During your informal discussions with me you referred to two
statements which Colonel Hodgson had been reported to have made at
New York.

I understand that you raised these matters with the Secretary of
the Department of External Affairs and, as a result of enquiries
he then made, I am now able to give you the correct facts.

Colonel Hodgson at no time used the expression 'sovereign' state.

His argument was that the hostilities constituted 'conflict
between two states in international law'. He expressly pointed out
that a state did not have to be completely sovereign in order to
be a party in warfare.

Colonel Hodgson states that he has never said that the Dutch had
'deliberately' held up the message to the Republican authorities
from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He did use the
expression 'the communication was held up by the Dutch
authorities', which was a fact reported from our representative at
Batavia [1] and later confirmed by the direct communication from
the Republican Government to the Security Council. [2] Colonel
Hodgson points out, however, that this phrase should be understood
in its context. He was demonstrating the inadequate way in which
the communication was sent to the Republican Government. He
queried the whole handling of the communication, including the
measures taken by the Secretariat. He made it clear, in answer to
a complaint by M. van Kleffens [3], that his only motive in
drawing attention to the delay was to emphasise the dislocation in
communications and the difficulties which both parties might find
in complying immediately with the call for cessation of
hostilities.

I am quite sure, from the very full reports which have been
received from Colonel Hodgson at New York, that, throughout all
these discussions, he has maintained a completely impartial
attitude and has made no statements likely to prejudice
consideration of the issues involved.