740.00119 Council/7–946: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received 11:08 p.m.]
3357. This is Delsec 674. I have discussed disposition of Italian cables with Mr. Bevin. He told me that he thought U.K. has good claim to retention of cables. However, when I urged upon him political difficulties which British insistence would involve and he understood that amount involved is only six million dollars, he asked that he be given a chance to go into the matter in detail again and to discuss it once more.
In order to permit this to be done and to allow time for bilateral negotiations between U.S. and U.K. on subject, we have agreed with [Page 859] British to alter text on cables to be proposed for inclusion in drafts submitted to Peace Conference to read as follows: “The provisions of Article 68 shall not be deemed to affect the ownership of submarine cables which at the outbreak of the war were owned by the Italian Government or Italian nationals.”96
To this will be appended note reading as follows: “The U.S. Delegation reserves the right to propose changes in this Article after a further study of the legal aspects of the subject.”97
In presenting revised draft, we will explain to Council that both we and British have agreed to examine further the legal aspects of question. We agree also treaty should not affect legal status of whatever rights of ownership Italians have, unless there is specific agreement to that effect. In so doing we will indicate U.S. viewpoint on subject has not changed, i.e. that cables should revert to Italy.
British have assured us informally that pending further negotations with us, they will not put cables into prize.98
- In the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, dated July 18, 1946, submitted by the Council of Foreign Ministers to the Paris Peace Conference, the language quoted here became paragraph 6 of article 66; see vol. iv, p. 28.↩
- As ultimately included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, the reservation quoted here was somewhat revised; see ibid.↩
-
On July 9, 1946, Foreign Secretary Bevin addressed the following letter to Secretary Byrnes:
“We agreed during our talk on 4th July, that members of our Delegations should meet, and try to reach agreement upon the terms of a clause to be included in the treaty of peace with Italy covering the question of submarine cables. I am informed that our respective experts have now agreed upon the following re-draft of article 73 of C.F.M.(46) 177:—
‘The provisions of Article 68 shall not be deemed to affect the ownership of submarine cables which at the outbreak of the war were owned by the Italian Government or Italian nationals.’
“I am prepared for my part to accept this wording. Is it also acceptable to you?
“As I told you, I will look further into this matter when I return to London and will regard it as one to be settled in good faith between our two Governments. Pending the outcome of further discussion between our two Governments, we will take no action to put these cables into the Prize Court. I assume that, correspondingly, American influence would be used against any attempt to make the cables the subject of litigation during this period.” (CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 2099: Communications)
On July 13, 1946, Byrnes replied to Bevin as follows:
↩“I have your letter of July 9 regarding the Italian cables. The draft treaty provision quoted in your letter is acceptable to me, with a reservation of our right to propose different wording at a later date in the event we should consider it desirable.
“The disposition of the cables, must, in my view, be settled prior to the signature of the treaty, and I believe should be settled as soon as possible. I therefore hope that we will be able to discuss the matter again after our return to Paris.
“With regard to the question of litigation, I have no knowledge of any intention on the part of the Italian Cable Company to institute legal proceedings. I agree with the thought in your letter that it would be undesirable to change the legal status of the cables pending the outcome of our further discussion.” (CFM Files: Lot M–88: Box 2099: Communications)