My dear Prime Minister,

During the last two or three days, I have had the opportunity of
several conversations in relation to the question of the
International Institute at Rome and its relationship to the League
of Nations. [1]

I have seen Sir Arthur Salter, the Director of the Financial and
Economic Organization of the League of Nations, Sir Daniel Hall
[2] of the Ministry of Agriculture, one of the British Delegates
to the General Assembly at the International Institute of
Agriculture, and Sir Sydney Chapman. [3] I have also seen Sir Atul
Chatterjee, the High Commissioner for India, who takes a very live
interest in these questions. It is interesting to find that all
these authorities take the same point of view, which may be
summarised very briefly as follows:-

(1) The International Institute of Agriculture at Rome is at
present an ineffective body.

(2) For diplomatic reasons, it is impossible to destroy the
International Institute and re-build.

(3) In view of the need for a really firstclass intelligence
service on agriculture, it is important that as the International
Institute cannot be abolished, it should be amended.

(4) The Italian Government having approached the various
contributing Governments with the suggestion that the
International Institute should be more closely linked with the
League of Nations, the opportunity for amendment has occurred and
in fact preliminary Conversations between the Secretary-General of
the League [4], the President of the International Institute [5]
Chairman of the Economic Consultative Committees have been
inaugurated.

(5) These series of facts give a special significance to the
General Assembly of the International Institute, which will be
held in Rome from October 10th to 16th.

(6) In the past, Australia has been content with representation by
the British Delegation at the General Assembly. Canada and India,
however, have invariably had separate representation.

(7) Although I should hesitate to recommend, and in fact do not
recommend, that as a rule Australia should have separate
representation at the General Assembly of the International
Institute, the arguments put forward by Salter, Hall and Chapman
have convinced me that it is desirable, on this occasion, that
Australia should be represented in order that the British Empire
may bring to bear an effective voice on the future of the
International Institute.

(8) I therefore suggest that, on the receipt of this letter, you
should consider whether it is not desirable that I should, on this
occasion, attend the General Assembly of the International
Institute of. Agriculture as the Australian representative.

I make this recommendation with very considerable reluctance and
only do so because I feel that it is really of very great
importance to Australia and to the agriculture of the Empire
generally that there should be a really effective source from
which comparable information of an International character may be
drawn. The reforms which the British Empire Delegates, probably in
unison with the United States of America, will press for are:-

(a) the appointment of a man of outstanding ability as Secretary-
General of the Institute.

(b) the abandonment of control by a permanent Committee whose
members must be permanently resident in Rome and the substitution
of an Executive to meet not more frequently than once a quarter,
whose members shall be persons actively interested in agricultural
questions.

It is felt by the Authorities with whom I have consulted that, if
these two reforms can be achieved, the Institute can be made to
function in a way which will definitely be useful to those parts
of the Empire and of the World which are predominantly interested
in agriculture.

With reference to the work of the Assembly of the League of
Nations in connection with economic matters, I have advised
Senator McLachlan [7] that it is not necessary for me to go to
Geneva and that I will prepare a brief for the representative of
the Commonwealth Government on the Second and on the Fourth
Committees of the Assembly in regard to the work of the Economic
Organisation.

After a conversation with Senator McLachlan on this subject, I
have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary for me to
worry you with a cable in reference to the work.

Yours sincerely,
F. L. MCDOUGALL