Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Senator SMITH. Mr. Delaney, I guess you have read both of these resolutions.

Mr. DELANEY. I have read Resolution 1.

Senator SMITH. Have you read Resolution 43?

Mr. DELANEY. No, sir, because I have had no particular reference in my remarks to Resolution 43.

Senator SMITH. Having in mind that all of us are interested in what is best for all America and that we should not any of us wish to do anything that is going to hurt the great body of Americans, I want to read to you the joint resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 43, to see whether or not you think this is any improvement or would be better than the original plan.

Mr. DELANEY. I wonder if I might have a copy so that I can follow you. It might be a little easier for me.

Senator SMITH. It seems to me it is a little simpler than Senate Joint Resolution 1. You will notice at the bottom section, 1:

A provision of a treaty which conflicts with any provision of this constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

I assume from what you say and your appreciation of the United States Constitution that you quite agree that a treaty provision which conflicts with the Constitution ought not to have any effect. Is that a fair statement of the way you feel about it? In other words, the Constitution should be——

Mr. DELANEY. Upheld.
Senator SMITH. Yes.

Mr. DELANEY. Absolutely.

Senator SMITH. The next sentence at the top of page 2:

A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

Mr. DELANEY. I would have to say, Senator Smith, if you will excuse me, that I would not be prepared or authorized to make a reply to that question since I would respectfully request an opportunity to have legal people reflect upon it. If it is so desired, I will be happy to supply the committee with a legal brief from the American Federation of Labor dealing with the question you ask.

Senator SMITH. Bearing on that point, if a convention was adopted by an international body and was attempted to be enforced as domestic law, do you see any objection in having that passed on by the Congress before it becomes operative on the life and rights of American citizens?

Mr. DELANEY. If I understand you correctly, if a convention was adopted, for example, by the International Labor Organization, and which in your opinion conflicted with the Constitution-first of all, if it conflicted with my opinion, I would vote against it at the conference. Secondly, I do not think that the President would send it forward for consideration for ratification. Thirdly, I do not think that the Senate itself or the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate in its consideration of such a convention or treaty would give a report favorable, nor do I think that the Senate of the. United States by two-thirds majority would ratify it or vote in favor of it.

Senator SMITH. We have had legislation where both House and Senate had concurred and the President had signed it, yet the Supreme Court said it was beyond the authority of the Congress to enact, and we might face the situation again. What I am pointing to is this:

You might vote against it because you might think it was detrimental to American citizens or to American labor, to be specific, and others might vote against it, but it might be adopted nevertheless. Do you not think that before such an enactment of that sort should come into effect as internal law that the Congress should first have to pass on it and would not that be protection to your very group?

Mr. DELANEY. Even, Senator, if the convention were adopted in the ILO, in which I had registered and the United States Government had registered and the United States employer, their dissent, if it then came up for consideration for ratification, we would then, as has been said at this table so often, use whatever pressures we had available to see to it that such a condition did not exist. I can nowhere in my experience find within the realm of the ILO where such a condition has ever existed or can I conceive of where it might.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Delaney, what happens to this whole structure of cooperation under those circumstances if 65 countries ratify and we do not?

Mr. DELANEY. I do not think, Senator, that it really has any bad reflection on the United States since it is understood in the ILO circles that the need for ratification is less in the United States since our standards are already so far ahead. I just do not think it reflects anything against the United States.

Senator DIRKSEN. What do you make of the foreword in the report of ILO in their annual report in 1950 in which Mr. Morse very kindly sets out that we must strive for universality, and somewhere along the line in the terminology he says we must bring nations to the bar of public opinion if they fail to do so.

Mr. DELANEY. I have now two things mixed up. It was not Director General David Morse who made such a statement.

Senator DIRKSEN. Who wrote the foreword to the report?

Mr. DELANEY. What you are referring to now is the question you have asked before this committee again if I understand correctly, and that is that the Director General made reference to the fact that the International Labor Organization was a parliamentary body. Now, if you do not mind, I would like for the record, Senator, to give you the exact quote of the Director General so that it can clear up the confusion that exists.

Senator SMITH. That is Mr. Morse?

Mr. DELANEY. Yes, sir. I am putting in just this statement. Senator DIRKSEN. Put in all those statements that have a bearing on it because I shall put them in if you do not.

Mr. DELANEY. I will be very happy to do so.

Senator, I might add, and I think it would be useful to add here, this was in the Director General's report to the Congress. At the time in his annual report he did refer and use the term "international parliament" in the context, that is true. But he was doing it for a purpose and that purpose was designed to meet in a large degree the United States influence and position rather within the ILO. It has been the design of the United States to direct the affairs of the ILO as much as it could influence them in the field of operations. So that is the context, out of that sort of speech that that term was picked. And I submit it to the committee.

Senator DIRKSEN. It is not important whether the ILO is a parliamentary body or not. You will agree it has authority to draft and

submit conventions.

Mr. DELANEY. That is right.

Senator DIRKSEN. You will agree they have drafted 103 conventions. Mr. DELANEY. Yes.

Senator DIRKSEN. All those have been submitted to either one nation or another and I suppose many of them have been submitted to us, that is, to the country, and some of them have been submitted to the Congress.

Mr. DELANEY. That is right.

Senator DIRKSEN. Now, insofar as those will conflict with domestic law, have an impact upon the domestic law and the domestic rights of the country, would you not agree that that is something to the threat of the constitutional rights here?

Mr. DELANEY. From my experience and my judgment, Senator, I see nothing in any convention that has been adopted in my experience in the ILO that conflicts with the rights of the people, the domestic rights of the people of the United States. Had I seen any such evidence, I would have vigorously opposed it.

Senator DIRKSEN. What must be the attitude of all these other countries that go on ratifying these various things and say, “Look, we are getting no cooperation from the United States of America and they do have authority, however, to approve these, to submit them and get them approved by the Senate, if they want to but evidently they do not want to." Now, where do you go beyond that point?

Mr. DELANEY. Let me answer the first question because I am not a lawyer and I do not respond to questions as readily as speedily as you do. My association with other governments and employers and worker delegates from other governments both in conference and governing body, they are crying for leadership from the United States and they are looking up to the United States for the kind of leadership that will give progressive leadership to the forces that are crying, such as the people in Asia and throughout the Middle East that are trying to improve standards of their peoples and are subject now to the great fight that the Communists have put up and are putting up to win over their spirits and their minds. It is that sort of effective work that can be done and be accomplished within the framework of the ILO.

Senator DIRKSEN. In pursuing that leadership and in pursuing on the part of some certainly this one-world idea, it certainly should not mean that the one world should be the Old World instead of the New World and the progress we have made in America.

Mr. DELANEY. I agree.

Senator DIRKSEN. I do not see how you can go through all these representations, these conventions that have been made, without sensing there the desires that somehow impinge upon the domestic law and domestic rights of this country.

Mr. DELANEY. It has been said here in the few times I have been present since I returned from Geneva-I did happen to come in to listen to Mr. Dulles and I was here this morning-it has been said here so often that I hesitate to repeat it, I think like other witnesses that have spoken here, that if we at this stage in our responsibility to the world have no faith in our ability to resolve these problems as they come to us and if we do not have the faith in being able to maintain our Government and if we do not have the faith in the two-thirds majority

that is presently provided to deal with problems of this kind in the Senate, then I say certainly we will have lost all that we are talking about. There will be no reason for discussing issues of this kind.

Senator DIRKSEN. Our faith is in something inherently deeper than that, it is inscribed in marble across the Esplanade, that it is a Government of laws and not of men.

Mr. DELANEY. It takes the men to make the laws.

Senator DIRKSEN. That is the reason we have the Government today. Mr. DELANEY. It is the men who inspire the laws. It is the men who inspire the laws.

Senator DIRKSEN. But it is inscribed in hard truths so that the foibles and frailties of men will not throw it away somewhere along the line. That is the thing we are concerned about. I think that is the reason American labor has reached the high state it enjoys today, as a matter of fact.

Mr. DELANEY. Well, we appreciate your view on why we have reached the high state. We hope that we are able to reach even higher

state.

Senator DIRKSEN. We do, too.

Senator SMITH. Now, the next sentence I want to ask you about is this, because after all, we have to come to grips with the precise language that is presented to us:

Executive agreements shall be subject to regulation by the Congress and to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Now, do you think that executive agreements ought to be subject to regulation by Congress, where Congress can give consideration, where your group and other groups can appear before Congress and express their views, or do you think that the executive-I do not mean by that the present President, but the executive department-should have the right to enter into an executive agreement without any control or consideration by Congress? Do you think that would be good for your people or the people of America generally?

Mr. DELANEY. Senator, here again I would beg your indulgence, because that I think, as I have said so many times, is really the crux of your discussions and debates, and since so many eminent national lawyers have had contrary opinions here before this committee, certainly I as a layman would not feel competent to reply to that question. I again, however, will indicate to you that I will be happy to have our attorneys prepare in respect to the other question a statement.

Senator SMITH. Is it not the difference whether or not we shall have constitutional government and adoption of laws in constitutional government by due processes as we know them or whether we shall have a totalitarian government of the people by one man or one small group? Is that not the issue finally whether or not we shall allow executive agreements to go to the point of giving us in effect a totalitarian government or if we shall continue our protection of the citizens by constitutional process, which means enactment of laws by the people's elected representatives?

Mr. DELANEY. If, Senator Smith, executive agreements tend to direct our government toward any form of totalitarianism, then I would certainly agree with you.

Senator SMITH. And you are familiar undoubtedly with the history of the governments of the world that when executives are given too

much power, they have always tended toward a totalitarian regime. That has been true in all history, has it not?

Mr. DELANEY. It has been true in some instances of government that I know.

Senator SMITH. It is true in recent years and it has also been true in past history, has it not?

Mr. DELANEY. That is right.

Senator SMITH. You are just as much opposed to that sort of plan as we are?

Mr. DELANEY. As I have already indicated, I am opposed to any central form of government or government control in that manner. Senator SMITH. Senator Bricker, do you have any questions? Senator BRICKER. NO.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Delaney.

Mr. DELANEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SMITHEY. The subcommittee has received a statement from Secretary of Labor, Mr. Durkin, and since he also comments on the International Labor Organization, I think it might logically follow at this point in the record.

Senator SMITH. Without objection this statement will be placed in the record, and Mr. Durkin's statement will be put in the record following that.

(The statements follow:)

QUESTION AS TO DAVID MORSE CALLING THE ILO A WORLD PARLIAMENT

TAB: MORSE QUOTE "WORLD PARLIAMENT"

In Senator Bricker's statement before the subcommittee he said: "The ILO Conference is officially described as 'a world parliament for labor and social questions.'

[ocr errors]

Statements made by critics of the ILO have reference to a statement made by the Director General in his 1949 annual report in which he outlined his proposal for a new emphasis in the work of the ILO. What he was actually saying was that the work of the ILO in adopting desirable international standards (and thus, in a sense, serving as an "international parliament") had been its principal activity during its first 30 years, but that there now should be a new field of activity. He said:

"The office under the constant control and guidance of the governing body, and with the assistance of an increasing number of technical and regional bodies, has been growing toward its full stature as an international ministry, an executive organ that is the necessary complement of the conference as a deliberative organ. In the years preceding the war, the office also began to assist member governments in dealing with the practical problems of the preparation and administration of social policy and legislation, and developed the practice of sending advisory missions to governments at their request for this purpose. It is not unfair to say, however, that this function of the office, by the nature of the economic and social situation in which it found itself, was always secondary to the legislative work of the conference. Today the role of the organization as an international parliament has become generally accepted. In the last 30 years most countries have made rapid legislative progress in the social field. There is a broader understanding of legislative action. The International Labor Organization has left its mark in the parliaments of member states as it will continue to do in the future.

"However, today there are new states in being and on the horizon. There is a demand in these areas for industrialization, for increasing production, for a quickening in the pace of improving standards of living. There is a sense of urgency about getting the job done. There is a world demand for an intensification and expansion of the advisory work of the International Labor Organization as the complement of its legislative function. It is a demand for direct access to our reservoir of international experience in the labor field. It is a demand

« ÎnapoiContinuă »