with Finland, the United States had no legal right to benefit therefrom unless it performed some affirmative act indicating acceptance of the benefit.

Two of the most recent discussions of the subject indicate that in the opinion of the writers such an acceptance is necessary before the nonparticipating state can claim any benefit from the treaty provision. Professor Hyde asserts that the nonsignatory state may be "enabled to accept the benefit by recourse to some simple procedure without becoming a party to the agreement" (2 International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, sec. 529-A (1945)). Professor Jessup has suggested that a more formal type of acceptance, such as adhesion or accession to the treaty in question, may be necessary (41 American Journal International Law 378, 386 (1947)).

The question has been explicitly considered by the Permanent Court of International Justice in its final judgment in the Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Pub. of P C I. J., Series A/B, No. 46, June 7, 1932). The dispute before the Court was a complicated one involving the rights of Switzerland to the maintenance of a free zone in adjacent France. The zone had originally been created by treaties entered into in 1815 for the benefit of Switzerland. Switzerland had taken no part in the treaties by which the zones had been established or in subsequent treaties which modified or confirmed the arrangement. The Treaty of Versailles. in which Switzerland had no part. provided that the status of the free zones might be changed by agreement between Switzerland and France. Switzerland. claiming the benefit of the earlier treaty, protested France's abolition of the zones undertaken after failure of the two countries to agree. The precise question as to the right created in Switzerland by the provision for her benefit in the treaties to which she had not been a party was ultimately not required to be decided because the Court found Switzerland to have had contractual rights to the maintenance of the free zone in various instruments collateral to the treaties in question. The Court nevertheless stated the law on this point to be as follows (at p. 147):

"The question of the existence of a right acquired under an instrument drawn between other states is therefore one to be decided in each particular case: It must be ascertained whether the states which have stipulated in favor of a third state meant to create for that state an actual right which the latter has accepted as such. [Italics added.]

The position of the United States on this question is explicitly stated in the Havana Convention on Treaties, signed on February 20, 1928, by the United States together with other members of the Pan American Union. Article 9 of this convention reads as follows:

"The acceptance or the nonacceptance of provisions in a treaty, for the benefit of a third state which was not a contracting party, depends exclusively upon the latter's decision" (1928 Supplement, American Journal International Law, p. 139. Cited in V Hackworth, Digest of International Law, p. 222 (1943)).

These authorities reaffirm the principle, as adhered to by the United States, that some positive act of acceptance is necessary before a state, not a party to a treaty, can assert that it benefits thereunder. At least one example of American practice in the past indicates that this principle has been recognized and applied. Although the United States signed the Treaty of Versailles, the Senate of the United States refused to ratify it, and the United States was therefore not a party to it. Yet the treaty contained many stipulations by Germany to the advantage of the Allied Powers who signed it, among them the United States.

Under the terms of paragraphs 5-7 of annex I, article 244 of the Treaty of Versailles (Am Ed. 1943), Germany undertook to pay to all the Allied Powers amounts necessary to reimburse the costs of previous and other payments in connection with disabled soldiers and prisoners of war. Despite the Senate failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the Congress specifically assumed all of the treaty benefits conferred upon the United States, as one of the Allied Powers. This was stated both n the joint resolution of July 2, 1921, and in that of October 18, 1921, the latter ratifying the separate treaty of the United States with Germany (Treaty of Berlin, proclaimed November 14, 1921) In a note (August 10, 1922) to the German Chancellor, the American Ambassador stated. in relevant part (III Malloy, Treaties, etc. 2596-2604 (1923))

"In accordance with the instructions I have received from my Government, I am authorized by the President to state that he has no intention of pressing against Germany, or of presenting to the commission established under the claims agreement any claims not covered by the treaty of August 25, 1921, or any claims falling within paragraphs 5 to 7. inclusive, of the annex following article 244 of the Treaty of Versailles."

In view of the considerations here added to the Maritime Commission's submission to your Office, under date of February 10, 1948, the Department respectfully urges that you reconsider so much of your ruling of March 22, 1948 (B-73577), as would preclude statutory compensation to the Finnish shipowners on the ground that article 29 of the treaty of peace with Finland created a "vested right" which remains a valid and subsisting bar to compensation.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures:

DEAN ACHESON.

1. Copy, aide-mémoire from Finnish Minister of Trade and Industry, dated April 14, 1948.

2. Copy, aide-mémoire from the Minister of Finland, dated January 31, 1949.

3. Memorandum, United States Position at Paris Peace Conference With Respect to the Treaty of Peace with Finland, 1947.

AIDE-MÉMOIRE FROM THE MINISTER OF FINLAND

It will be recalled that the War Shipping Administration and the Maritime Commission failed to offer for the Finnish vessels requisitioned by the United States 8 years ago compensation equal to that paid under settlements with American and other foreign shipowners. The Finnish shipowners were therefore obliged a year ago to protect their claims against the running of the statute of limitations by filing suit in the Court of Claims. The Minister of Finland is advised that under the applicable statutes the administering agencies were required to make immediate payment of 75 percent of such offers as had been made by them. Though more than a year has passed since the payments on account became due. no such payment has been made.

Every effort has been made by the shipowners to reach a satisfactory settlement of the entire claims with the Department of Justice. These negotiations have been postponed by that Department on the ground that it needs guidance expected to be given by a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case involving a tug called the MacArthur. This legation is advised that though this case is to be argued next week, there may be a considerable delay before a decision is handed down. There exists the further possibility that decision in that case may turn upon its particular facts and thus fail to serve to expedite settlement by the Department of Justice of the claims of the Finnish shipowners.

These delays in making payment of the "full value" for the Finnish vessels promised by Assistant Secretary of State Long when he testified in favor of the statute that authorized their taking has caused and is causing great hardship, not only to the shipowners, but to the economy of Finland. Without these funds the necessary replacement of these ships that were taken is extremely difficult and for some owners it is impossible.

In the case of those owners who were fortunate enough to have their ships returned to them at the end of the war, very considerable expense in dollars had to be sustained to make them seaworthy. These repairs in certain instances had to be financed The owners are put to great embarrassment by reason of the delays in settlement or of even paving 75 percent on account that the statute Inakes mandatory

It would be deeply appreciated it the Department of State would do all it can to expedite a prompt settlement of the claims of the Finnish shipowners on a basis that is not discriminatory against them and in the meantime to assure an immediate payment on account of the 75 percent that is called for under the applicable statutes.

Washington, D. C., January 31, 1949.

AIDE-MÉMOIRE

After England had declared war upon Finland on the 6th day of December 1941, the American authorities requisitioned 17 Finnish ships, at that time in United States of America ports, and these ships were taken into use of the United States Government. Of these ships 10 were sunk during the war and the residue, 7 ships, were recently returned to their Finnish owners. The requisition was based on the act of the United States Congress of June 6, 1941, the Idle Ship Requisition Act, in which there is also stipulated that the owners of the vessels should get a just compensation for their ships in accordance with the Merchant Marine Act of the year of 1936.

The question of compensation has thereafter been subject of lengthy negotiations. The principal reason why the question of compensation remained unsolved was the attitude of the United States Maritime Commission, according to which, from the amount agreed to be a just compensation, 50 percent should be deducted because of so-called burden.

The opinion of the Maritime Commission is that burden should be applied upon cases concerning the compensation for ships belonging to a country at that time at war with England.

As no agreement could be reached, the owners in December 1947 had to bring a suit against the Government of the United States of America. During the negotiations the question of the appliance of the article 29 in the treaty of peace with Finland has been raised. According to this article Finland waives all claims against the Allied and Associated Powers arising directly out of the war or out of the action taken because of the existence of a state of war

In its note of December 19, 1947, the State Department has informed that the Government of the United States of America is not disposed to invoke in this instance the provisions of the said article.

However, the Comptroller General of the United States of America has informed the Finnish Legation in Washington in the beginning of this month that he is not willing to accept the advance payment to the owners as he is of the opinion that the sanction of the Congress is necessary to the waiver of rights based upon a peace treaty

This information has caused disappointment in Finland, as the matter was considered to be settled regarding this question after the State Department had informed the Finnish Legation of its opinion.

It may be mentioned in this connection that the British Government has on 23d of March 1948 informed the Finnish Government that it has decided to abandon the prize proceedings instituted against Finnish ships.

Thus the British authorities do not apply this article to Finnish ships seized during the war

Helsinki, April 14, 1948.

UNITED STATES POSITION AT THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH FINLAND, 1947

No branch of the American Government has shown a disposition to accept any supposed benefit the United States may derive from the Finnish Peace Treaty. The attitude of the United States, indeed, has been one of concern that the treaty is too harsh. Senator Vandenberg, in speaking for the United States delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, on October 14, 1946, pleaded for justice and fair dealing with Finland. He particularly addressed himself to the enormous reparations the peace treaty exacted from Finland, saying.

"The United States was not at war with Finland, although our diplomatic relations were severed The United States did not participate as a drafting power in the preparation of this peace treaty with Finland With respect to this treaty. therefore, we share only a minimum responsibility, only a minimum right to consultation on the same minimum level with most of the other Allied countries sitting here today I want to make this overriding fact entirely plain We seek no authority which does not belong to us but we maintain a general right to speak upon this subject because of our participation with substantial military force in the war against the Axis throughout Europe We will not be called upon to sign this treaty We can only register here and now our great concern, lest it shall transgress the equity and justice which were the dedicated aims of our united arms" Senator Vandenberg concluded his remarks by saying.

"But we shall continue, Mr. President, to speak for the American conception of justice and fair play in a better world toward which we hope and pray for a rebirth of the sympathetic unity which made our victory possible" (Department of State Bulletin, October 27, 1946, pp. 744-746)

The following colloquy took place between Senator Vandenberg and Secretary of State Byrnes, in the hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee of the Eightieth Congress concerning the peace treaties in general:

"The CHAIRMAN. I just want to ask vou one or two things. Mr. Secretary, and we will adjourn.

"Will you state for the record why the treaty with Finland is not here for action by the Senate of the United States?

"Mr. BYRNES. Because we were not at war with Finland.

"The CHAIRMAN. And we are, therefore, not parties to the treaty? "Mr. BYRNES We are not parties to the treaty.

"The CHAIRMAN. But, as a member of the Peace Conference, we had a right to voice our objections, and did we not voice vigorous objections to the reparations which Finland has to pay?

"Mr. BYRNES. I do not think the objections could have been voiced more vigorously, because they were voiced by the chairman of this committee. I thought it was a wonderful statement.

"The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was fishing for.

"I have had many, many letters inquiring about the treaty with Finland, and urging that we do something about it, and I wanted the record to be clear that we did the best we could while it was in our jurisdiction. It no longer is" (committee print, p. 26).

COMPENSATION TO FORT BERTHOLD INDIANS, NORTH DAKOTA, FOR LANDS TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE GARRISON DAM PROJECT

OCTOBER 19, 1949.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. MORRIS, from the committee of conference, submitted the following

CONFERENCE REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 33]

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 33) providing for the ratification by Congress of a contract for the purchase of certain Indian lands by the United States from the Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, and for other related purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 2 and to the amendment of the Senate to the title of the joint resolution. and agree to the same.

Amendment numbered 1:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 1, and agree to the same with an amendment as follows:

In lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: That, if within six months from the date of its enactment the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation accept the provisions of this Act by an affirmative vote of a majority of the adult members, the sums herein provided for shall be made available as herein specified; and all right, title and interest of said tribes, allottees and heirs of allottees in and to the lands constituting the Taking Area described in section 15 (including all elements of value above or below the surface) shall vest in the United States of America.

SEC. 2. The fund of $5,105,625 appropriated by the War Department Civil Appropriation Act. 1948 (Public Law 296, Eightieth Congress), shall not lapse into the Treasury as provided therein, but shall be available