International > Report by the committee on the work of its ... plenary session > Twenty first plenary session

2
Sub-Appendix: Page
Draft International Convention for the Protection of National Collections of Art and
History 47
The International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation held its twenty-first plenary
session from July 17th to 22nd, 1939, preceded as usual by a short session of the Executive
Committee on Saturday, July 15th.
The session was attended by the following:
(a) Members of the International Committee on Intellectual Co-operation:
Professor Gilbert A. Murray (Chairman), M. C. Bialobrzeski, M. Julio Dantas,
M. F. Garcia-Calder6n, Mile. E. Gleditsch, M. E. Herriot, M. B. Hrozny,
M. J. Huizinga, M. B. de Kerekjarto (replacing Count Paul Teleki), M. Li Yu Ying
(replacing M. Wu-Shi-Fee), M. M. Ozorio de Almeida, M. C. A. Pardo (replacing
Mme. V. Ocampo), M. M. Primanis, Sir Abdul Qadir, M. G. de Reynold, M. Taha
Hussein, M. N. Titulesco, Mr. G. F. Zook (replacing Mr. J. T. Shotwell).
(b) As members of the Executive Committee:
M. Julien Cain and Mr. Malcolm Davis.
(c) By special invitation:
M. Paul Valery, Chairman of the Permanent Committee on Arts and Letters.
(d) As representative of the Directors' Committee of the International Museums Office:
M. S. de Madariaga.
(e) For the International Labour Office:
M. A. Tixier, M. R. Boisnier and M. J. Artus.
(f) For the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation:
M. Henri Bonnet, Director; M. D. Secretan, Secretary-General.
(g) For the Secretariat of the League of Nations:
M. R. I. B. Skylstad, Director in Charge of Intellectual Co-operation Questions;
M. F. Vejarano, Member of Section.
The following officers were elected:
Chairman: Professor Gilbert Murray;
First Vice-Chairman: M. de Reynold;
Second Vice-Chairman: M. Huizinga.
M. de Reynold was again appointed Rapporteur.
Seven new members have been appointed since the last session, which means a material
modification in the composition of the Committee. This is now certainly better balanced as
regards the representation of continents and branches of intellectual activity. There has even been
a slight increase in the number of " scientists ”. This is due to the fact that previously there had
been a certain gain in favour of the humane sciences, whereas now, thanks to the recent agreement
with the scientific unions, the Committee's activities are making notable progress in the sphere
of the exact and experimental sciences.
The character of the twenty-first session was pre-eminently practical and most of the meetings
were conducted in a workmanlike atmosphere. According to the established tradition, the
Executive Committee had pruned the agenda as much as possible beforehand, so as to leave the
plenary Committee to deal only with the most important questions on which decisions had to be
taken. It had given the Institute the necessary authorisation to continue its current work.
This is not to say that general discussions, or " discussions of ideas ”, were absent. The
Committee would not be fulfilling its task if it made no attempt to rise above practical and
administrative questions. During meetings devoted to the examination of concrete problems,
general discussions bring the Committee back to the higher aims of intellectual co-operation.
They give an opportunity for divergent opinions and conflicting doctrines to be expressed and
contrasted with that unfailing courtesy, scientific impartiality and methodical approach which
characterise all the Committee’s debates. They are in the nature of soundings or excursions into
the contemporary world; they provide useful guidance for our work as a whole and sometimes
provide warnings worthy of more attention than they have received.
During the session, three debates of a general character referred first to " Conversations ”;
secondly, to students and university teaching; and thirdly, to civic instruction. In this connection,
it may be pointed out, experience has shown that frequently debates of this kind, even when