police authorities, intensified its systematic and brutal campaign to eliminate all political opposition. Nation-wide manhunts were conducted on a mass scale resulting in the arbitrary arrest and incarceration of thousands of opposition and non-party persons.

The United States protested, in a note of June 24, 1947, these actions, taken by the Rumanian Government in anticipation of the coming-into-force of the Treaty, which were prejudicial to the fulfillment of the Treaty provisions and which effectively nullified the Rumanian Government's execution of its undertakings with respect thereto. Again, the response of the Rumanian Government was evasive of its responsibilities and the campaign did not cease. On the contrary, additional arbitrary actions were perpetrated in the guise of measures of public security, including, in July, the arrest of Mr. Iuliu Maniu and other National Peasant leaders.

The United States renewed its representations on August 5, and on August 6 issued a public statement, referring particularly to Mr. Maniu, whose devotion to democratic ideals over a period of many years and whose struggle for civil liberties in Rumania are well known. Reports reaching the United States Government over a period of several months demonstrated convincingly that the political prisoners apprehended as a result of the mass arrests in Rumania were being subjected by the Rumanian authorities not only to physical conditions of starvation and disease but in some instances to methods designed to extract "confessions" in anticipation of forthcoming trials. The United States Government in a public statement on August 15, 1947 took note of this inhuman treatment of Rumanian political prisoners and the methods employed to predetermine their conviction-methods which had already been clearly revealed by the Rumanian mass trials of allegedly subversive organizations which had taken place in November 1946.

On September 15, 1947 the Treaty of Peace with Rumania came into force with its consequent obligation upon the Rumanian Government to secure the specified rights and freedoms to all people under its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, in October and November 1947, the Rumanian authorities tried, convicted and sentenced for treason Mr. Iuliu Maniu and other members of the National Peasant Party of Rumania. The transparent political motivation of this "judicial process" was manifest. The recent threats by the Rumanian authorities against the National Liberal and Independent Socialist Parties, which have been reduced to impotence, give further evidence of the Rumanian Government's intent to wipe out the last vestiges of democratic opposition in Rumania.

By its actions over a period of almost three years since March 1945, the Rumanian Government placed the legitimate and patriotic opposition elements in Rumania in a position of seeming to constitute a clandestine, subversive movement. Activities on their part to bring about, through constitutional means, a democratic alteration in the Government of Rumania so that it might be broadly representative of the Rumanian people were construed as subversive and treasonable. Associations or communications about Rumanian conditions with two of the Powers which had rights and responsibilities in Rumania by virtue of the Yalta, Potsdam, and Moscow Agreements, the Rumanian Armistice and the Rumanian Peace treaty, were made to appear as conspiracy.

The trial of Mr. Maniu and his co-defendants, which was concluded on November 11, 1947, itself was specifically prejudiced in the following respects which, by generally recognized standards of civilized procedure, precluded the free exercise of justice:

1) The possibility of an impartial trial was excluded by the appointment of a presiding judge known to be thoroughly compromised by improper acts as a military judge during the recent war and lacking in judicial integrity.

2) The defendants were effectively deprived of their right to be represented by counsel of their own choice which, except for intimidation, might have been available.

3) Defense of the accused by the appointed counsel was inadequate, despite an apparently spirited summation in the single instance of Maniu.

4) Excessive restrictions were placed upon the preparation of the defense, on the testimony of the defendants and on the interrogation of state witnesses by or for the defendants.

5) A violent campaign of excitation against the defendants was conducted before and during the trial through the officially controlled press, labor, professional and Government organizations, which not only had the effect of intimidating witnesses and influencing the judges but which also by its scope and nature revealed that it was inspired, directed and assisted by the Rumanian Government for the evident purpose of supporting a pre-arranged verdict.

Aside from the lack of validity of a trial carried out under such conditions, the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges of treasonable activities, upon which the defendants were found guilty, by evidence other than that of highly questionable "confessions" which had been drawn from certain defendants following their arrest. The United States Government considers it necessary to state that in its view the actions of the Rumanian Government recited in this note make it clear that there have not existed, and do not now exist in Rumania those human rights and fundamental freedoms which the Rumanian Government is obligated by the Treaty of Peace to secure to all persons under its jurisdiction.

279. RECOGNITION OF NEW YUGOSLAV REGIME Instruction to American Ambassador in Belgrade, December 22, 19451

Mindful of the obligations which it assumed at Yalta, the United States Government has consistently made known its attitude that the people of Yugoslavia are entitled to expect the effective implementation of the guarantees of personal freedom, freedom from fear, liberty of conscience, freedom of speech, liberty of the press and freedom of assembly and association contained in the agreement between Marshal Tito and Dr. Subasic underlying the Yalta Declaration and to have an opportunity to express their will in a free and untrammeled election. In view of conditions existing in Yugoslavia, it cannot be said that those guarantees of freedom have been honored nor that the elections conducted on November 11 provided opportunity for a free

1 Department of State Bulletin of December 23, 1945, p. 1021.

choice of the people's representatives. In the circumstances the United States Government desires that it be understood that the establishment of diplomatic relations with the present regime in Yugoslavia should not be interpreted as implying approval of the policies of the regime, its methods of assuming control or its failure to implement the guarantees of personal freedom promised its people. You should make it quite clear to the authorities and people of Yugoslavia that we entertain only the friendliest sentiments toward the peoples of the country and that it is our anticipation that the evolution of events will provide developments which will make possible those relations-both political and economic-between the peoples of Yugoslavia and the United States which we on our part most urgently desire to see.

280. UNITED STATES INTEREST IN CIVIL LIBERTIES IN YUGOSLAVIA

Statement by Acting Secretary Acheson, October 11, 19461 I have been asked if I would be willing to make some comment or statement about the trial and conviction of Archbishop Stepinac, and I shall. It necessarily cannot be specific. What I should like to say is that we have for a long time been concerned about civil liberties in Yugoslavia. You will recall at the time we recognized the Government of Yugoslavia, we drew their attention to what we thought was the undesirable situation in that field and reminded them of their undertakings under the United Nations Charter in which all of these matters are specifically dealt with and urged that the matter be rectified as soon as possible. We have since recognition unhappily had to take up a very considerable number of cases with the Yugoslav Government where we have felt that trials of our own citizens were unfairly conducted. It is this aspect of the Archbishop's trial which I am able to say now concerns us. We do not have, of course, a record of the trial, nor have we had a specific report from our Embassy in regard to it. Therefore, our information about it is the same as that you have, which is that which has been conveyed through the press.

It is the civil liberties aspect of the thing which causes us concern: aspects which raise questions as to whether the trial has any implications looking toward the impairment of freedom of religion and of worship; the aspects of it which indicate at least to the reporters who reported it from the spot that the actual conduct of the trial left a great deal to be desired.

You will recall that under the Constitution and law of the United States fairness of trial is guaranteed under the 14th amendment, and the Supreme Court of the United States has set aside as not being legal procedure at all trials in which the courtroom has been dominated by feelings adverse to the defendant by demonstrations of prejudice. That is deeply inherent in the American system, that the very essence of due process of law is that in trials we shall lean over backwards in being fair to the defendant, in the atmosphere in the courtroom, in forbidding demonstrations of spectators, in oppor

1 Department of State Bulletin of October 20, 1946, p. 725. Made at the Acting Secretary's press and radio news conference on October 11.

tunity of facing and cross-examining witnesses-all these matters seem to us to be absolutely inherent in the matter of a fair trial. It is that aspect of the thing, on which one can have no final evidence until a record and detailed reports are available, which causes us concern and deep worry.

281. EXPULSION OF AMERICAN JOURNALISTS FROM

YUGOSLAVIA

Note From American Ambassador to the Yugoslav Acting Foreign Minister, November 2, 1947 1

1

The American Embassy presents its compliments to the Acting Foreign Minister and has the honor to refer to the Ambassador's conversation with the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday afternoon, inquiring as to the grounds for the expulsion from Yugoslavia of Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Brandel, the resident correspondents of New York Times and U. P. respectively.

In order that the Department of State may be possessed of all facts in the case and in view of the importance of two great news agencies involved, and attention which this matter is already receiving in the international press, the Embassy would be grateful if the Ministry would continue its investigation into the reasons for the action in question.

Reverting to the statement made by the Ambassador yesterday, the Embassy would again point out that the order of expulsion was delivered orally at an early hour yesterday morning by a man in uniform who called at the hotel where Mr. and Mrs. Brandel reside, and who told them that they must leave the territory of Yugoslavia within 24 hours, a manifest impossibility considering the transportation facilities available. Shortly thereafter the manager of the hotel informed them that he had been ordered to eject them at the end of that 24-hour period. As a result of the Minister's intercession yesterday evening, an extension of the expulsion order has been granted, to permit Mr. and Mrs. Brandel to depart by the first train for Italy, which leaves Belgrade tomorrow morning. Although as of this morning their passports have not been returned to them, and it will still be necessary, on a Sunday, to obtain permits for passage through Trieste and visas for entry into Italy, the Embassy understands that Mr. and Mrs. Brandel are making arrangements to depart by the train specified.

The abrupt character of this expulsion and the extreme immediacy which the Yugoslav authorities have stipulated, are hard to reconcile with the fact that the Acting Minister knew nothing of the incident until the Ambassador brought it to his attention yesterday afternoon. The only explanation thus far vouchsafed to Mr. Brandel was to the effect that his reports had not made for better understanding between Yugoslavia and the United States, conveyed to him orally by an official of the Directorate of Information yesterday, and later confirmed by telephone to resident foreign correspondents by the press office. Moreover, Mr. Brandel had had neither forewarning of action

1 Cavendish W. Cannon and Vladimir Velebit, respectively. Printed from telegraphic text. Note delivered on November 2, 1947. Department of State Bulletin of November 16, 1947, p. 961.

contemplated nor opportunity to discuss reports to which objection has been taken.

Last evening the Ambassador was informed that Mr. Brandel was persona non grata for reasons that certain reports which he had sent were not in accordance with truth, and that he had offensively criticised actions and personalities of Yugoslav Cabinet ministers. There has been no indication that either of these charges was based on any specific incident of recent date.

The Embassy trusts that the Ministry will appreciate the Embassy's difficulty in trying to convey to its government a report which clearly would entirely fail to explain preemptory expulsion of representatives of two American news services of broad international reputation. Confident that there are elements of which the Ministry has not yet had time to look into, the Embassy would therefore request that the Ministry continue its inquiries in order more specifically to ascertain grounds for complaint, with the view to determining whether, upon reexamination of the case, the correspondents in question may resume their work in Yugoslavia.

The Embassy avails [etc.]

DISPLACED PERSONS

282. IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES OF CERTAIN DISPLACED PERSONS AND REFUGEES IN EUROPE

Statement by President Truman, December 22, 19451

The war has brought in its wake an appalling dislocation of populations in Europe. Many humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, are doing their utmost to solve the multitude of problems arising in connection with this dislocation of hundreds of thousands of persons. Every effort is being made to return the displaced persons and refugees in the various countries of Europe to their former homes. The great difficulty is that so many of these persons have no homes to which they may return. The immensity of the problem of displaced persons and refugees is almost beyond comprehsnsion.

A number of countries in Europe, including Switzerland, Sweden, France, and England, are working toward its solution. The United States shares the responsibility to relieve the suffering. To the extent that our present immigration laws permit, everything possible should be done at once to facilitate the entrance of some of these displaced persons and refugees into the United States.

In this way we may do something to relieve human misery and set an example to the other countries of the world which are able to receive some of these war sufferers. I feel that it is essential that we do this ourselves to show our good faith in requesting other nations to open their doors for this purpose.

Most of these persons are natives of central and eastern Europe and the Balkans. The immigration quotas for all these countries for one year total approximately 39,000, two thirds of which are

1 Department of State Bulletin of December 23, 1945, pp. 981-982.