No. 11
Editorial Note

The substance of Hill’s memorandum of May 9 was communicated by Perkins to Acheson in a memorandum of May 16 containing recommendations of points to be made in a discussion of the Atlantic Pact and Atlantic unity scheduled for May 17 with Senator Gillette, Justice Roberts, Will Clayton, and others. Perkins observed, inter alia, that Senator Gillette and the others “may want support for the resolution of the Council of Europe Assembly passed May 12. This resolution invites Congress to select representatives to discuss common problems with the Assembly this fall. It is based in part on a letter from Senator Gillette to European leaders of January 24.” (740.5/5–1651) No record of the conversation between Secretary Acheson and the group headed by Senator Gillette has been found in Department of State files.

On June 28, Senators Gillette and Alexander Smith of New Jersey introduced Senate Resolution 36 proposing that a Congressional [Page 35] delegation meet with a similar group from the Council of Europe’s Consultative Assembly in accordance with the Assembly’s May 12 resolution. (Congressional Record, volume 97, page 7300) But while in Paris on July 12, Gillette and Smith cautioned representatives of the Assembly that passage of the resolution was far from certain and that it would have to overcome two principal objections: “(1) that Council of Eur was strictly European, and US shld not interfere; and (2) that US shld not appear take on additional responsibilities.” In response the Assembly representatives “insisted desire was not have Americans assume any burdens properly belonging to Council.” Senator Gillette also informed the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Jacques Camille Paris, that a recent proposal by Lord Laytoji following a trip to Washington that the Council’s Secretariat open an office in Washington was “distinctly premature”. (Telegram 480 from Paris, July 23, 740.00/7–2351)

On August 6, Ambassador Bruce in Paris reported in telegram 829 that the Embassy had been informed by Sforza, special assistant to Jacques Camille Paris, that Paris expected to accompany Paul-Henri Spaak and three other delegates from the Council Assembly to Washington at the end of August or early September in order to arrange an agenda for the proposed meeting of the Assembly delegates with the Congressional delegation. Bruce added that, according to Sforza, Spaak had already written about the matter to Vice President Alben Barkley, the Speaker of the House, and the Chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees. The Ambassador also stated that it was his understanding that the proposed meeting, if accepted by Congress, would not take place during the autumn Assembly session but immediately prior to it in order to meet Congressional desires. “On other hand, assembly del, although empowered accept meeting in Wash, will press for holding meeting in Strasbourg. Council Europe circles feel that meeting in Wash wld give impression that Strasbourg del making trip to beg some additional favors from US and that this wld have unfortunate repercussions in European opinion.” In conclusion, Bruce said that he “fully” concurred with the Department of State belief that a rejection of the Council of Europe’s invitation to Congress would have “unfortunate consequences” and he added that plans for the proposed joint meeting were receiving increased attention in Europe. (740.00/8–651)

Spaak and Lord Layton subsequently met in Washington with members of the Senate and House on September 17 concerning the Council of Europe invitation. See the memorandum by Hill, Document 26.