the morning of May 2, concerned whether the court was to be viewed as a new body or as the "old" revised,53 whether to favor compulsory or optional jurisdiction by the court, the method of nominating judges, and the functional relationships of the court to other organs of the organization, including, for example, the rendering of advisory opinions on request of the General Assembly, and the reference of cases to the court. The second type of questions related to the suggestions received by May 2 from the advisers on economic and social aspects of the Charter and from the consultants to the Delegation. The latters' suggestions concerned additional provisions for cultural cooperation, education, and human rights and fundamental freedoms, and a new provision for a commission on human rights. These were considered in a late afternoon meeting on the same day, 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p. m. The results of this long process of final review were incorporated in a paper, "Changes in Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as suggested by the United States Delegation", dated May 2, 1945.54 This was the paper exchanged on the same date with the delegations of the other sponsor powers, which also on this date circulated their papers under the title of "amendments."

In its meetings on May 2, especially in the late afternoon meeting, the Delegation's work began to be interrelated with the sponsors' consultations. This development came about as a consequence of informal discussions among principal advisers of the four delegations, which had commenced Sunday morning, April 29, in Mr. Pasvolsky's office and were being held daily. Attention could thus be given by the Delegation to the specific proposals that, it was informed, were about to be considered by the Foreign Ministers. While the text of the Chinese "amendments" had not yet been received by the Delegation, the discussion on May 2 of the texts of the British and Soviet "amendments" demonstrated that certain United States changes could be withdrawn as involving only verbal differences.

At 9 p. m. on May 2, in the penthouse of the Fairmont Hotel, the first meeting of the Foreign Ministers to consider the specific "changes" and "amendments" began. Secretary Stettinius was accompanied by Senators Connally and Vandenberg, Commander Stassen, Ambassador Harriman who assisted the Secretary in a negotiating capacity at intervals during the Conference, Assistant Secretary MacLeish, and Messrs. Pasvolsky, Dunn, Bowman, Armstrong, Dulles, Raynor, and Sandifer (secretary). Mr. Eden was accompanied by Sir Alexander Cadogan, Sir William Malkin, H. M. G. Jebb, C. K. Webster, and an interpreter. With Mr. Molotov were Ambassador A. A. Gromyko, and

"The Delegation left this to negotiation; the Conference decision, with United States concurrence, was for a new court.

54 Appendix 61.

K. V. Novikov, S. K. Zarapkin, A. A. Sobolev, S. A. Golunsky and S. B. Krylov, and an interpreter and two further aides.55 Dr. Soong was accompanied by Ambassador V. K. Wellington Koo, Victor Chitsai Hoo, Ambassador Hsu Mo, and Liang Yuen-li. Mr. Stettinius served as Chairman. The Chinese paper, now available, was considered first; then the order of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals was followed by paragraphs, the four governments' suggestions being taken up as the applicable paragraph of the Proposals was reached. While decisions were not pressed for in this meeting, progress on decisions was made through most of the first six chapters of the Proposals.

The seven United States Delegates attended the second consultative meeting on the morning of May 3, Secretary Stettinius being accompanied by the same advisers except for Mr. Dulles, by Mr. Bohlen, and again by Mr. Sandifer as secretary.5 The other Foreign Ministers were accompanied as before, except for the addition of Clement R. Attlee to the British group; V. V. Kuznetsov and G. P. Arkadiev to the Soviet; and Wang Chung-hui to the Chinese. Discussion began with chapter VI, section D, of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and covered the remaining chapters by the device of leaving unresolved certain questions for further consideration, by agreeing to forego further consultation on a British proposal concerning the International Labor Organization, and by assigning questions in three instances to subcommittees.

The first of the three subcommittees was "on domestic jurisdiction" and was made up of Mr. Dulles and Mr. Hackworth, Sir William Malkin, Professor Golunsky, and Dr. Wang. Its report was considered in the third consultative meeting, on the same day, May 3, at 9:40 p. m., but was not agreed upon.

The second was "on treaties." In this instance, the persons appointed were joined by additional members of delegations, the subcommittee thus being comprised of Secretary Stettinius and Mr. Pasvolsky (chairman), with Mr. Dunn and Mr. Hartley (secretary) also attending; Mr. Eden (not attending its meeting on this date), Sir Alexander Cadogan, and Mr. Jebb, with Sir William Malkin and Professor Webster, and an assistant; Foreign Minister Molotov and Ambassador Gromyko with Mr. Sobolev, Professor Golunsky, and two assistants; and Ambassador Koo and Dr. Wang, with Dr. Hoo and Dr. Liang. The question at issue before this body, which was presented by a United States proposal and by a British redraft of it, was whether the General Assembly should be enabled to consider international "situations arising out of any treaties or international engagements." On

66 Not identified in the records.

"Additional technical experts, including Messrs. Gerig, Johnson, and Hartley, attended subsequent consultative meetings of the Foreign Ministers.

this problem Soviet views continued to differ from those of the other participants.

The third subcommittee was "on Commissions under the Economic and Social Council" and consisted of Mr. Bowman, Mr. Attlee, Mr. Kuznetov, and Dr. Hu Shih. Its report was made to the evening consultative meeting on May 3 and agreed upon.

Midnight of the next day, Friday, May 4, had been set by a decision of the Conference a week earlier, as the deadline for the receipt by the Conference of any new substantive proposals. At the start of this day, the items pending before the consultative meetings included such questions as domestic jurisdiction, situations arising out of treaties or international engagements, regional arrangements, Security Council recommendations of terms of settlement for international disputes, and the related problem of whether enforcement measures could or could not be applied in connection with such terms.

Aside from the first item, on which no new points were at issue, these questions were intensively reconsidered by the United States Delegation at its 9 o'clock morning meeting on this day of many meetings. A further and fuller examination was also made by the Delegation at this time of the right, still viewed as implicit in the Proposals, of self-defense by a nation if attacked. The specific problem was whether this right included action on a regional or other special basis. Certain aspects of the latter question with specific reference to the enemy states had been raised not only by the Soviet suggestion but particularly by a French proposal now before the Conference. Further, the Act of Chapultepec, and the inter-American treaty contemplated thereunder, no less directly raised query whether the right of self-defense should not in some way be explicitly recognized in the Charter.

The "subcommittee on treaties" met briefly in mid-morning, May 4. Mr. Eden joined the British members in this meeting, and Assistant Secretary of War McCloy and Messrs. Bowman and Dulles joined the American members. The meeting put under study a United States draft specifying the General Assembly's power to make recommendations for peaceful adjustment of situations "regardless of origin," the quoted phrase replacing the much contested words "arising out of any treaties or international engagements." In a later meeting of this subcommittee at 5: 15 p. m., which a French Delegate, Henri Bonnet, and his advisers had been invited to attend, agreement in principle-but not final agreement was reached on this new draft provision. Consideration had also been given at the subcommittee's morning meeting to what changes, if any, should be made in the Proposals in connection with enforcement action under regional or other special arrangements.

Discussion of this question continued in the afternoon meeting, but was inconclusive.

The fourth meeting of the Foreign Ministers, at noon that day, accepted the report of the "subcommittee on domestic jurisdiction,” which combined United States and Soviet suggestions, and agreed on provisions defining the Security Council's powers with respect to terms of settlement. The fifth meeting of the Foreign Ministers, 6:30-8:35 p. m., considered a new United States formula on the question of enforcement action under regional or other special arrangements, which had been approved by the United States Delegation in a halfhour discussion at 7: 10 p. m., during which the Foreign Ministers' meeting recessed. While some advance was made at this meeting, it fell short of final agreement on either the "regardless of origin" paragraph or the new regional formula.

The last consultative meeting of the four Foreign Ministers was held at 10: 15 that evening to consider these two unresolved questions. It, however, closed at 11: 15 p. m. with agreement only that each delegation would have to submit separately to the Conference such of its suggested changes in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals as had failed to obtain joint sponsorship during the consultations. This agreement was reached with the hope, as expressed by the Chairman, that consultations on the unresolved questions could continue at a later stage of the Conference.

One further major question, international trusteeship, was brought up in the Foreign Ministers' consultations. This was raised merely to obtain approval, which was given, for the submission of individual national, instead of joint, proposals on this problem, in view of the May 4 deadline for receipt of new proposals. As the United States Delegation noted, waiver of that deadline in this special case pending agreement on joint proposals involving lengthy negotiations, would be undesirable since it would leave the Conference committee in this field without proposals from the major powers to consider along with the proposals already received from other delegations.

The consultations on trusteeship were held at the Fairmont Hotel, but they were separate from those of the Foreign Ministers and differed in two general respects: those on trusteeship were held at the Delegate, not Foreign Minister, level, and were among the four sponsor powers and France. The "Preliminary Consultations on Trusteeship by Representatives of the Five Powers" commenced on the evening of April 30 and this group met for the second time on the evening of May 3. The representatives in these two meetings were Commander Stassen for the United States, whom the others designated Chairman; the Viscount Cranborne for the United Kingdom; Mr. Sobolev for the Soviet Union; Dr. Koo for China; and Paul

Emile Naggiar for France in the first and René Pleven in the second. For the United States, the advisers at these meetings were Assistant Secretaries McCloy and Gates of the War and Navy Departments, respectively, and Under Secretary of the Interior Fortas, with the addition of Mr. Taussig at the second." Messrs. Gerig and Bunche were the assisting experts, the latter serving as secretary of the consultations.

The United States proposals as completed April 26 were presented at the first meeting, but the other participants desired to study these proposals before submitting their own. The British paper, which did not distinguish between strategic and nonstrategic areas, was distributed at the second meeting, May 3, but only exploratory discussion of it was undertaken. No other proposals were forthcoming at this point. With another meeting not feasible before May 5 and with the position of three of the participants yet to be fully stated, it became clear that the consultations so long contemplated on trusteeship could now only provide a partial exchange of views before substantive discussion of this subject began in the Conference committee. Agreement on a common draft would obviously require much time. Accordingly, individual papers were submitted to the Conference on May 4 by the United States, by the United Kingdom, and also by France.

At the end of the "Big Four" consultations shortly before midnight May 4, 1945, and as the sponsors' "joint proposals" for amendments to the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals together with the individual amendments of each sponsor were being printed for immediate circulation to all delegations, Secretary Stettinius sent to the President, Mr. Hull, and Acting Secretary Grew his "daily message." It was through these messages that, aside from frequent telephone conversations to obtain counsel or the President's approval, he regularly reported on developments in the Conference.

After explaining in this telegram of May 4 the status of agreement so far reached on the amendments, Secretary Stettinius gave as his estimate that it would be possible in due course to reach agreement on the two questions that had remained unresolved in the consultations. He reported that the four Foreign Ministers had agreed that France would take part beginning the following week in any conversations among the sponsors regarding the conduct and organization of the Conference. The Secretary then concluded with the following statement on the work of the Conference:

57 Admirals Willson and Train, Generals Embick and Fairchild, and Mr. Kane were usually present after the third meeting. Representative Bloom and Mr. Bowman also attended upon occasion.