Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

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

USDel (PC) (Journal) 60

The Commission considered the recommendation by the Hungarian Political Commission that a new article be included in the treaty providing for the annulment of the accords and the consequences of the accords which had followed from the Vienna Award of 1938. After a lengthy exchange of views, the Czech representative agreed that the draft submitted should be revised to provide for arbitration in accordance with Article 30 and that certain minor drafting changes should be made as suggested by the U.S. representative, and the Commission unanimously adopted the proposed article, as revised, as Article 22. [21 bis]76

The Commission unanimously adopted Article 22, Restitution, with the two changes adopted in the case of Bulgaria: (1) insertion in paragraph 1, after the word “return”, of the words “in the shortest possible time”; and (2) the addition of a subparagraph to paragraph 2 regarding replacement of works of art, etc.77

The Commission voted on Article 23 (United Nations’ Property in Hungary). Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 were unanimously adopted. The voting on paragraph 4 (Compensation) was identical with the voting in the case of Bulgaria, except that the U.S. Delegation voted against 75 percent Compensation (in the case of Bulgaria it had abstained). The Commission adopted 75 percent compensation by 9 votes to 5. The Commission adopted paragraph 4, subparagraphs a, b, c, and d, of the U.S. proposal and subparagraph (e) as proposed by the French Delegation. The Commission unanimously adopted a new paragraph 4 bis, analogous to paragraph 4 bis of the Rumanian treaty, by which responsibility for compensation for damage to UN property in Transylvania during the period of Hungarian control was placed on Hungary. Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 were unanimously adopted.78

M. Valery (France) introduced a new proposal replacing the French proposal regarding the Danube-Sava-Adriatica Railway (paragraph 9 of Article 23), requiring the negotiation of a new agreement between the company, the governments concerned and the shareholders to replace the Rome Agreement of 1924 and for an equitable settlement [Page 640] of the amounts owing to the bondholders. He reviewed the history and provisions of the Rome Agreement of 1924 regarding the railway and explained the interest of small French shareholders in the company. He noted that the matter had been dealt with in the Treaties of St. Germain and Trianon. He said that it was important that a new agreement be negotiated to replace the Rome Agreement. M. Bartos (Yugoslavia) opposed the proposal as inappropriate for the treaty, though he said that the rejection of the proposal should be without prejudice to the interests of the legitimate shareholders. M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) spoke against the proposal on the grounds that the problem did not fall within the scope of the provisions on reparation, restitution, or compensation, that it was essentially a private problem concerning only the company and its shareholders, and that the treaty could not require other countries, some of which were United Nations, to enter into such negotiations nor impose on Hungary the responsibility for the conclusion of agreements which involved other countries. Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) acknowledged the force of the objections raised by the Soviet representative and suggested that a solution might be found by a wording by which Hungary would be required to undertake to enter into negotiations with those concerned with a view to applying the Rome Agreement and to making an equitable settlement of the amount owing to the Company’s bondholders. M. Valery accepted this suggested revision. After a further exchange of views (during which M. Gerashchenko spoke twice at some length), the Commission agreed to defer a vote until morning when a clear text in three languages would be available.

The Ukrainian representative suggested, and the Commission agreed, to invite the Bulgarian Delegation to appear at the next meeting to present its views on reparation. The Chairman stated that he would make the invitation on two conditions: (1) the speech should not be longer than 15 minutes and (2) should be available in translation so that oral translation would be unnecessary.

  1. For text, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 34, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary, vol. iv, p. 535.↩
  2. Regarding the action of the Commission on article 22, see ibid., p. 538.↩
  3. Regarding the action of the Commission on article 23, see ibid.↩