740.00119 Council/5–2748: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Douglas) to the Secretary of State
2296. Delsec 1761. Informal meeting heads four delegations German talks this afternoon1 discussed remaining point at issue in basic political organization paper (TRI/132). See previous discussion same point Delsec 1742, May 20.3 Discussion was without result as French were unwilling to recede from their former position, being strongly opposed to election of delegates to Constituent Assembly. Couve de Murville and Massigli made clear that they feared procedures adopted for selection of delegates to Constituent Assembly would prejudge manner selecting members of Lower House under constitution and that French Govt was not in favor of elections carried out directly by populations of the Laender but favored elections by individual Landtage. Basis for French views was fear of taking step which would pave way for another Hitler. In reply to direct question whether French would vote against approval of constitution which provided for direct election of members of Lower House, Couve replied he did not know but that this was possible.
Douglas pointed out that conditions proposed for German constitution as well as fact Prussia was no longer in position to dominate German states removed dangers feared by French. For example, unlike Weimar Constitution, Upper House would have considerable powers; emergency powers article similar to Article 48 (Weimar) would not be permitted; citizenship in Laender as well as in Federal state would be provided for; elections would be carried out on Laender basis under arrangements to be made by individual Laender. Murphy and Clay [Page 295] stressed US experience in bizonal economic administration indicated German representatives considered themselves representatives of Laender and were sensitive to states rights; that Landtage members US Zone were extremely jealous of their rights and opposed to a high degree of centralization. Clay felt French favored weak govt and pointed out strong assembly, jealous of its rights, was probably best guarantee against outsider gaining power and setting up dictatorship.
Couve de Murville felt that fact Soviets preferred highly centralized state was strong argument in favor of setting up decentralized state. He insisted system proposed by US/UK would lead to centralized state. He was sure that delegates elected to Constituent Assembly would consider themselves as representing German people as whole and would come up with constitution providing for elections to Federal legislature by people as a whole.
USDel in course of discussions had suggested compromise proposal whereby Article 4 would read “the delegates to this Constituent Assembly will be selected in each of the existing states.” Agreed minute to Article 4 would read approximately as follows: “Military Governors after consultation with the Ministers-President will determine the method of selection, giving full weight to the dominating opinion of the Ministers-President.”
In reply to question Clay stated Military Governors would present question to Ministers-President, who would be permitted only about an hour to come to decision since it would be disastrous to permit question to become political issue in Germany by prolonged debate. If Ministers-President did not in time all take clear cut position Military Governors would decide question on basis majority vote.
This proposal was not discussed in detail but did not apparently meet with favorable reception. Therefore whole issue still remains unsolved.
Sent Dept as 2296; repeated USPolAd Berlin 147 and American Embassy Paris 235.