Allied Council. Your 156. [1]
1. Your action in referring for instruction is proper procedure.
The matters raised may be of fundamental significance and we
consider that they should not be discussed until we have the
opportunity of consulting the other British Commonwealth
Governments concerned. (See telegram which will be repeated to
you. [2]) Pending their views you should refrain from making your
proposed statement. In order to hold the position you should if it
appears necessary announce in Council that you are referring the
matter for instructions.
2. Please cable text of memorandum when available or summary if
text is lengthy. [3]
3. While we agree generally with views you expressed to Marquat
(Your 146 [4]) we think it was inexpedient to raise them with
MacArthur's Deputy even unofficially or privately at this early
and delicate stage in the imposition of F.E.C. authority. [5]
4. We are filing your 156 (BCOM1) as ACJ2 but in view of reference
to conversation with Marquat we are not repeating it to United
Kingdom, New Zealand or India. [6]
1 Document 187.
2 Document 188 was repeated to Ball as cablegram 2. On 16 April
the External Affairs Dept advised him that confirmation or
revision of the instructions proposed therein was unlikely to
reach him before the Council meeting on 17 April.
3 Ball summarised MacArthur's memorandum in cablegram DEP6 of 16
April. in addition to the statement reported in Document 187, the
memorandum argued, inter alia, that it would be impracticable to
supply all documentation requested by Derevyanko, though specific
data would be supplied if available and directives on matters of
substance would be given to the Council 48 hours before issue (see
Document 171).
4 Document 173.
5 Ball replied on .6 April that he had raised the matter with
Marquat because he believed MacArthur's inaugural speech gave a
misleading account of the Council's powers, in which his silence
might have implied concurrence, and that he had hoped an
unofficial stand might encourage MacArthur to amend his statement
without a public clash. He had also believed it to be the most
tactful method of obeying the 'instruction' in Document 136. The
text of an elaboration of this reply on 18 April is repeated in
Document 203.
6 On 10 April Ball had informed the External Affairs Dept that he
proposed to send three categories of cablegram: those prefixed
'BCOM', addressed to the Minister for External Affairs and
intended for repetition to the U.K., Indian and N.Z. Govts; those
prefixed 'DEP, for the information of the External Affairs Dept;
and those prefixed 'Secret and Personal-for the Minister'. On 12
April, without reference to this advice, the Department requested
Ball to initiate a series prefixed 'ACJ', for cablegrams dealing
with formal business and enquiries suitable for repetition to
other Commonwealth governments concerned, noting that Document IT
would be treated as ACJ1, though its first two paragraphs and
Document 173 would remain outside the series. It also suggested
that Ball investigate the practicability of his advisers
transmitting 'ACJ' cables direct to their governments.
