the chief divergences between the drafts presented to the
Conference are revealed. The decision of the Council of
Foreign Ministers says that "legislative and executive author-
ity shall he established on democratic lines including -uni-
versal suffrage." This clearly specifies in whom legislative
and executive authority in- Trieste is to be vested. It follows
from the decision that this authority must be in- the hands
of the people of Triesle, and that it must be organized on
democratic lines.
This decision also lays down the position lo be occupied
by the Governor of Trieste. It states that "the Governor
shall be appointed by the Security -Council after consultation
with Yugoslavia and Italy." And further that "annual reports
shall be submitted by the Governor to the Security Council."
Thus the position of the Governor is also defined with per-
fect precision.
Yet, in the draft of the British delegation, the entire au-
thority is vested in the Governor. Such, too, is the tenor of
the American draft, and to a considerable extent of the
French draft. To justify this, all sorts of arguments are ad-
duced concerning the tense political situation in Trieste. It
is declared that democratic self-government should not be
introduced there as yet, that the establishment of demo-
cratic principles in this territory should be postponed to the
future. Contrary to the decision of the Council of Foreign
Ministers, the British, American and French drafts demand
that the master in Trieste shall be the Governor. That is one
political line.
The question arises, what exactly would be the Govern-
or's powers in Trieste from this point of view?
The British draft dwells in detail on these powers. It
states that the Government Council shall consist of the
Governor, as Chairman, the Deputy Governor, the Director
of the Free Port Administration, and three persons appoinl-
175