Three principal aspects of work having a substantive character were outstanding in the preparation during this period of seven weeks: joint proposals for the Statute of the International Court of Justice; proposals for international trusteeship; and recommendations for additions to, or modifications of, the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals in the light of the views and suggestions received from other governments and from the American public, or of further study by officials concerned with this broad field. Preparation on each of these aspects took place concurrently.

Integrally related to them were the further congressional consultations held in the Department during March, the assembling of the United States Delegation for the announced conference, and the pre'conference work with the Delegates beginning in March. These developments will be described first.

CONCLUDING CONGRESSIONAL CONSULTATIONS

THE CONSULTATIONS with the large Senate consulting group on the morning of March 15, 1945, with the "B2H2" group of Senators on the afternoon of that day, and with the group of leaders of the House of Representatives on the morning of the 16th, were held by Secretary Stettinius as soon after his return from the Crimea and Mexico City Conferences as arrangements could be made. The subjects common to the three consultations were "Plans for the World Security Conference at San Francisco," "The Yalta Conference," and, though more in a reporting sense than as a matter for discussion, "The Mexico City Conference." The Secretary mentioned in all three gatherings that arrangements were "now going forward for a preliminary meeting of United Nations lawyers to be held on April 9 in Washington” and that discussion of trusteeship was being undertaken among the State, War, and Navy Departments "looking toward an agreed United States position," which was essential before international consultations on this subject could take place among the sponsor powers.

The consultative meeting with the larger Senate group was attended by Senators Connally, Barkley, Gillette, and Thomas (Democrats) and Vandenberg, Austin, and White (Republicans), with Messrs. Stettinius, Acheson, Dunn, Pasvolsky, Rockefeller, Hackworth, Matthews, Bohlen, Raynor, and Charles P. Noyes present for the Department of State. Consideration was given, in connection with our views on the Charter, to the intention of providing through separate legisla

'Appointed Assistant to Secretary Stettinius ten days earlier. Senators George, Democrat, and La Follette, Progressive, of the group were absent from this meeting.

tive authorization after the international organization had been established military, naval, and air contingents for use by the projected Security Council of the organization; to the provision to be made in the Charter respecting regulation of armament; and to the Soviet Union's general attitude toward participation in the proposed international organization. Problems relating to the designation and powers of the United States "Delegate" to the United Nations after ratification of the Charter were also briefly mentioned, and the progress of the negotiations to establish a Polish Government representing all the major political parties in Poland was reviewed.

In the next consultative meeting, which was attended by Senators Ball, Burton, Hatch, and Hill and by the same members of the Department with one exception, the voting formula, trusteeship, and the position of France in regard to the coming conference were major topics. Those present at the third meeting were Representatives Rayburn, McCormack, Bloom, and Ramspeck (Democrats) and Martin, Eaton, and Arends (Republicans), again together with the same Department members. Discussion on this occasion largely concerned the court, the voting formula, and trusteeship.

While an allusion was made in the latter gathering to the possibility of a further meeting in the Department perhaps a month hence, these three meetings proved to be the last in the long series of organized congressional consultations, which had been inaugurated one year before and which, in effect, had succeeded the discussions with Members of Congress in the weekly meetings during 1942-43 of the Subcommittee on Political Problems under the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy. However, the participation on the United States Delegation to the San Francisco Conference of the two Senators and the two Representatives having direct responsibility for the majority and the minority leadership of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, respectively, had already been announced. The first of the preconference meetings of the Delegation had taken place, as will be seen below, just before these last congressional consultations were held. "Nonpartisan" congressional and party consultation in the preparation of United States policy proposals was thus transformed into participation on a “bipartisan" (as described by the President) basis in the decisive negotiation of those proposals.

• This meeting with Members of the Congress and the two others next described were before the release by the White House of information on the question of "three votes" already referred to above, p. 384, and no discussion of it appears in the records.

'Mr. Bohlen could not attend this meeting.

V

By the middle of March 1945, accordingly, the structure used by the Delegation to the San Francisco Conference had taken form sufficiently to supplant the prior arrangements for congressional consultation in this field and, not long after, those for party consultation as well. Ad hoc consultations continued to occur not infrequently in the preconference period between Senators and Representatives and ranking Departmental officials, but such talks were on an individual footing and were mainly, though not exclusively, held with the two Senators and the two Representatives named to the Delegation.

THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION

CONSIDERATION or the composition of the United States Delegation to the projected United Nations conference, particularly of the members to have the rank of delegate, was initiated by the preparatory staff promptly after the Dumbarton Oaks Conversations. The most active consideration of this problem, however, occurred in late December 1944 and early January 1945, and the suggested list of United States Delegates-though not of the entire Delegation-was arrived at prior to the Crimea Conference. The final recommendations submitted to the President were formulated at the highest official level of the Department, and while the officers engaged in the preparation contributed to these recommendations, they reflected primarily an over-all Departmental judgment.

After mid-January 1945, the work of the remaining preparatory structure was almost exclusively substantive in character, centering upon the completion of United States proposals in regard to the Charter. This development was clarified by the differentiation made near the outset of the preconference period, on March 16, 1945, between such remaining preparation on the one hand and the administrative problems and arrangements concerning the Delegation and the Conference itself on the other.

The division of the total conference burden was made on that date in order to concentrate in different superior officials the two main types of work that had devolved upon the Department on behalf of this Government as a participant in and as host to the Conference. The substantive work was continued under the responsibility of the ranking official, Mr. Pasvolsky, who under the Secretary of State had been charged throughout the preparation with such work. The administrative responsibility for the composition and working structure of the Delegation and for the Secretariat of the Conference and related arrangements was vested by the Secretary of State in Mr. Dunn, his ranking assistant in these respects throughout the preconference period.

The two lines of work were coordinated by the Secretary of State and his own office assistants, particularly G. Hayden Raynor and Robert Lynch. Various superior officials were consulted or called upon to assist and Mr. Pasvolsky and Mr. Dunn conferred at intervals on problems of common concern. Immediately below the rank of Assistant Secretary or its equivalent, however, the differentiation between the two lines was such that those concerned with the administrative arrangements did not take part in the remaining substantive preparation. This distinction was maintained in the daily activity preparatory to the Conference and was reflected in the meetings of the Delegation. Only the four earliest meetings, before the Delegation concentrated on substantive problems, were attended by officers having administrative responsibilities in connection with conference arrangements.

At the office level, the arrangements were in charge of Alger Hiss, who was appointed by the Secretary to be Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs, effective March 19, and who was designated by the Secretary to organize the arrangements, with John C. Ross, Director of the Office of Departmental Administration, as deputy for that purpose. These two senior officers later became, respectively, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Conference.

Most of the other officers assisting in the making of the Conference arrangements under the direction of Messrs. Hiss and Ross were drawn from the Staff Committee Secretariat, from the Department's various operating offices and divisions, and from the Foreign Service. These officers were later assigned to carry out the responsibilities of the Secretariat for the Conference as a whole. They, together with the two senior directing officers, were therefore called upon to perform their duties at the Conference on an international basis, and to begin to act

'In addition to the officers of the Conference named above, a large Secretariat was needed for the Conference itself. This was principally provided, as noted above, through assignment to these temporary Secretariat posts from the Department of State, including the Foreign Service, but also from other parts of the Government and from private life. Moreover, other participating Governments made available certain personnel, particularly in the language fields. Those serving on the Secretariat who had formerly had experience on the staff of the extraordinary preparation, or were assigned from the existing preparatory staff, were Messrs. Rothwell (the Executive Secretary), Berdahl, Brown, Chamberlin, Chase, Gideonse, Green, Halderman, Ireland, Kirk, Maktos, Masland, Myers, Padelford, Pfankuchen, Power, Stone, Vandenbosch, Wood, and Yale; Misses Armstrong, Ball, Fluegel, and Sullivan; and Mrs. Preuss. Several others, including Messrs. Dreier, Guthe, Kelchner, and Stewart, had been to some extent associated with the preparation in their operational capacities. For a complete list of officers of the Conference, see The United Nations Conference on International Organization: Selected Documents, 1946, Department of State publication 2490, Conference Series 83, pp. 25-35.

on this basis even in the preconference period. The work and development of the Conference Secretariat did not, however, constitute an integral part of the remaining extraordinary preparation under exposition here.

In contrast, the work on the procedures and administrative arrangements that were needed for the United States Delegation was undertaken by the same group of staff experts from the component divisions of the Office of Special Political Affairs who were taking part in the remaining substantive preparation, with Mr. Sandifer, Chief of the Division of International Organization Affairs, acting as liaison officer between this group and those at higher levels in charge of the administrative arrangements as a whole. This smaller number of officers were also to perform the secretariat duties for the United States Delegation, serving, of course, on a strictly national basis. Normally these officers also functioned as technical experts on the Delegation. This was in conformity with the practice established early in the preparation of having professional experts themselves undertake whatever secretariat duties were required. To a degree, therefore, the work of the United States Delegation Secretariat was a function of the remaining preparation, and at the technical level this Secretariat provided the necessary integration with the Conference Secretariat.

As noted earlier, the President, while at the Crimea Conference, had approved on February 11, 1945, the recommended list of eight delegates. These were Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Chairman; the Honorable Cordell Hull, Senior Adviser; Senator Tom Connally (Democrat); Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg (Republican); Representative Sol Bloom (Democrat); Representative Charles A. Eaton (Republican); Commander Harold E. Stassen (Republican), former Governor of Minnesota and at this time in the United States Naval Reserve on active service, who in his general capacity represented the public and particularly the veterans' interest, in the maintenance of future peace and security; and Miss Virginia C. Gilder✓sleeve, Dean of Barnard College, who represented no political party but rather the interests of American women in this field and, in general, the interest of the public at large. Mr. Hull, though in improved health, was not able to join the Delegation either in its preconference work or at San Francisco. Though the number of active Delegates was thus reduced to seven, Mr. Hull was kept in close touch with the work of the Delegation by telephone and telegraph. The other Delegates and a number of officials of the Department of State convened in their first meeting on March 13, 1945. This meeting in the Department instituted the series of formal Delegation meetings that henceforth provided the authorized body to arrive at the concluding recommen

9

'The list was published Feb. 13, 1945, Department of State Bulletin, XII, 217.