Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 1, 1946, 3:30 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 58

The Commission considered the report of the Legal and Drafting Commission (CP(JR) Doc 25) on the proposed Greek amendment to Article 68 (CP IT/P Doc 79) [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.J.15] which had been referred from the Economic Commission to the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy for consideration in connection with Article 14. The representative of Greece spoke in favor of his amendment while Colonel Hodgson (Australia) argued against the amendment, rather on procedural than substance grounds. The amendment (IT/P Doc 79) was defeated by 16 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions. At the request of the Greek representative the report of the Legal and Drafting Commission (JR Doc 25) will be attached to today’s Record of decisions.39

Following a Yugoslav objection to the afternoon agenda the Chair obtained the Commission’s approval by a vote of 10 to 6 with 4 abstentions of his proposal that the Commission discuss and dispose today of what language will go into the treaty, such as the U.S. proposal (CP IT/P Doc 16) and the Yugoslav proposal, recently circulated,40 and leave discussion of the report of the Subcommittee for a Trieste Statute until tomorrow.

The representative of Greece withdrew his Delegation’s amendment to Article 16 (CP Gen Doc 1.J.3) in the light of agreed Article 4 of the draft Statute for Trieste (CP (IT/P) (S/T) Doc 8 Annex) which he said covers the point.41

Senator Connally (U.S.) presented the American proposal (IT/P Doc 16) containing treaty language for Article 16. He pointed out that paragraph 28 of the U.S. proposal, defining the frontiers of the Free Territory, had already been withdrawn (see Journal No. 38, September 10)42 but that the remainder of the proposal which covers all principles enunciated in the CFM decision regarding the Free Territory of Trieste (Article 16 2–6) was designed to transfer these principles [Page 618] into appropriate treaty language.43 Mr. Jebb (U.K.) asked for a slight drafting modification to substitute the word “assured” for the word “guaranteed” in the second sentence of paragraph 1 of the U.S. proposal and to eliminate the last clause of that sentence. Colonel Hodgson, while expressing regret that the Australian proposal (CP Gen Doc 1.B.6) amending Article 16 had been rejected, said that he would vote for the American proposal to Article 16 in want of anything better. The latter proposal was likewise supported by Mr. Jebb and Baron de Gruben (Belgium) and opposed by the representatives of Yugoslavia, Poland, and the Soviet Union. The burden of M. Vyshinsky’s arguments was that the U.S. proposal did not reflect the decisions of the CFM as outlined in present Article 16 (2–6) but went beyond them and thus constituted a new proposal and a departure from CFM decisions. Senator Connally replied to these charges by taking up the American proposal paragraph by paragraph and demonstrating that there was nothing contrary in them to the CFM decisions on the Free Territory. Questions of procedure with respect to whether the Commission should continue discussing and voting on the American proposal for Article 16 or take up immediately the report of the Sub-commission for Trieste were continually raised during the above discussion by the representatives of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, France and Poland. The Chair finally ruled that discussion on the U.S. proposal was closed and that a vote on it would be deferred until tomorrow or until after discussion on the Trieste Subcommission report. The representative of Yugoslavia said that he would make his observations on the U.S. proposal at the time he introduced the Yugoslav proposal for new language for Article 16.

  1. The report by the Legal and Drafting Commission on the Greek amendment is printed as an annex, to that Commission’s report on the Italian Treaty, C.P. (Plen) Doc. 28, vol. iv, p. 419.↩
  2. For texts of C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 16 and C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 103, the Yugoslav proposal, see ibid. pp. 780 and 788, respectively.↩
  3. For text of C.P. (IT/P) (S/T) Doc. 8 Annex, see ibid., pp. 623, 632.↩
  4. See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 18th Meeting, September 10, p. 416.↩
  5. Text of Senator Connally’s statement was released to the press October 1, 1946.↩