Office of the Historian
  1. Home
  2. Historical Documents
  3. Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1943, General, Volume I
  4. Document 133

548.G1/50: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Consul General at Hamilton (Beck)

Washington, April 26, 1943—7 p.m.

100. For Dodds. Your 136, April 23, 10 p.m. Your message was submitted to the Honorable Myron Taylor for his suggestions in view [Page 167] of his close connection with the refugee problem as Chairman of the American Delegation in the Intergovernmental Committee. Mr. Taylor’s comments are given below and the Department finds the changes, which Mr. Taylor suggests be made in the proposals envisaged in your telegram, to be advisable and recommends them to the favorable attention of the American delegation.

  • “1. (Section III, last paragraph33) Mr. Taylor thinks there is great disadvantage and no advantage in transferring the negotiating powers of the Committee from the Director’s office to the Executive. The Executive Committee was intended to be an informal working group consisting of the Chiefs of certain delegations who might meet more conveniently and on shorter notice than the Committee as a whole. It was always understood that the members of the Executive Committee, being the Chairmen of certain delegations, could not, of course, speak for the Committee as a whole since the Committee consists of the representatives of the sovereign governments. The Executive Committee could, however, advise and recommend, and Mr. Taylor believes it should continue in this capacity. The Director’s office, on the other hand, was set up for the specific purpose of negotiating in behalf of the Committee as a whole following such mandates as might be given it by the Committee.
  • Accordingly, Mr. Taylor believes that in the first sentence of the recommendation the words ‘Director’s office’ should replace the words ‘Executive Committee’.
  • 2. (Section III, last paragraph, 2nd sentence) Mr. Taylor does not object to the extension of the mandate of the Committee as proposed in this sentence, subject to the approval of President Roosevelt.
  • 3. (Section III, last paragraph, last sentence) Mr. Taylor does not object to the receipt and disbursal of funds both public and private by the Committee, but believes that the funds should be disbursed by the Director’s office with the approval of the Executive Committee. Accordingly, Mr. Taylor proposes that the words ‘Executive Committee’ on lines 10 and 11 should be replaced by the words ‘Director’s office, with the approval of the Executive Committee’.
  • 4. (Section III, last line and Section IV,34 first two sentences) Mr. Taylor agrees that a recommendation should be made for the expansion of the Committee although he recalls that every effort made previously to invite or solicit the collaboration of the Soviet Union was rebuffed and that Portugal turned down all informal efforts to bring it into the Committee because it is suspicious of the Committee’s intentions with regard to Angola. However, Mr. Taylor is thoroughly agreeable to trying once more in these two cases and to approaching the other governments.
  • 5. (Section IV, first paragraph, third and last sentences) Mr. Taylor believes that no mention of France should be made. France is entitled to membership on the Executive Committee and certainly in [Page 168] North Africa may have to play an important role in connection with refugees. In fact, the last delegate nominated by the last pre-armistice government of France, M. Georges Coulon, is now in New York where he is acting as Assistant to Prime Minister Paul van Zeeland, Chairman of the Coordinating Foundation. In short, Mr. Taylor feels that the reference to France is gratuitous and should be omitted.
  • 6. (Section IV, page 1, last paragraph and first sentence of Section IV, page 237) Mr. Taylor is in agreement with this recommendation.
  • 7. (Section IV, last paragraph, sixth and seventh sentences) Mr. Taylor agrees with the principle of the recommendation but believes that in Line 2 the words ‘Director’s office’ should be substituted for the words ‘Executive Committee’, that in line 5 after the word ‘personnel’ the words ‘of the Director’s office’ should be inserted and that the word ‘authorized’ should be substituted for the word ‘made’ in the same sentence.
  • 8. (Section IV, last line, and Section V, first three lines) Mr. Taylor does not approve of the proposal to create within the Executive Committee a Management Committee or to have a paid Chairman of the Committee. He believes that the Director’s office subject to the advice and supervision of the Executive Committee should be in fact the Management Committee. Accordingly, he would propose that the words ‘paid Director’ be substituted for the words ‘paid Chairman’ and that a Vice Director be added. Accordingly, this recommendation would read:

    ‘However, a specific recommendation is made for the strengthening of the Director’s office which shall serve as the Management Committee under the supervision of the Executive and shall be composed of a paid Director, Vice Director and Secretary.’

  • 9. (Section V, last sentence38) Mr. Taylor proposes the following:

    ‘The delegates to the Conference at Bermuda therefore propose that their governments should recommend to the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Committee to call an immediate meeting of the Executive Committee at such a place and time as may be agreed upon by the governments therein represented, to consider these proposals.’ [”]

Note: Mr. Taylor telephoned from New York after this was prepared and expressed some concern with regard to the recommendation that the Committee, or rather the Director’s office, should receive public and private funds. Mr. Taylor recalled that throughout the work of the Intergovernmental Committee there has been a covert duel between the private organizations and the governments, with the private organizations saying they would put in some funds if the governments would put in money, the governments saying they would make some contribution if the private people would provide substantial funds. As a solution of this difficulty there was set up, upon the proposal of President Roosevelt, the Coordinating Foundation which was to draw in the private funds while the Committee would handle [Page 169] only public funds. Former Prime Minister van Zeeland, of Belgium, upon the invitation of the President, was asked to head the Coordinating Foundation. An Anglo-American Board was set up composed of distinguished private individuals with authority in the financial worlds of London and New York. Mr. Taylor suggested this formula was reached after much heartache, and he questions whether it is wise to revive the whole controversy by transferring all the fund raising authority to the Intergovernmental Committee. He, therefore, suggests that in Section III, line 10 (our paragraph 3) the words ‘public and private’ be omitted and that further thought be given to this whole problem and the use to which the Coordinating Foundation may be put. He thinks it too bad to scrap a piece of machinery which may prove very useful in a fund raising capacity.

Hull
  1. This reference and those in paragraphs numbered 2 and 3, infra, are to last paragraph on p. 162.↩
  2. This reference and that in paragraph numbered 5, infra, are to paragraph on p. 163 beginning, “It is further recommended …”↩
  3. This reference and those in paragraphs numbered 7 and 8, infra, are to paragraph on p. 163 beginning, “It is recommended …”↩
  4. This reference is to last sentence of telegram No. 136, p. 163.↩