CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 48
The Commission continued its discussion on Annex 4D (Petroleum). Mr. Walker (Australia) said that he could accept the U.K. proposal [Page 503] as amended69 and felt in fact that this Annex was necessary if the United Nations’ petroleum companies were to resume their business in Rumania. M. Gusev (USSR) said he did not consider the U.K. proposal as amended appropriate to the Treaty. So far as their proposal was related to the question of compensation, he suggested that it should be discussed with the general discussion of paragraph 4 of Article 24. He therefore recommended that the Commission reject points 3 and 4 of the U.K. proposal and defer points 1 and 2 until after the Commission had discussed paragraph 4 of Article 24. M. de Carbonnel (France) said he had not been able to accept the British proposal. Paragraph 4, he pointed out, appeared to stipulate that visas should be given to certain UN nationals and he did not consider this appropriate to the Peace Treaty. The principles included in paragraphs 1 and 2 were already sufficiently covered in the Treaty. However, he could accept paragraph 3 as amended by the British and therefore asked that the vote be divided.
Mr. Thorp (US) said the U.S. maintained its original position that the points raised in the Annex should be covered in Articles 24 and 30. However, in view of the fact that both of these Articles contained certain disagreed positions, he reserved his right to reconsider his position in the light of the final form in which Articles 24 and 30 were adopted. The Commission then agreed, despite Soviet opposition, to vote on the Annex paragraph by paragraph. The first paragraph was carried 7 to 6, the U.K., India, Greece, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa voting for and the French representative abstaining. The vote was identical for paragraph 2. On paragraph 3, the voting was identical except that the French representative voted for the paragraph, so that it was carried 8 to 6. On paragraph 4 the voting was again identical with the voting on the first paragraph except that the French voted against the paragraph and the result was a tie, 7 to 7. The Chairman then suggested that the Commission vote on the Annex as a whole. In view of the fact that paragraph 4 had not been carried, Mr. Thorp asked whether the Annex as a whole consisted of 4 paragraphs or 3. The Chairman then suggested that the Commission vote twice on the Annex as a whole, first considering it as consisting of 4 paragraphs and then as 3 paragraphs. The vote was taken on the Annex as a whole, consisting of 4 paragraphs, and the result was a tie, 7 to 7, the vote being identical to that of the 4th paragraph.
The Chair then proceeded to ask the Commission to vote on the Annex as a whole consisting of the first 3 paragraphs, when the Soviet representative objected on the grounds that there had been enough [Page 504] voting and that it was very unusual procedure to vote different combinations of paragraphs in the Annex. He said he was opposed because there was a principle of procedure involved and because the vote would set a precedent.
Senator Vandenberg (US) agreed with the Soviet representative’s remarks that the procedure had been rather fantastic. However, he did not agree with his conclusions. He pointed out that the Commission had agreed to separate the paragraphs and vote paragraph by paragraph. The whole point of this procedure was to enable the Commission to express its views definitely on each paragraph. By this procedure the Commission had voted paragraph 4 out of the Annex. Therefore, when the vote was taken on the whole Annex, including paragraph 4, it amounted to a nullification of the procedure of voting paragraph by paragraph. He concluded, therefore, that it was a logical parliamentary conclusion to put to a vote the first three paragraphs as a whole.
The Commission discussed this procedural question for four hours. It was finally agreed that the Chairman should consult the competent authorities of the Conference, first, on the voting problem involved in connection with Annex D and, secondly, on Rules of Procedure to be adopted on voting. The Chairman interpreted this to mean that the Commission agreed that it had voted on 4 paragraphs separately and that the question of voting the Annex as a whole had not yet been concluded.