Evening star., 1946-08-27

Quoting the Australian argument,
was ignorant as to the problems
involved, there was no reason to set
up fact-flnding committee to in
struct him.
IF you do not know, ask the man
who knows" he said.
Ignorance is no excuse, to quote
an old saying of Karl Marx" Mr..
Vishinsky declared. However, to
quote Karl Marx in this Assembly
may not be the wisest thing to do.
"Col. Hodgson seems to feel that
everything done before is no good.
It's like the chittering of the SPAR
rows on the Paris rooftops."
At this point, Britain's tactful
young Hector Mcneil intervened to
pour oil on waters which rapidly
were becoming troubled. He said
he thought Mr.. Vishinsky had mis-
understood Col. Hodgson-that he
did not believe the Australian was
proposing to throw out the result
of previous investigations, but SIM
ply to set up a committee which
could investigate further on issues
which might become subject to dis
pute.
Mr.. Mcneil said Britain saw no
need for a standing committee but
thought an investigating subcom-
mittee of the commission might be
useful. He added, however, that
he saw no need to incorporate this
concept in an amendment, as the
commission was already empowered
to set up subcommittee whenever 1t
chose to do so.
He suggested that if Mr.. Vishinsky
would agree that this could be done,
the Australian delegation could per-
haps see its way clear to withdraw
ing its amendment paragraph.
Eventually, Australia did withdraw
her amendment, and Mr.. McNeilS
proposition, substantially incor-
porated in a French proposal, pre-
vailed, but not before the bitter
argument had run its course.
Mr.. Vishinsky answered MIR. Nc
Neil by saying Russia did not op-
pose in principle the idea OF further
investigation of Italian territorial
problems by a subcommittee Of the
commission when it appeared nee
essary, but that in this case he did
not think it was necessary.
Col. Hodgson again took the floor
to indorse Mr.. McNeil's interpreta-
ton of what he had previously said,
particularly about his having been
misunderstood by Mr.. Vishinsky
He added, however, that Australia
thought the subcommittee should be
set up now, for use when needed
He proposed formally that it be
composed of representatives of the
Big -Four, any of three other men,
bers of the commission and that 1t
be empowered to study the questions
arising out of disputed articles and
to report back to the commission.
Vishinsky Takes Floor Again.
After the French had expressed
their belief that 1t was better to let
we'll enough alone and not to try to
set up the subcommittee now, Mr..
Vishinsky again took the floor. He
echoed some Of the arguments put
forth In his earlier statement, In
which he had said in effect that the
Australian proposal was just some
thing with which to take up time.
This time he put it more h]untly:
Why, he asked, should the COM
mission waste time discussing the
Australian proposal? Why did Aus
tralia insist on putting forward a
"limitless number" of such pro-
posals?
Il openly state that these are de-
laying tactics" he said, adding that
in almost every instance Australia
sought not step-by-step considera-
ton of the treaty drafts with
amendment where necessary, but a
complete revision Of those drafts.
Russia, he concluded. still opposed
the Australian proposal.
It was when Mr.. Vishinsky finished