Record of Historical Advisory Committee Meeting, November 1973

A scan of the original document is available for download (PDF, 527 KB, 17pp.)

Source: Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Historian, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation Files, 1957-1990 (Lot File 96 D 292), Box 2, 1973—Minutes. Confidential. The list of major lot files, Ralph Goodwin’s report on USUN records, and the publication and compilation schedules are not posted.

Record of the 1973 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States

  • The Advisory Committee:
    • Robert A. Divine, Professor of History, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 (American Historical Association)
    • Alwyn V. Freeman, Member, Board of Editors, The American Journal of International Law, Washington, D.C. 20008 (American Society of International Law)
    • Walter LaFeber, Professor of History, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850 (American Historical Association)
    • Covey T. Oliver, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, [Temporarily at University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004] (American Society of International Law)
    • Armin H. Rappaport, Professor of History, University of California, La Jolla, California 92037 (American Historical Association)
    • Richard C. Snyder, Director, Mershon Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 (American Political Science Association)
    • H. Bradford Westerfield [Not present], Professor of Political Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520 (American Political Science Association)
  • The Historical Office:
    • William M. Franklin, Director
    • Richardson Dougall
    • Fredrick Aandahl
    • Edwin S. Costrell
    • Arthur G. Kogan
    • John P. Glennon
    • Ralph R. Goodwin
    • William Slany
    • John A. Bernbaum
    • Joan Lee Bryniarski
    • M. Paul Claussen
    • Herbert A. Fine
    • Evans Gerakas
    • N. Stephen Kane [not present]
    • David W. Mabon
    • Margaret G. Martin
    • Neal H. Petersen
    • Carl N. Raether
    • Lisle A. Rose
    • Charles S. Sampson
    • Harriet Schwar
    • David H. Stauffer
  • Publishing and Reproduction Division (PBR):
    • John J. Lee

Opening Session - 9:00 a.m. - 12:19 p.m.


Mr. Franklin opened the meeting by introducing the new members of the Committee: Messrs. Divine, Oliver, and Snyder. He then observed that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463, approved October 6, 1972) was now in effect.

Mr. Dougall reported that under the Act, the Historical Office had drawn up a charter for the Committee and given public notice of its meeting. However, the actual proceedings remained closed to the public because classified materials were to be discussed. The Act also set forth certain statutory duties of the Chairman, among them that he was to certify to the accuracy of the Minutes. The Committee must file an Annual Report with the Department, which in turn would file it with the Library of Congress.


Mr. Rappaport nominated Mr. Freeman; Mr. Snyder seconded the nomination. The motion was carried unanimously.


Mr. Aandahl first recalled that four new staff members had been introduced to the Committee last year: Messrs. Bernbaum, Claussen, Kane, and Rose. He then introduced the members new this year. Joan Lee Bryniarski had her doctorate from the University of Maryland. Carl N. Raether was a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin. Harriet Schwar had recently received her Ph.D. from the Ohio State University. All three had concentrated in American diplomacy.

Mr. Franklin introduced Mr. Lee.

With reference to the new personnel, Mr. Freeman noted the very great contributions of former Deputy Under Secretary William B. Macomber, Jr., to Foreign Relations. Mr, Franklin pointed out that the three additional positions that Mr. Macomber had obtained for the Foreign Relations staff represented the first additions in many years.


Mr. Franklin noted that the Department had published a record 11 volumes of Foreign Relations last year. The Department’s files for 1947 had been opened last summer, about one year after those for 1946 had been opened. Hopefully this record could be maintained, but as would be explained later, the 1948 volumes were in clearance difficulties, and files were not opened for a particular year until the final volume for that year had been published. Mr. Franklin pointed out that because publication necessitated clearance, the staff of Foreign Relations functioned as a “declassification team” for State Department records.

At Mr. Franklin’s request Mr. Slany then commented on problems caused by the lot filing system. Mr. Slany said that lot files were hard to locate, difficult to retain, and needed to be publicized. Finding the lots was a major job, even with a staff of 18 historians. The Historical Office tried to retain lot files, while records managers put a premium on saving storage space. Records managers had destroyed some lots entirely and screened from others materials assumed to be duplicates: for instance, copies of telegrams. The Historical Office had worked with records managers in selecting materials worthy of permanent retention. [At this time copies of a list of major lot files intended for permanent retention were passed to members of the Committee. Copy appended] The Foreign Relations staff also made a practice of identifying these lot files in introductory notes or in the course of compilations. Mr. Slany emphasized that the work done in finding, retaining and publicizing the lots was one of the staff’s major contributions.

Mr. Freeman inquired about the standards used for selection of documents for inclusion in the series.

Mr. Aandahl stated that the staff started by looking for materials pertaining to events of crucial importance in a given year. In response to a further question by Mr. Freeman, Mr. Aandahl continued that additional materials concerning events of major importance and documentation on events of secondary moment were identified in the volumes, and that this was one of the purposes for which the staff had developed the editorial note.

Mr. Divine asked what happened to materials not cleared.

Mr. Franklin said such papers went to National Archives along with other records but were specially tabbed. It was intended that when such materials were requested, they would be sent to the Historical Office, which would initiate a further attempt to obtain clearance by the appropriate bureau. In many cases the initial refusal of clearance arises from a very temporary set of circumstances, and it was possible some 50% of these papers would be cleared on this second go-around. Mr. Franklin noted also that it was possible potentially sensitive documents existed which, not having been slated for inclusion in Foreign Relations, had been cleared automatically when files for a given year were opened.

Mr. Rappaport, after consulting the lot file list, asked why certain files of State Department operating units were not in the central files.

Mr. Franklin explained that other copies of some of these papers were in central files and some were not. They were papers which were held in operating units for the convenience of policy officers and were later retired all at once, in a sudden fashion which the Department’s records accession personnel were not equipped to handle under normal procedures. Lot files had originated with the dramatic increase in documents during World War II. They sometimes offered certain advantages for the researcher, particularly those that were arranged chronologically by originating office.

Mr. Slany pointed out that some lots, such as the Council of Foreign Ministers files, were consolidated collections pulled together by records management personnel working with the Historical Office. Unfortunately funds were no longer available for this purpose.

Ambassador Oliver asked where conference petition papers would be stored. Mr. Franklin replied that they were in the lot files, and Mr, Slany added that the lots were vital for this purpose.

Mr. Dougall pointed out the extent to which records decentralization had become characteristic of the Department in the last 20 years, noting especially the separation of files of the Executive Secretariat from the central files.

Mr. LaFeber suggested that declassification of lots should be announced in the AHA Newsletter. Mr. Franklin replied that such lists would be given to Archives, which could publish them in Prologue.

Mr. Slany said declassification of the lots had so far not been a problem. Although part of a lot might be in the closed period and the remainder in the open period, the chronological arrangement of most lots meant there was little overlapping of years within a single box.

Mr. Franklin introduced the subject of records of the United States Mission to the United Nations (USUN). Until the past two years no arrangement had been made for transfer of lot files to Archives or of USUN materials to Washington. The Historical Office had initiated action on both fronts. Everything possible must be done to avoid another “Loewenheim affair”, that is, a withholding from scholars through inadvertence of ostensibly declassified materials. Such an incident might happen in any case despite the Office’s best efforts. Mr. Franklin invited Mr. Goodwin to report on his recent investigation of the USUN materials in New York.

[Mr. Goodwin read from his written report, which is appended.]

In the course of his presentation Mr. Goodwin pointed out that he had suggested to USUN records personnel that the materials presently stored in the Federal Records Center should be returned to the Mission.

In reply to a question by Mr. Franklin, Mr. Goodwin stated that as nearly as he could tell, he believed none of the high-level material in the USUN files to be missing.

[At 10:30 a.m. coffee was served. At 10:45 a.m. discussion resumed.]

Mr. Rappaport stated, and Mr. LaFeber agreed, that publication by the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations of a brief description of lot files, USUN files, and other adjunct materials would be helpful to scholars.

Mr. LaFeber asked how USUN files would be opened to scholars. Mr. Franklin replied that the question was a new one and that if someone would raise it in a letter to him he would be able to consult the USUN Mission and to work out a reply.

Mr. Oliver asked whether any other source material from the missions was not in Departmental files. Mr. Franklin mentioned post files. These were at the Federal Records Center at Suitland.

Mr. Kogan said that post files to 1935 were now at Archives and that accessioning of post files for 1936-1948 was now under way. He noted that until accessioning was completed, scholars were free to use post files at the Department, and several had done so.

Mr. Goodwin pointed out that he had been informed by a USUN official that no one could hope to document U.S. policy regarding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade without consulting in Geneva the files of the Office of the U.S. Representative to the European Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations.

Mr. Franklin stressed that the Historical Office had no control over disposition of the foreign policy records of other agencies. Mr. Slany cited records of the Economic Cooperation Administration as an example. These had been transferred to successor agencies, first to the Mutual Security Administration and then to the Agency for International Development. No one at AID had known much about them, and Foreign Relations researchers had spent much time tracking them down. There might be comparable files unknown to the Historical Office.

Mr. Snyder asked if it would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend that USUN files be moved to Washington. Mr. Freeman suggested that the Committee go on record urging accessibility of USUN files. Mr. Franklin said that this would be helpful. Mr. Oliver suggested that the statement be generalized to include files of all U.S. missions to regional and international organizations. Messrs. Snyder and Freeman agreed that it would be desirable to put the matter into this broader context, so that all possible record categories could be considered when files of a given year were opened for research.

Mr. Fine said that he had a very indefinite recollection that the Department had once asked the posts to destroy all their TOP SECRET materials. The purpose had not been to suppress information, but to remove sensitive materials for which proper security handling could not be arranged. Mr. Fine stated that he was unable to recall the date of this request.

Messrs. Franklin, Dougall and Slany discussed some aspects of the screening of post files. Sometimes these were pre-screened at the posts. Once the files were in Washington, the Historical Office sometimes was consulted in the course of the screening process and sometimes not. On the question of screening generally, Mr. Franklin called attention to a new system instituted by the Department to ensure that a copy of each telegram would be retained in central files.

Mr. Oliver said he at first thought the Committee should call for the concentration of foreign policy records in Washington, but was now uncertain: convenience of access for outside scholars should be taken into account and weighed against the administrative convenience to the Historical Office of centralization. Mr. Divine said that it was far more convenient for outside scholars to use documents in Washington.

Mr. Oliver asked if the dispersal of records created problems for the Historical Office. Mr. Franklin replied that it would be better to have records located in Washington, but that the dispersal of files in other locations did not create insurmountable problems. Mr. Goodwin noted that Foreign Relations researchers now had a working relationship with USUN record-keepers and could order files on specific subjects. Mr. Franklin recalled past experience with the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, when thousands of photostats had been ordered and received by letter. When the high-level Truman files, currently in probate, were opened to official researchers, the Historical Office would work for the same relationship with the Truman Library at Independence.


[Mr. Aandahl distributed copies of a publication schedule to members of the Committee. Copy appended.]

Mr. Aandahl stated that clearance delay was currently slowing publication more than any other single factor, and that the National Security Council was the greatest single source of such delays. Since establishment of NSC in 1947 almost every major issue had gone through it. Not all “NSC Papers” had originated in NSC, but its approval was required for their declassification. In 1969, when Foreign Relations had first asked for the clearance of NSC papers, they had been returned with the comment that there was no procedure for declassification. Since the President’s Executive Order of March 1972, there had been a clearance procedure. NSC staff was to review the papers after prior clearance by all other interested agencies. Favorable action on a few NSC papers had followed, enabling, for instance, the publication a few weeks back of 1948, Volume II, which contained NSC papers on Austria and the Berlin Blockade. Yet difficulties on other volumes had continued. 1948, Volume VI, which included an NSC paper in the Korean compilation, had been awaiting NSC clearance since August 1972. Three other volumes had been in clearance with NSC for periods ranging from five to ten months.

In the normal clearance process, Mr. Aandahl continued, the Historical Office often agreed to minor deletions after a process of give and take. With NSC, there was no possibility for argument as there was with other agencies. Attempts by the Historical Office to establish a lateral working-level relationship had been discouraged.

In response to a question by Mr. Freeman as to whether the situation regarding NSC clearance had improved during the last year, Mr. Aandahl noted that NSC-related delays in clearance had had a disastrous effect on the production schedule.

Mr. Franklin pointed out that it was necessary to communicate with NSC via the Executive Secretariat. No direct contact was permitted; all communication had to go through channels. The Historical Office hoped that Secretary Kissinger would expedite clearance and publication when the Office succeeded in bringing the matter to his attention.

Mr. LaFeber asked whether clearance procedures had broken down. Mr. Franklin replied that they had not “broken down” but that they were holding up the attempt to bring Foreign Relations to the 20-year line.

Mr. LaFeber asked whether the Interagency Classification Review Committee (ICRC) could have any effect on the problem of NSC clearance. Mr. Franklin replied that under the provisions of Executive Order 11652, the Historical Office could go, as could outside scholars, to the ICRC, which was closely related to the NSC. In its submissions to the NSC, the Historical Office had been inserting references to E.O. 11652. This had not materially helped, but it gave a channel of appeal under the ICRC. The ICRC, however, had not been able to swing much weight since the departure of its former Chairman, Ambassador John Eisenhower.

Mr. Freeman asked for a short summary of the provisions of E.O. 11652 for the benefit of the new members of the Committee. Mr. Dougall summarized the Order, noting that it provided a revised system of classification of documents. It restricted the number of persons who could classify and provided a general declassification schedule. Papers exempted from this schedule might remain closed for thirty years; however, review of classification could be requested and there was a right of appeal. The general declassification schedule applied only to papers classified after the Order’s effective date, June 1, 1972. Bulk declassification of papers before the 30-year period was up could still be done by administrative action, and this was how the Department had opened its files through 1947.

Mr. Freeman pointed out that much cynicism about Executive Order 11652 had been expressed publicly at meetings. Mr. Franklin said that the executive order had been oversold as far as scholars were concerned: it worked well for a small quantity of papers not of the most sensitive nature. If Foreign Relations could not get 1948 papers cleared, private scholars obviously wouldn’t get large batches of 1958 or 1968 papers. The total number of papers that had been declassified under 11652 was surprisingly high.

In response to a question by Mr. Oliver as to what could be done by way of obtaining NSC clearance, Mr. Aandahl stated that the problem awaited the decision of the Secretary of State. Mr. Franklin added that the personal opinion of the Secretary of State was important in these matters. Secretaries of State had over the years known a great deal about what went on with respect to Foreign Relations, and the same might be said for the Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary. Papers had been appealed up to this level, and sometimes it had been discovered that these officers genuinely had not wanted to see the papers published too fast. Another viewpoint found at this level was that no document should be published while principals involved were still alive. The point was that officers at this level were not apathetic with regard to clearance, but did in fact have views.

Mr. Dougall asked the Committee’s views on the policy followed so far by the Historical Office of holding up the publication of otherwise cleared volumes until NSC papers could be included on the ground that those papers were the essential keystone of the compilations and were therefore worth waiting for. Mr. Rappaport suggested that this reasoning was valid only up to a point. Mr. Franklin observed that Foreign Relations could not generally go back and pick up omitted documents.

In answer to a question by Mr. Rappaport as to how long the Historical Office was prepared to wait before publishing the volumes with clearance difficulties, Mr. Aandahl replied that some volumes were close to receiving clearance; the year 1949 was generally less difficult in terms of clearance than 1948; and there was the possibility of shifting things around a bit by holding papers for publication in the volume of a later year.

In answer to a question by Mr. Divine as to whether the Historical Office had had any difficulty in obtaining access to classified NSC documents, Mr. Aandahl replied in the negative. Mr. Glennon added that this had not been true in the case of NSC minutes. Mr. Aandahl stated that those were believed to be among the Truman papers now in probate.

In response to a query as to whether there had ever been a lag in the publication of Foreign Relations greater than the present one, Mr. Franklin reviewed the history of publication. He emphasized that apart from clearance, publication was going well, and that it would be possible to complete the compilation of the year 1956 in 1976.

[The Committee adjourned at 12:19 p.m. for lunch with Ambassador Laise.]

Afternoon Session - 2:25 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.

Mr. Aandahl continued his description of clearance problems. He pointed out that close readers of 1947, Volume III, would notice that coverage on Italy stopped with November instead of continuing to the end of December. This had happened because of the impossibility of obtaining clearance of NSC 1 (November 1947) in any reasonable time. The volume had been published last year with an editorial note stating that documentation for the remainder of the year had not become available in time to be included. The Italian material for the last two months of 1947 including NSC 1 had been transferred to the equivalent 1948 volume. NSC 1 dealt with U.S. policy with regard to the possibility of a Communist takeover in Italy. The State and Defense Departments and the CIA had finally agreed to declassify it except for two paragraphs describing specific actions which might have been taken to assist the Italian Government. A bracketed summary would indicate the general character of what had been omitted. This solution had been sent to NSC last June, but as yet there had been no reply.

Mr. LaFeber and Mr. Rappaport then asked if that meant that the document would not be available in State Department or NSC files. Mr. Aandahl answered that that was correct; it would be in the Archives but in a blue envelope.

Mr. Aandahl pointed out that Foreign Relations often gave more than points of ellipsis to indicate a deletion: it sometimes gave the substance of the paragraphs. Mr. Dougall then pointed out that if Foreign Relations said the deletion was 2 paragraphs, the researcher would know that 75 percent of the document had not been deleted.


Mr. Goodwin reported on the General Branch. The branch covered three main areas--UN, national security, and foreign economic policy. The principal clearance problems involved national security.

Mr. Petersen said that it had been a great problem to get the 1946-1948 volumes cleared by the Department of Defense, while the Atomic Energy Commission and CIA had been cooperative. In contrast, Defense had cleared the 1949 volume quickly, even though the 1948 volume is still being negotiated on.

Mr. Petersen then mentioned the Pentagon Papers, and stated that Foreign Relations would publish three times as much documentation on Vietnam for the years in question as had the Papers. Most of this would be reports from the Legation in Saigon.

Mr. Goodwin then outlined clearance procedures on UN compilations. Usually each geographic bureau wished to clear UN documents pertaining to its area. This was an exceedingly time-consuming process.

Mr. LaFeber asked why the 1950 volumes were not much further along than they had been at this time last year. Mr. Aandahl noted that these volumes had advanced from manuscript to galleys, but that there had been delays due to a shortage of technical editors at PBR and congestion at the Government Printing Office. The death of May P. Sharp, chief of the documentary editing section at PBR, had been a serious loss.

Mr. Freeman then asked, assuming that the clearances came through, whether all the 1949 volumes might come out in 1974. Mr. Aandahl said that he hoped many of them could, since 90 percent of the printing and revising had already been completed. Mr. Freeman then asked what would happen without clearance, and Mr. Aandahl stated that the Department would have to choose between delaying the volumes or releasing them without certain important documents. This involved some very hard decisions.

[at this point there was discussion of individual documents still in clearance.]

Mr. Franklin concluded that the Office would be lucky to obtain publication by next summer of the four 1948 volumes still in clearance,

Mr. Rappaport said that NSC clearance seemed to be the major problem, and asked what would be done in cases where it could not be obtained. Mr. Aandahl explained that uncleared documents could sometimes be held out in the hope of later clearance and later placed in a different volume. The flaw in that solution was that one eventually ran out of volumes. Mr. Rappaport stated that this should be mentioned in the Committee’s report.

Mr. Slany then described the work of the Western Branch. He pointed out that the staff was now trying to do a compilation of a year’s materials in nine months, and had tried to attack causes of delay in compiling. He presented for the Committee’s consideration the problem of how much emphasis should be laid on locating documents outside the Department. How much time should be spent searching for, say, ECA papers, given the pressure on the series to narrow the publication gap? There was a conflict between the goals of speed and comprehensiveness. Advice would also be appreciated on methodological problems, such as whether to emphasize bilateral or multilateral compilations.

Mr. Franklin pointed out the gradual shift that had taken place from bilateral to regional and other multilateral compilations. He outlined also the system that had been developed of setting priorities through advance planning.

Mr. Freeman inquired why the series was limited to seven volumes. Mr. Franklin replied that the Office had decided that 11 and 12 volumes per year published in the recent past had been too time-consuming and unwieldy, and moreover had included too much third-rate material. Mr. Freeman suggested that fewer volumes should mean fewer clearance problems. Mr. Franklin replied that fewer volumes did reduce printing and indexing time, but not necessarily clearance time. Clearance problems were not related to quantity but rather to sensitivity of materials. He asked for the Committee’s opinion as to whether seven volumes represented about the right depth of coverage.

Mr. Glennon then reviewed the work of the Eastern Branch. NSC clearance was needed on only one document in 1949, Volume VII. [At this point individual documents were discussed.]

Turning to the China volumes, Mr. Glennon noted that compilations on China through 1949 had already been completed when he had arrived at the Historical Office in 1958. All the 1948 China compilations had now been cleared. However, the improved relations with the People’s Republic of China had made the relevant desk in the Department reluctant to clear 1949, Volume VIII. It had objected to over a score of documents on various grounds. The Republic of China desk had objected to a few documents of somewhat less importance in 1949, Volume IX, which had now been sent to NSC.

Mr. Glennon described some of the documents in question and Mr. Rappaport asked if it was wise for the Historical Office to insist on them. They might make the job of a certain official more difficult. Mr. Glennon replied that he would hate to destroy the fabric of the compilation on the grounds given by the PRC desk. The official mentioned had only been saying what everyone had been saying at the time.

Mr. Dougall outlined for the Committee other reasons why the Historical Office thought the papers in question were relevant to policymaking at the highest level. Their deletion would positively mislead the reader. Mr. Glennon stated that clearance problems for 1950 and 1951 China compilations would probably be even more ticklish.


[Mr. Aandahl handed out a paper on 1952-1956 compilation schedules, appended.]

Mr. Snyder asked if the staff had in their heads any average time from completion of a compilation to going to press. Mr. Aandahl said that this varied sharply, mostly because of clearance difficulties; occasionally it might be under one year, but at times it would be five to six years.

Mr. Franklin said the average time had come down to about three years. It was hard for the editors to do the indexing and for the printers to do their job because our schedule was so erratic.


Mr. Franklin said that there was plenty of money for printing, binding, and indexing.

Mr. Aandahl stated that there was a really strong need for more technical editors in the Department. Scheduling could be far better coordinated if a greater portion of this work was done in the Department rather than being fanned out to a contractor. Having in-house people do this work would be cheaper in the long-run, but not in the short-run.


Mr. Dougall described the Freedom of Information Act. He pointed out that it had been intended to apply to small amounts of papers and was not a substitute for general access to files. Under the Act and/or E.O. 11652 the Department had received, since July 1973, 66 requests for over 3000 documents totalling some 13,000 pages. Examples included the Kennedy-Khrushchev correspondence of October 1962 (to be printed in the Department of State Bulletin for November 19, 1973), and documentation on the Philippine elections of 1953, the Puerto Rican issue before the UN, and the “country team” system in South America. Results on the whole had been spotty from the point of view of the requesters. All this required the full-time effort of one man and the assistance of many others, including the Historical Office staff.

Mr. Dougall described the fate of the project for publication of papers on selected crises in advance of the Foreign Relations time schedule. A pilot compilation undertaken at White House initiative had been put aside when the key documentation had been studied by the Departmental bureau concerned. Since then two other crises had been considered, but the project was now in abeyance.

Mr. Franklin questioned the equity of the Freedom of Information Act, which was more advantageous to researchers able to pay $.40 a page for documents for which declassification was approved. Mr. Kogan added that there was also a charge of $3.50 an hour for the research involved in finding the papers. Mr. Dougall said a decision had been taken to forgo the $.40 charge if the researcher brought his own copier.

Mr. LaFeber suggested that the Committee recommend that the charge be lowered to $.10 a copy and Mr. Franklin stated that this was under consideration. Another proposal was for the government to limit the amount of research but to absorb the whole cost.


Mr. Oliver raised the question of whether Foreign Relations should broaden its scope, go outside the Executive Branch and print material on the Congressional influence on foreign policy. Mr. Goodwin mentioned that there were already some compilations which treated the relationship between the Congress and the Executive. Mr. Divine stated that no single source could be totally comprehensive. Mr. Rose pointed out that much material on State Department relations with the Congress, being public in nature, was printed in the Department of State Bulletin. Mr. Petersen alluded to the problems which might arise in trying to clear documents with Congressional committees. Mr. Franklin noted that he had discussed this problem with Carl Marcy, Chief of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, and that it was not feasible for Foreign Relations to include anything as a rule but documents of the Executive Branch.

Mr. Freeman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 p.m. [The Chairman then discussed informally with individual members of the Committee, for another hour, the outlines of the Committee’s report.]