SECOND MEETING (PUBLIC)

Held on Thursday, July 7th, 1938, at 3.30 p.m.
Chairman: M. Berenger, later Mr. Myron C. Taylor.
5. Telegram to President Roosevelt.
The Chairman read the following telegram addressed to President Roosevelt on behalf of the Committee :
" The Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees addresses to President Roosevelt the tribute of its gratitude for the initiative taken by him on March 25th last with a view to securing a practical solution of the problem raised by the movement of refugees throughout the world, and in particular by the movement of refugees from Germany (including Austria). The Committee expresses the hope that this initiative may, with the collaboration of all Governments concerned, lead to successful results. "
6. General Statements (Continuation).
M. Helio Lobo (Brazil) [Translation].During the whole of her existence as a sovereign nation, Brazil has adopted the open-door policy in regard to immigration. More than that, she has always encouraged the admission of the labour necessary for the exploitation of her wealth, particularly in agriculture. To such an extent that, during more than a century, to be exact between 1820 and 1930, she received about four and a half million immigrants, almost all Europeans, or about one-tenth of her total population.
It is only in consequence of the world crisis that Brazil has taken measures limiting immigration in order to protect her home market against unemployment (1930), though she has also made exceptions in the case of persons needed for agricultural operations or holding labour contracts.
Concern for the defence of the labour market at home was associated with concern for assimilation of the immigrants, since not only had the currents changed since the war (1914) but it was also important to counteract a somewhat slow absorption of certain nationalities. This assimilation is all the more essential, since we see from the data of the International Labour Office that, whereas in 1920 Brazil represented only 1.7% of the population of the

 

WhereasirnmTgratioiifror^ and only Portugal with 30% remaining almost on the same level), immigration from Eastern Europe and from Asia continued to increase, and the traditional racial background showed a certain tendency to changea problem still further complicated by the fact that the new arrivals proved to be more permanent settlers than the former immigrants.
In 1934, therefore, Brazil fixed an annual minimum quota of 2 % of the total number of immigrants of each nationality who had settled in her territory in the last fifty years. Experience has shown, however, that the old sources of immigration failed to exhaust the quotas fixed for them, whereas in the case of the new sources the limits were almost always insufficient. Germany took the fourth place in immigration to Brazil before the war, with the happiest of results for the country.
The total number of persons admitted under the quota system was about 42,000 per annum, and it is certain that the State of Sao Paulo, which has always absorbed nearly 60% of the immigrants coming to Brazil, needs almost as many for her rural activities every year. To meet this shortage of labour, the quota was calculated, not on the basis of the immigrants settled in the country, but on the basis of those who entered it, thus doubling the number. Germany and Austria never exhausted their quotas, which are 3,099 and 1,655 Per annum respectively.
For those reasons and notwithstanding internal migratory movementsabout 50,000 persons from all quarters moving to the great coffee and cotton beltsBrazil has had to expand the flow of immigration to the countryside ; the problem did not and does not arise in the case of urban areas, where, on the contrary, the imminence of unemployment must always be borne in mind.
The new Immigration Law of 1938, while maintaining the constitutional figure of 2% laid down in 1934 and maintained in 1937, allows the unused balances of immigration quotas to be applied to the admission of other nationalities whose quotas have been exhausted. Further, the minimum quota, which was 100 per annum, may, if necessary, be raised to 3,000. It should be observed that 80% of each quota has to be earmarked for agricultural immigrants or technical experts in agriculture, and that no member of these latter categories may change his occupation until four years after his arrival in the country. The Immigration and Colonisation Board is the body responsible for interpreting and giving effect to the provisions of the law.
The Brazilian Government has just given its support to the decisions recently taken in Geneva regarding migration for colonising purposes and migrant labourers (see International Labour Office, Studies and Documents, Series O (Migration), No. 7 ; Provisional Minutes, twenty-fourth session, International Labour Conference, No. 18 ; Paula Lopes : " La Colonisation au Bresil", International Labour Review, February 1936; Fernand Maurette : " Quel-ques aspects sociaux du developpement present et futur de l'economie bresilienne ", Geneva, 1937 ; " LTmmigration et la Colonisation au Bresil ", same review, February 1937).
Brazil recognises that these studies and surveys aim at the gradual and technical solution of a problem of importance to countries of emigration and also countries of immigration, and that as regards German and Austrian refugees the question is more urgent. She is prepared to respond to the noble appeal of the American Government and to make at this critical moment her contribution towards a favourable solution of the problem within the limits of her immigration policy and for the sake of the lofty ideal which all of us here have in mind.
M. de Foy (Belgium) {Translation].Belgium has acceded to the various agreements regulating the circumstances and situation of refugees. She is at present bound by : (1) The Convention relating to the International Status of Refugees, signed at Geneva on October 18th, I933ª applymg to Russian, Armenian and assimilated refugees as defined in the Arrangements of May 12th, 1926, and June 30th, 1928 ; (2) The Provisional Arrangement concerning the Status of Refugees coming from Germany, signed at Geneva on July 4th, 1936.
She has also taken part in drawing up the Geneva Convention of February 10th, 1938, which is to replace the Provisional Arrangement of 1936. At the present time, the Royal Government is giving favourable consideration to this 1938 Convention with a view to ratifying it very shortly.
As a result of the generous and flexible application of the first two Conventions, Belgium has received on her territory : 8,800 Russian and assimilated refugees ; 2,000 German refugees x ; 800 Austrian refugees ; 80 Stateless refugeesi.e., a total of 11,680 refugees.
To this large figure must be added 3,000 Spanish children, 120 Spanish refugees and 250 Italian refugees.
The latter additions raise to the impressive figure of 15,050 the number of foreigners ejected from their homes by political disturbances for whom Belgium is at present bearing a serious responsibility.
The picture thus revealed is instructive and entitles me to assert that the Belgian authorities have given effect in the most loyal and generous manner to the Conventions on refugees.
In this connection, it may be useful to explain the procedure adopted by Belgium in the matter.
An alien who claims that he is entitled to the benefits of the Conventions in question must, on arriving in Belgium, report to the communal authorities and fill up a questionnaire explaining the circumstances under which he was forced to leave his own country. This questionnaire is forwarded to the central police authorities (Surete publique). If the person's claim to be a political refugee is obvious, the police authorise the communal authorities to issue a residence certificate to the alien in question. If a case seems doubtful, the Minister of Justice refers it to the Inter-Departmental Commission responsible for examining the situation of refugees. Under the chairmanship and guarantee of a President of the Court of Appeal and with the assistance of representatives of the Ministerial Departments concerned, and of a delegate representing the private organisations for assistance to refugees freely chosen by the party, this Commission considers the case proposed after hearing evidence on both sides. Though it is given in a purely advisory capacity, the finding of this Commission is usually, not to say always, adopted and ratified by the Minister of Justice.
In view of the large number of refugees already established on her territory, Belgium, to her great regret, is nevertheless under the urgent necessity of reconsidering the problem of refugees before she accepts fresh international obligations.
Accordingly, while accepting in principle the draft Protocol laid before it by the League of Nations Secretariat, which proposes the extension to refugees coming from Austria of the benefits of the Provisional Arrangement of July 4th, 1936, and, if necessary, of the Convention of February 10th, 1938, Belgium thinks it essential that the situation should first be clarified. In thus acting, she wishes to be able with a full knowledge of the facts to adopt an attitude which can, in practice, be reconciled with the economic and social requirements of her own domestic situation. On this point, she feels it necessary to await the initial results of the discussions of the present Conference.
While she will continue, in practice, to give the most generous consideration to the difficult situation of refugees from Austria, Belgium esteems it a point of honour not to assume fresh international obligations whose consequences she cannot estimate and which, notwithstanding her real wishes and her tradition of generous hospitality, might exceed her practical possibilities. Belgium considers that the extent of her burden in the matter of giving shelter to refugees must, accordingly, be dependent on, and in proportion to, that which the other States which have responded to the generous initiative of the Government of Washington agree to accept. With that reservation, Belgium will be glad to be able to continue the policy which she has hitherto found it possible to follow in regard to the refugees who appeal to her traditional reputation as a hospitable people and a country of refuge.
This cautious but by no means negative attitude is all the more imperative in the case of Belgium for the following reasons. Belgium is a small country with a very dense population (7,800,000). Of this number, 319,230 are foreigners ; as a result of the economic depression, she bears the burden of more than 250,000 unemployed. Further, the increasingly harsh and inexorable policy adopted by certain States threatens democratic countries with a large influx of fresh categories of refugees. Finally, other countries are preparing to adopt a similar policy towards their minorities or their nationals of Jewish origin.

This attitude of cautious expectation seems to me to be in consonance with the declarations made in this room yesterday by the representatives of two great States neighbours of Belgium. They, as like we, have urged that immigration has reached the point of saturation but hold out, it is true, the hope that, with patience, openings may be found in certain overseas territories.

I note also from the statement of the honourable representative of the United States of America that the quota for German emigrants is now fixed at 27,370. The Brazilian representative has just referred to interesting possibilities. I trust that other privileged nations may be able to offer the Conference fresh prospects and grounds for hope.
Belgium is glad to approve the creation of a permanent committee of delegates of the various Governments here represented, and expresses also the desire to co-operate with existing organisations, in order that emigration may continue to proceed on rational, systematic and humanitarian lines.
Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. T. W. White (Australia).The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia welcomes the initiative of the President of the United States in calling this Conference for so humanitarian a motive. Believing the matter of urgent importance, as does the United Kingdom Government, Australia has sent a Minister of State as leader of the delegation to support the principle of so worthy a cause.

Yesterday, the leader of the British delegation, the Right Honourable Earl Winterton, admirably stated the case on behalf of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. The Dominions, however, are in a different category to the Colonies, being free partners in the British Commonwealth and arbiters of their own economy and national destiny. Australia has her own particular difficulties, for, as Earl Winterton rightly said, " the question is not a simple one " and " economic and social factors, as well as considerations of climate and political development, have to be taken into account in each country ".
M. Berenger has pointed out in his sympathetic statement on behalf of France (to whom we are all grateful for arranging the preliminaries of this Conference) that the United States and Australia owe their development to migration from the Old World. This is so, and in Australia's case such migration has naturally been predominantly British ; nor is it desired that this be largely departed from while British settlers are forthcoming.

Nevertheless, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has had very much in mind the problem of foreign migration as well, and a proportion of new arrivals during recent years has been from foreign sources. Realising the unhappy plight of German and Austrian
Jews, they have been included on a pro rata basis which we venture to think is comparable with that of any other country. To ensure that the new arrivals are suitable, they are very largely sponsored by the Australian Jewish Welfare Society.
Under the circumstances, Australia cannot do more, for it will be appreciated that in a young country man power from the source from which most of its citizens have sprung is preferred, while undue privileges cannot be given to one particular class of non-British subjects without injustice to others. It will no doubt be appreciated also that, as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign migration.
Moreover, it will, I hope, be also realised that, in the particular circumstances of our development, we are confining migration principally to those who will engage in trades and occupations in which there is opportunity for work without detriment to the employment of our own people.
What the United Kingdom is doing, together with our own efforts and those of others already related, will, we trust, encourage members of the Intergovernmental Committee here assembled to formulate further plans for co-operation toward the solution of a tragic world problem and thus bring hope to many unhappy people.
Mr. Hume Wrong (Canada). I have not much to add to what has already been said, but I do not wish to let this general discussion close without expressing the sympathy and concern of the Canadian Government for the victims of changes of regime and of racial and class conflict. Appreciating the humane and generous motives which led President Roosevelt to suggest the creation of this Committee, my Government has been glad to participate in its work in the hope that the enquiry to be undertaken will bring some real measure of alleviation. Our thanks are also cordially due to the French Government for their hospitable acts in arranging for the Committee to meet at Evian and in providing the necessary technical services.
No one will deny that we are facing a problem that bristles with difficulties. Indeed, if a simple solution were possible, there would have been no purpose in this Committee's meeting. Canada has in the past not been ungenerous in its reception and treatment of political refugees. In the decade after the war, certainly not fewer than 10,000 political refugees from Europe found permanent homes in Canada. In 1930, when the economic crisis descended on Canada with extreme gravity, circumstances forced a change in immigration policy because of the impossibility of absorbing immigrants in any volume. The regulations then adopted are still in effect; and, in view of the terms on which this Committee has been convenedthat any action to be taken will be within the existing immigration laws and regulations of the receiving countriesI may briefly mention their nature. Canadian legislation does not permit the establishment of immigration quotas. For the last eight years, immigration to Canada from the European continent has been limited (except for certain classes of agriculturists and near relatives of those already in Canada, exceptions which do not include many political refugees) to persons who, in each case, by special order are exempted from a general prohibition of entry. Unfortunately, the continuance of serious unemployment and of economic uncertainty and disturbance still limits severely Canadian power to absorb any considerable number of immigrants.
By the system of special administrative exemptions, however, a substantial number of immigrants from Europe, including refugees, have been admitted to Canada since 1930 ; and the Canadian Government, deeply and genuinely sympathising with those who have been, or may be, forced to leave their native lands, is ready to consider, as part of any general settlement, the application of their regulations in the most sympathetic and friendly manner which may be practicable in the circumstances.
The Canadian Government, while necessarily reserving fully the decision as to future policy on the subject of immigration, is taking part in this Committee with a view to the freest exchange of information on the present situation and consideration of the problems which it involves. They feel that this examination should not be solely confined to the possibilities of the permanent settlement of political refugees from Germany. To get the problem in perspective, information is needed on its extent and character, including estimates of the number of persons involved and some knowledge of the German laws and regulations governing emigration. Furthermore, an important aspect alluded to yesterday by Lord Winterton should be borne in mindthe need for the country of origin to make a contribution so as to allow those whose departure is desired to take with them capital and possessions. Action along these lines may well prove to be a condition precedent to any solution.
Mr. Taylor and most of the other speakers have mentioned the need of careful co-ordination between the programme of this Committee and the work of the League of Nations, where the question of refugees will probably be among the most important subjects of discussion at the next Assembly. We have before us now only a part of the problem, though it is the part which is most urgent and distressing. I am very glad that there are with us Judge
I conclude by expressing the earnest hope of my Government that our deliberations, thorny and unyielding though the problem may appear to be, will not be unfruitful, and may lead to the mitigation of a situation which everywhere arouses compassion and sympathy.
M. A. Le Breton (Argentine) [ Translation].The Government of the Argentine Republic cordially welcomed the initiative taken by the Government of the United States in issuing invitations to the present Conference, for its traditional policy in regard to immigration has always been such as to enable it to co-operate in humanitarian efforts to ensure the well-being of those who have for various reasons desired to emigrate from their own countries.
Statistics prove that no country has done more than the Argentine in welcoming immigrants, regardless of their original nationality, political beliefs and religious creeds.
I would venture to refer to the figures published on July 3rd last by the Office of the Jewish Agency accredited to the League of Nations.
After the United States, the Argentine is the country that has received the greatest number of Jewish immigrants, and, if the area and population of the two countries are compared, it will be found that it is the Argentine which has received the greatest proportion. In the last year for which statistics are available1935for every forty-eight Jewish immigrants who entered the United States, thirty-two entered the Argentine. In view of the fact that the pdpulation of the United States is ten times that of the Argentine, this is really striking.
If the field of comparison be confined to South America, it will be found that the Argentine has received 270 immigrants of this category for every 100 received by all the other countries of South America taken together. My sole purpose in quoting these figures is to show that, in actual fact, we have taken action in anticipation of the humanitarian proposals to be made by the present Conference, and that we have reason for feeling that we have fulfilled our duty of solidarity and collaboration in present circumstances, when migratory movements have been so seriously disturbed.
The Argentine is, above all, an agricultural country which offers great possibilities. Its " slogan " has always been the motto " To govern is to populate ". Experienced agriculturists will naturally, and for a long time to come, find great opportunities in a vast and fertile territory such as ours, which produces the most varied and most valuable products of the soil. A most important feature is the breeding of live stock. Thanks to our temperate climate and the natural fertility of our grassland, stock-raising can be carried on in the open air in a way that leads to a development that is at once natural, efficient and healthy, and yet does not call for the employment of labour on a large scale.
Our industries, the development of which has, up to the present time, been on a moderate scale only, have at their disposal all the labour required.
Immigration into the Argentine must therefore be directed towards agricultural work and certain specialised forms of employment.
It is, of course, natural and logical that the number of immigrants who intend to enter occupations that are already fully supplied with labour must not be allowed to exceed what is reasonable. Otherwise, the results would be harmful, not only to the general economic life of the country, since opportunities for the employment of our own people would be reduced, but also to the very immigrants whom we have already received, for it would make it impossible for us to ensure the continuance of satisfactory conditions and that comfortable and happy existence which we desire them to enjoy in our country.
There is one point that should be brought to the notice of those who contemplate going to the Argentine. In accordance with our laws and with our lengthy experience in matters relating to the treatment of foreigners who desire to take their place in our national life, they are assured of ample facilities and are treated on the same footing as our own nationals. Those, however, who intend, whilst living within our territory, to remain permanently bound by the special conditions derived from their country of origin, would do well to abandon their intention while there is time and refrain from going to the Argentine. Our extreme liberality will never go so far as to lead us to grant to new immigrants a situation of advantage or privilege as compared with nationals of the Argentine or other immigrants who have already established themselves definitely in our country.
We do not think that it is necessarynor, indeed, would it be possibleto determine in advance the extent of our future effort in this matter. We are convinced, however, that our attitude in the past is sufficient to prove the generosity of the view we shall adopt in the future. The immigration authorities, with the assistance of the consular service, will provide constant information as to the number of immigrants of each occupation it may be possible for us to assimilate at any time. Within those limits, we shall, as in the past, co-operate in the general action undertaken.
We do not intend to attempt to exercise any influence over the decisions taken by other countries with large territories and sparse population in regard to the way in which they incorporate immigrants into their respective territories or decide not to admit them. On the other hand, we shall always take our own decisions in such matters in the light of our own
circumstances and of the possibilities which the social and economic conditions at any given moment indicate as the extreme limit of our capacity to receive immigrants.
Just as we shall carefully refrain from concerning ourselves either directly or indirectly with internal decisions taken by countries of emigration, so, in our turn, we shall be all the more jealous of our own rights in all matters relating to the manner in which, and the means by which, immigrants will be allowed to enter and establish themselves in our country.
One of our distinguishing characteristics is the absence of prejudices of every kind. We are hospitable by nature. This characteristic is expressed in the preamble to our Constitution, and our wide and fortunate experience in the matter of immigration enables us to contemplate the future with complete tranquillity.
We fully understand that those who wish to emigrate should endeavour to do so to countries which they think offer the greatest chances of prosperity. Accordingly, when their preferences lead them to choose our country, we regard this as a proof of their faith in its future, a faith which we firmly share.
We have no reason to consider this question with reserve or with prejudice or from a selfish standpoint. We are fully determined to co-operate within the limits of what is possible. Those limits provide an ample field for the noble work of the present Conference. It is with this determination that we shall collaborate in studying and solving this problem, which is as delicate as it is important, because of the way it affects human welfare and the future of every country.
M. W.C. Beucker-Andreae (Netherlands) [Translation].The Netherlands Government, profoundly touched by the tragic aspect of the problem of Jewish emigration at the present time, and more particularly the tragic destiny of refugees from Germany and those who may in future wish to leave that country, being profoundly moved, too, by the pitiful moral situation created for Jewish children, has welcomed with sympathy the generous initiative taken by President Roosevelt and the United States Government in inviting this Committee to meet on the hospitable soil of France, and to play its part in trying to find a solution for this problem by encouraging the organisation of the emigration of refugees.
This has been an urgent problem for several years past. As a country bordering on Germany, the Netherlands has naturally become one of the countries of first refuge ever since the beginning of the internal political changes in that country.
My country has followed an age-old tradition in granting generous hospitality to such refugees. When the influx continued, however, it became increasingly aware of the fact 1 that it could not continue to absorb such great numbers, and that international collaboration j was essential in order to encourage the emigration of refugees to countries where they could | find a permanent home.
At the conferences held in Geneva, the Netherlands Government has stressed the importance of finding a solution for this problem of emigration. For its part, it has been glad to collaborate in the task of assisting Jewish refugees to fit themselves for a new existence by encouraging the establishment in the Netherlands of institutions for agricultural education and for training Jewish refugees for industrial occupations, so that they might in that way be prepared in due course to emigrate to countries where they could finally settle.
Although several thousand refugees, partly through the very praiseworthy efforts of Jewish organisations, have been sent to the countries of their final destination, the number of refugees still in the Netherlands is very considerable. It has been estimated by the competent authorities at between 24,000 and 25,000, a figure that is relatively very high compared with a population which does not quite amount to nine millions.
The density of our population, which had already led the Netherlands Government to encourage its own nationals to emigrate, and the very serious unemployment in the country 400,000 on the averagehave for some time past prevented the Netherlands Government, to its great regret, from permitting a continuance of the influx of refugees. For the moment, the Government can only admit refugees in exceptional cases.
Owing to the density of its population, the part played by the Netherlands in granting assistance to refugees must always be rather that of a country of temporary sojourn. As the refugees now in the Netherlands emigrate, it may be possible to admit further refugees for a temporary sojourn, provided that their final emigration to countries in which they will settle permanently is sufficiently guaranteed.
My delegation has listened with great interest to the observations made by various speakers and can associate itself with several of the ideas that have been put forward.
As regards immigration into the Netherlands overseas territories, the Netherlands delegation would venture to point out that those territories lie within the tropical zone and that experience hitherto would seem to show that migration of white people for settlement offers little hope of success. The only possibilities that might offer in these territories would be for certain individuals, who might find a livelihood there.
The problem that has been laid before us for consideration, Mr. Chairman, is certainly one of great importance, and one that we cannot hope to solve immediately. It will call for continuous effort.
The Chairman [Translation].The list of speakers who will submit general statements is not closed. There will therefore be another meeting for this purpose on Saturday morning.
7. Constitution of the Bureau of the Committee.
The Chairman [Translation].May the head of the French delegation, who has been glad to welcome the representatives of so many Governments, ask you now to be good enough to choose a permanent Chairman. On this point, I feel that I shall not only be voicing the sentiments of most, if not all, of the Government representatives here present, but I shall also, and in particular, be promoting the accomplishment of the task which we have begun in proposing as Chairman Mr. Myron C. Taylor, who represents that very eminent personality, President Roosevelt. I would therefore ask you to invest him with this office to which he has a claim, not only in virtue of his personal qualities, on which I will not dwell at any greater length, but also in order to ensure the continuity of our work and link the old world with the new.
The Chairman's proposal was unanimously adopted.
(Mr. Myron C. Taylor took the presidential chair.)
The Chairman.I am deeply grateful for the honour which you have done my country in selecting me to act in the capacity of Chairman of this most important meeting. Up to the present moment, I think we have all been impressed by the success which has attended our efforts at this meeting. I attribute a good measure of that successwithout bringing into the discussion the great humanitarian impulse which has brought us togetherto the skill, wisdom and charm of manner and speech which your temporary Chairman has contributed in so full a measure to make the initial stages of this important occasion so very auspicious.
Succeeding one so distinguished and of such great ability, I feel quite unable to carry on the duties of this meeting at the same high level of quality and character which has so far been maintained, and, superseding for the moment customary parliamentary practiceand it seems that I am justified in ignoring for the moment the ordinary rules in a meeting which has not yet adopted any particular procedureI wish to propose from the chair that we should convey our gratitude to His Excellency M. Berenger, President of the Foreign Relations Committee of the French Senate, by electing him as the Honorary Chairman of this meeting.
The Chairman's proposal was unanimously adopted.
On the proposal of Lord Winterton, M. Jean Paul-Boncour was elected Secretary-General.
8. Report of the Credentials Committee.
M. Jean Paul-Boncour, Secretary-General, read the following report : The Credentials Committee met on July 7th, at 11 a.m. The Committee consisted of : Australia : Mr Alfred Stirling ; Colombia : M. J. M. Yepes ; Netherlands : M. W. C. Beucker-Andreae ; Sweden : M. M. de Hallenborg ; and M. Jean Paul-Boncour, Secretary-General of the Intergovernmental Committee.
The Secretary-General referred to the Credentials Committee a letter sent to him by the representative of the United States of America to the effect that the Department of State, Washington, had, in fact, received from each of the Governments represented at the Conference, as shown on the annexed list, a communication accrediting to the Intergovernmental Committee, Evian, the delegates taking part in its proceedings.
After examining the documents lodged by delegations with the Secretary-General of the Committee, the Credentials Committee suggests that the Committee should regard the United States delegation's letter above referred to and the authentic documents produced by the various delegates as credentials authorising each member thus accredited to take part in the work of the Intergovernmental Committee.
The Credentials Committee will hold itself at the disposal of the Bureau of the Committee and continue the examination of any documents which delegations may still wish to communicate to the Secretariat, more particularly in the event of the Intergovernmental Committee deciding to opt for the conclusion of contractual arrangements.
Annex to the Report of the Credentials Committee.
Argentine Republic Denmark Nicaragua
Australia Dominican Republic Norway
Belgium Ecuador Panama
Bolivia France Paraguay
Brazil Guatemala Peru
United Kingdom Haiti Sweden
Canada Honduras Switzerland
Chile Ireland United States of America
Colombia Mexico Uruguay
Costa Rica Netherlands Venezuela
Cuba New Zealand
The report was adopted.
9. Programme of Further Work.
The Chairman read the proposals of the Committee's Bureau concerning the constitution of two Sub-Committees :
i Sub-Committee on the Reception of those concerned with the Relief of Political Refugees from
Germany (including Austria).
This Sub-Committee would hear in an executive session a representative of each organisation which is registered with the Secretariat-General. It is understood that in each case the organisation will present a memorandum of its views through its representative, who may be permitted to speak for a limited time. The Sub-Committee would make a synopsis of the memoranda which it has received and report to the Conference.
The Sub-Committee on Organisations would be composed as follows :
Chairman : Lieut.-Colonel the Honourable T. W. White, Australia.
Members : Belgium, United Kingdom, United States of America, France, Mexico, Peru, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela.
2. Technical Sub-Committee.
This Sub-Committee would hear in confidence the statements of laws and practices of the participating Governments, statements of the number and types of immigrants each is prepared to receive and consider the question of documentation. It would make a report to the Conference.
The Technical Sub-Committee would be composed as follows :
Chairman : Judge Michael Hansson, Norway.
Members : Brazil, Canada, Chile, United Kingdom, United States of America, France, Haiti, the Netherlands, Switzerland.
Sir Neill Malcolm, High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany, would be invited to participate in the work of this Sub-Committee.
This Sub-Committee may invite the representatives of other delegations which do not participate in the Committee to consult with it.
The proposals submitted by the Committee's Bureau were adopted. (The meeting rose.)