Tokyo, May 26, 1958

No.08
Dear Mr. President:
As previously reported by cable, the first meetings of the Committees on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan and on Korean Claims were held on May 19 and 20, respectively. As instructed by cable No FT-060 of May 18, from the Foreign Minister, at these meetings only the introduction of members of respective delegation was made.
At 10:30a.m. today the second session of the Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan was held at the Japanese Foreign Office. In accordance with the last sentence of Paragraph 1. of Item concerning "Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan" in the Government instructions, Woijung No.1851 of May 21, our side proposed to confirm that the following items be discussed and settled, item by item, on the basis of the terms agreed at the conclusion of the preliminary talks on December 31, 1957, although the order of discussion might be decided upon later on, namely:
1. Status and Treatment of Korean Residents.
a. Status of Korean Residents in Japan
b. Property rights acquired by Korean Residents
c. Property to be taken by repatriating Koreans
(in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreed Minutes)
2. Arrangements for the acceptance of deportees (Annexed Understanding). Problem of "deportation of entrants" will be included (Article 2 of the Agreed Minutes) Inasmuch as our proposal on the subjects of discussion was made on the basis of the agreed terms on Dec. 31, 1957, the Japanese side can hardly find reasons for refusing it. It seems to me appropriate for our side to decide on which one of the above items of discussion be given priority in actual discussion at the committee sessions therefore, I would highly appreciate if the Government instructions be given me in this regard before the third Committee session scheduled for Monday, June 2.
The Japanese side, then referring to the joint draft agreement on Korean Residents, prepared at the previous (1952) conference, stated that it favored discussing the problems on Korean Residents all over again, as it saw there was no complete agreement on the matter at that time and sometimes only ambiguous expressions were used in the draft agreement, in case matters were controversial.
Judging from the Japanese remarks, it is obvious that the Japanese side does not believe the contents of the 1952 joint draft agreement are in its favor.
It is the observation of our delegation that there are several points in the said draft agreement (of 1952) which are in our favor and, therefore, it is more to our advantage to uphold these points in the course of future discussion at the Committee, for instance Article 3, Item 1 (of the joint draft agreement) concerning permanent residence of our residents, Article 4, item I regarding their property rights, Article 5 on the privileges in their occupations and also Article 6 Items 1 and 2 concerning property to be taken by repatriating residents (the time limit in the draft agreement, of course, will have to be re-examined accordingly).
I would highly appreciate Your Excellency's guidance in this regard.
With sentiments of loyalty and esteem, I remain,

Most respectfully,
Ben C. Limb