The Agenda Group on the same day was informed of the Secretary's desire to give an outline of principal problems to the British and Soviets within a week if practicable. The object of so doing was to have views covering all main problems prepared in advance of discussion in the light of a general knowledge of the thought of the other participants on what these problems were. The paper on which the Group began work was headed "Outline of Topics for Study and Discussion"; it was completed February 11.

Exchange of outlines began February 16. On that day the British Embassy handed to the Department a "Summary of Topics" as a suggested agenda for discussion, on which detailed papers would be sent from London later, and stated that the same was being communicated that day to the Soviet Government. It was made clear in this conversation that, before discussion of papers, some time would be taken for their study. The United States "Topical Outline," revised by the Group merely to put the topics in the form of questions, was handed to the British and Soviet Embassies on February 19, 1944.5

Comparison of the Outline and the Summary had already shown much similarity in the basic conceptions involved. At this time neither the British nor the American Government, however, knew whether such a preliminary paper was being prepared by the Soviet Government, and no indication of Soviet views was available for several weeks.

The Group now intensified its work on the papers to be exchanged under the Outline and completed those concerned particularly with security problems on March 3. A British aide-mémoire commenting on the Topical Outline was handed to the Department during a conversation on March 15, but the Group continued to draft on the basis of the Outline without seeking to reach any adjustment between its wording and that of the British Summary, since the variations were not serious. In the conversation on March 15, the question of a time schedule for exchange of papers was again raised, but the Department was as yet in no position to reply more specifically than heretofore. On the same date, the Group's tentative proposals were distributed to the Post-War Programs Committee for review. This review did not end until April 7, owing to its interruption several times by other pressing matters. In the meantime, since the Group was responsible in the Department for perfecting the United States proposals in the first instance and for discerning in advance the foreseeable issues and difficulties likely to arise during international negotiations to establish a general international organization, it continued after March 15 to build and revise the proposals, taking into account the Committee's review as it was given. Moreover, no fundamental change of thought 'See appendix 34.

developed in the course of that review. Subsequently, problems coming up in the congressional and other consultations were immediately put under consideration as they arose. Thus, although a draft was ready by March 15, the proposals continued to be in process of refinement and completion by the Group through an unbroken chain of meetings for nearly four months longer.

Secretary Hull believed it timely in March to bring together for the public the basic principles underlying the Department's preparations, even though its specific proposals were still in the formative stage. A statement was therefore released to the press on March 21, 1944, entitled "Bases of the Foreign Policy of the United States," which summarized seventeen major aspects of this policy as the Secretary had set them forth over the past two years. This step was one intended to provide the setting for the major address to follow and was taken just as major-power exchanges were beginning and as consultations with Members of Congress were invited on the proposals for international organization to be advanced by the United States.

The Secretary's address of April 9 was written while these consultations were being arranged and was connected both with the consultations and with further international exchanges. The time had come when developments in the direction of a general international organization were beginning to thread together into a single pattern of action.

CONGRESSIONAL AND OTHER CONSULTATIONS

WHILE CONSULTATIONS with Congress and with members of the general public had occurred earlier under the Advisory Committee, as has been observed, talks of a more definite character were now needed. The earlier consultations in 1942 and 1943 had been in the form of exploratory discussions, had involved no commitments on definitive views, and, although generally known to be occurring, were secret as to object and participants. The whole range of postwar problems had then been considered with Members of Congress on the basis of interchange of views on the possible courses of policy to adopt, and the Department thereby had the benefit of preliminary congressional advice. At that time and in the months since then, in

'These seventeen aspects of policy related to "Our Fundamental National Interests, International Cooperation, International Organization Backed by Force, Political Differences, International Court of Justice, Reduction of Arms, Moscow Four-Nation Declaration, Spheres of Influence and Alliances, Surveillance Over Aggressor Nations, International Trade Barriers, International Finance, Atlantic Charter Reciprocal Obligations, Sovereign Equality of Nations, Forms of Government, Non-Intervention, Liberty, Dependent Peoples." Department of State Bulletin, X, 275–76.

formal conversations had also taken place between the Secretary and Members of Congress at the Secretary's apartment or office, and numerous conversations with private citizens had been held. These were along lines customary in the Government, but they were all on a nonpartisan basis and dealt with future as well as current policy. The object of the Secretary's consultations beginning in the spring of 1944 was to inform Members of Congress of the specific proposals in contemplation for the general organization and of the progress toward negotiation, to discuss the major questions that they or the Department foresaw, and to obtain their views and suggestions on these matters. The basic motive was to avoid a repetition of the divided attitude between the Executive and the Congress that had prevented participation by the United States in the League of Nations immediately after World War I and weakened the furtherance of our national interests thereafter. Consultation with the public was postponed, apart from a highly selective reference of proposals to a few private citizens, until after the possibility of unified major-power proposals had been clarified through informal negotiations. The explanation of basic objectives, the main concepts underlying the plans, and the procedure being followed were, however, set forth publicly even before the congressional consultations on the plans themselves actually commenced, and the broad policies to be advanced were outlined publicly before negotiations actually started on the substantive proposals. The fact that the international exchanges to March 15, 1944, had raised a clear, though not yet fully developed, prospect that the major powers would begin detailed negotiations in the relatively near future, and the further fact that the possible United States proposals on the broad lines approved by the President were being rapidly matured in the Department, suggested that the time had come to seek congressional advice of a more explicit character. The Secretary discussed the matter with the President and then, on March 22, 1944, visited the Foreign Relations Committee to survey with the Senators developments under way. At that time he invited the Chairman to name a nonpartisan group to consider with him informally at the Department the possible plan being drafted for a general international organization. The group of Senators named in response by the Committee was composed of four Democrats, three Republicans, and one Progressive. Four had been members of the Advisory Committee: Senators Connally of Texas and Walter F. George of Georgia, Democrats, and Senators Wallace H. White, Jr., of Maine, and Warren R. Austin of Vermont, Republicans. Those new to such discussions were Senators Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky and Guy M. Gillette of Iowa, Democrats, and Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg of Michigan, Republican, and Robert M. LaFollette, Jr., of Wisconsin, Progressive. All eight had been active in considering the "Connally Resolution" of

the preceding autumn. Since the selection of this Senatorial group took place gradually over several weeks, no meeting was held until it was completed.

On March 24, 1944, much of what Secretary Hull had said to the Senate Committee two days before was repeated to twenty-four Members of the House of Representatives with whom, at their request, he talked in his office. The Representatives in the group were all Republicans and were all serving their first term in the House: James C. Auchincloss of New Jersey; Frank A. Barrett of Wyoming; Ranulf Compton of Connecticut; Daniel Ellison of Maryland; Harris Ellsworth of Oregon; Angier L. Goodwin of Massachusetts; Robert Hale of Maine; Christian A. Herter of Massachusetts; Hal Holmes and Walt Horan of Washington; Harry P. Jeffrey of Ohio; J. Leroy Johnson of California; Walter H. Judd of Minnesota; Bernard W. Kearney of New York; Charles M. La Follette of Indiana; Clare Boothe Luce and John D. McWilliams of Connecticut; Chester E. Merrow of New Hampshire; Arthur L. Miller of Nebraska; Alvin E. O'Konski of Wisconsin; Norris Poulson of California; Winifred C. Stanley and Dean P. Taylor of New York; and Henry L. Towe of New Jersey. The Secretary, in sketching the foreign situation to these Representatives, stressed the importance of a nonpartisan approach to postwar problems and advised them of the work done during the past two years in which Members from both Houses of Congress had taken part. He said that he was about to resume discussions with Senators and Representatives of both parties upon the plan for international organization in its present form. He considered this to be desirable before such a plan was submitted for public discussion, lest it be debated controversially while still under development, and furthermore he wished to discuss the plan with our principal associates in the war before public discussion of it, since otherwise they might feel that there was a lack of cooperation on our part.

Promptly after these meetings, Secretary Hull with the assistance of a number of officers of the Department turned to the writing of his major address of April 9, 1944. In this address he pointed out that any course of action toward international organization would obviously have to be acceptable abroad and to the American people at large, the Congress, and the Executive. In reaching acceptable proposals, he believed, details should not be discussed first, since this would risk divergence of opinion on the lesser problems involved, some of which might prove immaterial. We were therefore, he said, following a procedure which, though slow and difficult, he believed preferable. In his view:

'Cf., p. 233 ff.

The only practicable course is to begin by obtaining agreement, first, upon broad principles, setting forth direction and general policy. We must then go on to explore alternative methods and finally settle upon a proposal which embodies the principal elements of agreement and leaves to future experience and discussion those matters of comparative detail which at present remain in the realm of speculation."

He then set forth the broad objectives of "an international organization to maintain peace and prevent aggression" and reported on the current status of our related preparation, saying:

66

Such an organization must be based upon firm and binding obligations that the member nations will not use force against each other and against any other nation except in accordance with the arrangements made. It must provide for the maintenance of adequate forces to preserve peace and it must provide the institutions and procedures for calling this force into action to preserve peace. But it must provide more than this. It must provide for an international court for the development and application of law to the settlement of international controversies which fall within the realm of law, for the development of machinery for adjusting controversies to which the field of law has not yet been extended, and for other institutions for the development of new rules to keep abreast of a changing world with new problems and new interests.

"We are at a stage where much of the work of formulating plans for the organization to maintain peace has been accomplished. It is right and necessary that we should have the advice and help of an increasing number of members of the Congress. Accordingly, I have requested the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to designate a representative, bipartisan group for this purpose. Following these and similar discussions with members of the House of Representatives, we shall be in a position to go forward again with other nations and, upon learning their views, be able to submit to the democratic processes of discussion a more concrete proposal."

Following this statement of intention to proceed first to consultation, next to the preliminary negotiation of a concrete plan, and then to public debate of this plan, the Secretary referred briefly to other problems that had also to be dealt with. He mentioned among these the treatment of enemy states, expansion of production and removal of trade barriers, maintenance and improvement of "the standard of living in our own and in all countries," provision of investment capital, stabilization of currency, development of communications and transport, and "the improvement of labor standards and standards of health and nutrition." He said he was unable in this address to "explain the work which has been done" in this connection, but he remarked that it had been "extensive" in these fields and that in "many of them proposals are far advanced toward the stage of discussion with members of the Congress prior to formulation for public discussion." The Department had been apprised by the British Embassy on