Tokyo, October 30, 1958

No.29
Dear Mr. President:
As I reported by cable Nos. MTB-031 of October 25, MTB-035 of October 27, and MTB-038 of October 28, respectively, the 5th meeting of the Sub-committee on Other Claims Regarding Korean Art Objects, the 10th meeting of the committee an Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan and the 17th meeting of the Sub-committee an Vessels were held at the Japanese Foreign Ministry, respectively as follows:
1.) The 5th meeting of the Sub-committee on Other Claims Regarding Korean Art Objects ...at 10 a.m.oct.25,1958
2. Th. 10th meeting of the Committee an Legal Status of Korean Residents In Japan .............. at 3 p.m.,Oct.27, 1958
3. The 17th meeting of the Sub-committee on Vessels ............. at 3 p.m.,Oct.28, 1958
I. Sub-committee on Other Claims Regarding Korean Art Object
The Japanese side told us it was with regret that it was unable to give a reply to our request regarding the submittance of a complete list of Korean art objects, pending the decision by the higher Government officals in this regard. It added that the delay on the part of the Japanese Government in making decision was caused by internal political situation. However, the Japanese side continued that it wanted to settle this problem with its sincerity.
Our side repeated its demand that Japanese reply should be given at the earliest possible date. Then, on the basis of Government cable instructions FTB-012, our side presented to the Sub-committee a (first) gist of Korean art objects to be returned to Korea. The gist contains around 1,000 art items, as reported to the Government by Mission's letter HANILDAE No.2156 of October 20, 1958.
In this connection, the Japanese side stated that it would study the gist of Korean art objects under reference and might put foreward questions on it from the next meeting. At the same time the Japanese side requested us to present all the gists of Korean art objects as soon as possible, stating that it would be necessary for the Japanese Government to have all the gists of art objects to be submitted by the Korean side in order to make an overall decision in this regard.
II. Committee on Legal Status of Korean Residents in Japan
At this meeting, the Japanese side made general comments regarding our proposal presented at the previous meeting to the effect that the Japanese side was disappointed in the content of the said proposal as it excluded the points which Japanese side had wanted to cover in it, when both sides drafted an agreement in 1952.
Countering the above Japanese remarks, our side stated that our proposal was a realistic and constructive draft for the settlement of the matter regarding Korean residents in Japan. The Japanese side, reserving its view an Articles 4 and 16 regarding property rights and occupations, for the reason that it needed consultation with Ministries concerned, put foreward questions on our proposal, as follaws:
Questions:
1. As to the wordings 'the necessity to affirm the nationality of Koreans in the Preamble of the proposal, the Japanese side thinks that it finds no reason for the Japanese side to agree to it in the form of an international agreement.
2. As to Article 1, the Japanese side wants to have wordings, 'including descendents of the said Koreans' deleted from the Article as it does not think the descendents of those Koreans are to be included in this agreement.
3. As to Paragraph 1, Article 2, the Japanese side does not consider it necessary to have the paragraph in this agreement with the same reason mentioned in the point 1 above.
4. Regarding Paragraph 2, Article 2, the Japanese side does not see the necessity of this paragraph as the matter is taken for granted under International Private Law as a Fait Accompli.
5. Concerning Paragraph 1, Article 3, if Korean residents are to apply individually for permanent residence, it would cost the Japanese side about ￥60 million as expensses for administrative procedural works, while there might be some Koreans who would not apply for Korean registrations certificate. Therefore, in this connection, the Japanese side wants to have a view of the Korean side.
6. As to Paragraph 2, Article 3, the Japanese side wants to know the ground under which the Korean side proposed that the deportation of Korean residents who may have been granted permission for permanent residence will be enforced only under consultation to be made case by case. In this connection, the Japanese side wants to have concrete Korean views on the Japanese proposal regarding deportation criteria presented previously.
7. The Japanese Government subsidizes ¥1.8 billion annually as livelihood assistance expenses for the Koreans in poverty. In this connection, the Japanese side wants to know the measures under consideration by the Korean Government to help them.
8. The Japanese side wants to know exact meaning of our reservation clause that 'the Korean side proposes Article 4 and 5 on the assumption that Korean residents in Japan could enjoy property rights and occupations which aliens in general are not entitled to enjoy, though there is a paragraph of 'at the time of the coming into force of the present agreement...'
Our side countered the above views in general terms. However, we reserved our right to make "detailed and point-by-point" reply thereto, pending the presentation by the Japanese side of its overall views regarding our proposal, including those on Articles 4 and 5 thereof (property rights and occupations for our people in Japan).
The Japanese side said that it would submit its views on Articles 4 and 5 regarding property rights and occupations at the next meeting, upon consultations with their Ministries concerned.
At this session of the committee, our side, bearing in mind item I, Annex II of Government instructions WOIJONG, No.3554 dated September 18, 1958, centered our efforts to sound out the real Japanese Intentions as to the problem of Korean residents in Japan. Thus, our delegation calmly put forward leading questions with a view to having the Japanese express what they have in their mind without reservation. In fact, as will be soon in the Gist of Talks concerned, there are many things which the Japanese side disclosed unconsciously in regard to what the Japanese side has in its mind.
This delegation is now carefully studying on our arguments which could most effectively counter Japanese views at the next meeting. And we are going to counter the so-called Japanese views, upon our success in pulling out the real Japanese intentions as to our proposal including property rights and occupations for our people in Japan. Therefore, instructions of the Government on the points upon which particular emphasis should be placed in the course of the discussions regarding the above Japanese questions would be highly appreciated.
III. Sub-committee an Vessels
At this meeting the Japanese side entertained so-called legal argument to the effect that SCAPIN 2168 had been invalidated by the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Our side countered the Japanese argument in this regard by giving full explanation on the legal basis of our claims under Agenda "A", based on SCAPIN 2168, USAMGIK Ordinance No.33 and Article 4 00 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. After repeatedly making our position clear to the Japanese side in this regard, our side demanded that the Sub-committee should enter into discussions on substance of Agenda "A" without spending say more time for abstract arguments.
In the light of the above and inasmuch as the Japanese side is delaying the submittance of the list we requested, it is the view of this delegation that it would be better for our side to submit a complete list of vessels falling within the scope of Agenda "A" at the next meeting with a view to expediting the proceeding of this Sub-committee. Government instructions in this regard would be highly appreciated.
With the sentiment of loyalty and esteem, I remain,

Most respectfully,
Ben C. Limb