CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 31
The Polish amendments to Article 23 (CP Gen Doc. 1 O 8) were first considered. M. Gusev (USSR) favored the amendments but believed that they came more appropriately under Article 24 since they were concerned with United Nations property. M. Alphand (France), Mr. Thorp (USA), and Mr. Glenvil Hall (UK) held similar opinions. M. Lychowski (Poland) thereupon withdrew his proposed amendments to Article 23 on the understanding that they would be considered with respect to Article 24 and that the words “qui sont situés” [Page 334] in the French text of that Article would be deleted so as to conform with the English and Soviet texts. The Chairman, after calling for comment on the Rumanian views of Article 23 as expressed in its memorandum (CP Gen Doc. 3),11 and after having heard M. Alphand term them unacceptable and suggest they not be discussed by the Committee, took note that they were not supported by the Committee. Paragraphs 2 through 8 were then agreed upon by the Committee, the United Kingdom approved paragraph 7 with the reservation that shipping should be considered under Article 24.
Mr. Walker (Australia) suggested consideration of paragraph 3 of his proposed amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 B 25) making it possible for Rumania to seek the return of identifiable literary, artistic, historical, or religious property located in United Nations territory or in ex-enemy territory occupied by the Allied Powers. M. Alphand opposed the Australian amendment on the grounds that the portion concerning United Nations territory was not appropriate for consideration by this Conference and the portion concerning property in Germany should be dealt with under Article 27. Mr. Costello (New Zealand), M. Hajdu (Czechoslovakia), and Mr. Argyropoulos (Greece) agreed with M. Alphand. M. Gusev took the same position at length. Mr. Thorp suggested postponement of discussion on the Australian proposal in as much as the part concerning Germany was treated under Article 27 and the part concerning the United Nations could more appropriately be discussed under Article 29 (Renunciation of Claims). Mr. Walker said that, in view of Mr. Thorp’s remarks, he was willing to discuss his proposals later in connection with Articles 27 and 29.
Before taking a final vote on Article 23 as a whole, the Chairman raised the procedural question as to what he should do with a letter he had just received from the Rumanian Delegation and which might contain comments upon Article 23. M. Lychowski expressed the hope that if the Rumanian letter contained any new elements with regard to the Polish amendment which would require reference again to Article 23, the pending vote on Article 23 would not preclude the reconsideration of that Article. M. Alphand suggested that a vote be taken on Article 23 with the Polish reservation just stated. The Chairman, having just read the letter, said that it was not concerned with Article 23 and therefore called for a vote with the understanding that the Polish reservation with respect to this letter might be considered in the discussion of Article 24. Article 23 was then adopted by the Committee unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
- For text, see vol. iv, p. 217.↩