII: 1870 of Croatian-Slavonian-Dalmatian Diet on the organisation of counties]; for connection between the local citizenship and political rights in Croatia-Slavonia see also Čepulo (2006) 74. 3 All the others (including Hungarian local citizens) were classified as foreigners and they had to pay a higher fee. Smrekar (1902) 921-922. 4 HR-HDA-79, kutija [the box] 459, sv. 13-13 4827/1878.
Employment in Common Croatian-Hungarian Offices and on Railways The Croatian-Hungarian Compromise contained a norm (although instructive) on the recruitment of domestic population in common CroatianHungarian offices in Croatia-Slavonia.2 The Compromise also defined Croatian as the only official language in Croatia-Slavonia.3 In the first years after the Compromise, these rules complicated, although not quite stopped, the employment of Hungarians in common offices.4 However, from time to time, the Central Government intensified the employment of Hungarians and also promoted the usage of Hungarian language in the common offices. An important event in that direction happened in 1880 when the common Ministry of finance in Zagreb opened the course for financial clerks. During the course, the clerks should learn Hungarian language. The knowledge of Hungarian was defined as a condition for promotion in the service.5 From here on out, the other Ministries of the Central Government also forced the use of Hungarian language.6 Employment of Hungarians in the common offices was especially evident during the government of the Ban Dragutin Khuen Héderváry (1883-1903). Khuen Héderváry was loyal to the Central Government and to the idea of unity of Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary.7 Therefore Khuen’s autonomous Government didn’t even object to the employment of Hungarians in common offices in Croatia-Slavonia.8 The previous practices had important consequences. More Hungarians in the offices meant more frequent use of Hungarian language. Insisting on the knowledge of Hungarian also attracted more Hungarians. On the other hand, Croatians who generally didn’t know Hungarian couldn’t get a job in these offices so easily. More obvious example of privileged status of Hungarians in CroatiaSlavonia was the railways. According to the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise, railways were common Croatian-Hungarian affairs so the rules of the Internal Affairs, from 21st June 1874 No. 9625, published in Smrekar (1902) 324.; See also: HR-HDA-79, kutija [the box] 460, sv. 13-16 4838/878 1 See the order of the autonomous Government, Department for Internal Affairs, from 21 st June 1874; See also the order of the autonomous Government, Department for Internal Affairs, from 27th June 1893, No.12681, published in Smrekar (1902) 327-329. 2 Comp. art. 46. of the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise. The rule wasn’t imperative since it contained the clause on employment of domestic people if it was possible. The text of the Compromise can be seen in Smrekar (1888) 6-20. 3 Comp. art. 56. and art. 57. of the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise. 4 Šidak et al (1968) 85. 5 Artuković (2001) 23. 6 Many opposing representatives in Croatian-Slavonian Diet protested against such practice but they were unsuccessful. On one such protest see in: Stenografski zapisnici [Stenographic records] (1889) 387-389. 7 Šišić (2004) 453. 8 The Khuen’s Government interpreted the norm of the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise on the employment of domestic people as an instructive norm and it didn’t insist on the employment of domestic population in common offices. Stenografski zapisnici [Stenographic records] (1889) 339-340.
Final Remarks Hungarian local citizens were the most numerous group of settlers in Croatia-Slavonia, though as national citizens they were not fully integrated in the Croatian society. The concepts of local citizenship and Croatian-Slavonian membership impeded their integration. Since they did not have full citizenship rights (i.e. electoral rights, the right on employment in autonomous services and social rights) they were a special group of foreigners. The exclusion of Hungarians was evident on the example of poor immigrants and Roma people. Poor immigrants did not always acquire local citizenship easily. Because of their lower social status and higher probability that they will become users of social benefits, Croatian-Slavonian authorities often refused to give them local citizenship. The position of Hungarian Romas was even worse because Croatian-Slavonian authorities banned them entrance into Croatia-Slavonia. That exclusion didn’t take effect in the common offices and on railways. In these areas, the Central Government forced the usage of Hungarian language and employed Hungarians so we can say that in these areas Hungarians were even privileged over domestic population.
The data according to: Dobrovšak (2008) 502-513. Dobrovšak (2008) 500-514.
Report "Hungarians and Citizenship in Croatia - Slavonia 1868 - 1918"

References: Art. 36
 art. 8
 art. 3
 art. 33
 art. 46
 art. 56
 art. 57