Mr. RHYNE. That is right, Senator. And I am also here to present to you some of the reasons why they adopted this policy. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Take all the time you want to. There is no hurry at all. Mr. HOLMAN. I might say that Mr. Rhyne very kindly said he would not accept any fee. He has been active in the American bar, interested in this general subject, and when the chairman asked me if I could suggest a lawyer with background, I suggested Mr. Rhyne, but he told them he would not appear for any fee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Holman. Proceed, Mr. Rhyne. Mr. RHYNE. Mr. Chairman, the declaration I referred to is as follows: TREATIES AND DOMESTIC LAW No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridges the Constitution of the United States should become effective unless such alteration or change is embodied in a constitutional amendment adopted and ratified in the manner provided in the Constitution for its amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Holman, is this the Watkins substitute? Mr. HOLMAN. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Your committee is trying to arrive at some compromise? Mr. HOLMAN. Oh, yes. I think we will arrive at it. We have practically arrived at it already. The CHAIRMAN. I wonder when we could file that? Mr. HOLMAN. Well, that is up to Senator Bricker. It is his resolution, and he could advise you on that. The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me for interrupting you. Mr. RHYNE (reading): No provision of a treaty or of an executive agreement that alters or abridges the rights protected by the laws of the United States or the constitutions or laws of the several States should become effective unless and then only to the extent that Congress shall so provide. That, of course, is the official authorization under which Mr. Hawes and Mr. McGrath have both appeared before this committee. This declaration was adopted unanimously by the 40th annual meeting of the United States Chamber of Commerce on April 30, 1952. That annual meeting was attended by representatives of 3,500 chambers of commerce and trade associations with a membership of approximately 1,374,000 businessmen. I am a member of the Board of Trade of the District of Columbia, which is one of the organizations represented in the chamber's membership. The unanimous action of the chamber's 40th annual meeting in adopting the above-quoted declaration of policy was taken upon the report and recommendation of a special committee which had been appointed by the chamber to study the effects of the treaty process on domestic law. Attached to this statement and marked as exhibit A is a list of the members of that special committee. I note that it is not attached, but I do submit it for the record, here. It is called Special Committee To Study the Effects of the Treaty Process on Domestic Laws. I wonder if that can be incorporated into the record at this point? The CHAIRMAN. It may be filed. (The material referred to follows:) SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF THE TREATY PROCESS ON DOMESTIC LAWS Cody Fowler, Esq., chairman, Fowler, White, Gillen, Yancey & Humkey, Citizens Building, Tampa 2, Fla. E. J. Carroll, director, Economic Research, Sharp & Dohme, Inc., 640 North Broad Street, Philadelphia 1, Pa. Dr. Edward S. Corwin, Princeton University, Old Stone House, Stockton Road, Princeton, N. J. Col. William S. Culbertson, Culbertson Briggs & Pendleton, Stoneleigh Court, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Washington 6, D. C. Hugh Dean, vice president, General Motors Corp., General Motors Building, Detroit, Mich. R. H. Glover, vice president and general counsel, Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 25 Broadway, New York 4, N. Y. Dr. John N. Hazard, professor of public law, the Russian Institute, Columbia University, 431 West 117th Street, New York 27, N. Y. William A. Hanley, vice president and director, Eli Lilly & Co., Post Office Box 618, Indianapolis 6, Ind. Frank E. Holman, Esq., Holman, Mickelwait, Marion, Prince & Black, Hoge Building, Seattle 4, Wash. A. D. Marshall, assistant secretary, General Electric Co., 1 River Road, Schenectady 5, N. Y. Arthur Y. Milam, Esq., Milam, McIlvaine, Carroll & Wattles, Post Office Box 58, Jacksonville 1, Fla. W. C. Mullendore, president, Southern California Edison Co,, Edison Building, Los Angeles 53, Calif. Dr. Leo Pasvolsky, director, International Studies Group, The Brookings Institution, 722 Jackson Place NW., Washington 6, D. C. Sylvester C. Smith, Jr., general counsel, Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 763 Broad Street, Newark, N. J. Samuel C. Waugh, president, The First Trust Co. of Lincoln, Nebr., Lincoln, Nebr. Mr. RHYNE. It will be noted that most of these members are na tionally recognized experts in the field of international law. I think you will find that it is composed of about 4 businessmen, 4 experts in the field of international law, and 4 lawyers. In reviewing the reasons why the members of the United States. Chamber of Commerce adopted the above quoted declaration of policy I report the following: The members of the United States Chamber of Commerce have watched with pride the great scientific achievements of recent yearssuch as the airplane, radio, and television-which have conquered the problems of distance and in a literal sense shrunk nations to neighborhoods. Coupled with their pride in these scientific achievements, howver, these members have experienced a growing alarm over the development, chiefly under the sponsorship of the United Nations and its specialized agencies of the idea that the distinction between domestic and international affairs has been wiped out. This alarm grew tremendously when nationwide attention was called to an official statement by the Department of State in 1950 that "there is no longer any real distinction between domestic and foreign affairs." (State Department Publication 3972, Foreign Affairs Policy Series 26.) The great effusion of treaties designed to solve many of our unsolved domestic problems-as well as to offer new solutions to those for which solutions have been devised domestically-has gradually brought home to the businessmen of the United States that while they have in the past looked for regulatory law relating to their businesses in local ordinances, State statutes, and Federal statutes, they now must focus their attention upon a fourth many-chambered legislative body, which is busy grinding out proposed "treaty" law. When our triplelayer governmental system has added to it this fourth branch the results can be startling in impact. The CHAIRMAN. Now, are you referring there to ILO, or to the United Nations? Mr. RHYNE. I am referringto the U. N. and its specialized agencies, which would include the ILO, the World Health Organization, and the other organizations which I mentioned a few pages on, Senator. Businessmen who have found difficulty in learning just what Federal regulations affect their business are even more baffled in trying to discover the provisions applicable to their business in the vast and uncharted field of treaty law. I understand that the approximately 100 conventions of the International Labor Organization will be described in other testimony which is to be presented to this committee. Those treaties or conventions cover a vast multitude of domestic subjects of vital concern to businessmen, such as wages and hours, labor clauses in public contracts, safety provisions in the building industry, social security, compulsory health insurance, and almost every other conceivable interest of business. Time permitting I could go into many other fields of vital concern to industry to point out things which alarm businessmen, but I will mention only two in the fields of aviation and copyright law. I believe they illustrate the dangers inherent in giving effect to treaties which override domestic law. The International Civil Aviation Organization which has its headquarters in Montreal is busy developing new conventions and in rewriting certain existing conventions which have domestic as well as international effect in the field of air transportation, and, of course, most of these relate solely to and are essential to foreign air commerce. But some have drastic domestic effects. I cite as examples the Warsaw Convention which limits recovery for death or personal injury caused by an airplane crash. In the case of the Warsaw Convention a person can board an airplane in Los Angeles bound for London along with 50 other persons who are going to New York and if the plane crashes, the 49 domestic passengers may recover an unlimited amount for negligent injury or their survivors an unlimited amount for their death, but the person bound for London-even though the crash occurs through the negligence of the airline as the plane takes off from the Los Angeles Airport-cannot recover more than the $8,291.87 for injury nor may his survivors recover more than that amount for his death. They can recover more by achieving the almost impossible task of proving "willful misconduct." I may say there, Senator, I have tried some of these Warsaw Convention cases. It is impossible for a jury to understand the instructions of nothing, $8,200 if the.airline is negligent, and an unlimited amount if willful misconduct is proved. I tried one of those down here a week or so before the late Justice Goldsborough, and the jury got all fouled up. When they came in with a compromise amount, that was set aside immediately, and they settled it. But the thing about it is that I know of 4,000 claims that have been filed under that convention, and only 2 in which you have received more than $8,200. I happened to have something to do with those 2 cases. The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to disturb a decision holding this convention is self-executing and in full effect as domestic law. Lee v. Pan American Airways (300 N. Y. 761, 89 N. E. (2d) 258; Cert. Den. 339 U. S. 920). The proposed Rome Convention provides that damage to persons and property on the earth's surface from crashes of airplanes on international flights would be limited drastically to limits ranging from $33,000 to $800,000, depending upon the weight of the aircraft. These amounts are so negligible as to be entirely unreasonable when one considers the possible total damage such an airplane could do. Some cities owning airports are up in arms against this proposed convention. They have airport buildings worth millions which are exposed to destruction by these aircraft, and $33,000 would not be even a meager start toward their reconstruction. Should such an airplane destroy a large factory or even a private home it is obvious that the limit is too low. True it is that the United States representatives have not yet signed this convention but the convention is complete and it is argued that the liability limits are high enough in foreign nations and the United States should not stand in the way of "progress" just because our standards of living and values are higher than in other countries. There is in the works a proposed Universal International Copyright Convention which may vitally affect copyrights in this country. Some believe it could destroy copyright rights created under our Federal law by relegating them to a subordinate status. There are basic differences in the protection accorded copyrights under the governmental systems of other nations and our own laws on this subject. I may say, there, Senator, it is chiefly this right of automatic copyright that you secure under the Berne Convention, which you don't secure under our conventions here unless you file and give notice. This work is being done by a committee under the sponsorship of the United Nations' Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization which is carrying on broad studies in the fields of education, science, and culture. And I would also like to say, since there has been some reference here to the possibility of protecting our domestic rights by reservations, that the official text of this Universal Copyright Convention, which was signed, I am informed, by our United States Convention last December, in article 20, contains the most startling language I have ever seen in any international convention, and I have examined many of them. It is this: "Reservations to this convention shall not be permitted." I don't think that there is another convention in existence where that particular language has ever been inserted, and of course, with that language there, all the talk about protecting ourselves through reservations goes out the window, because it is absolutely impossible. The CHAIRMAN. Would you make reference to that in the record, just where it can be found? Mr. RHYNE. I would be very glad to present this copy for the record, because I think it is a rather unique document in that regard. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. (The material referred to follows:) UNIVERSAL COPYRIGHT CONVENTION The Contracting States, Moved by the desire to assure in all countries copyright protection of literacy, scientific and artistic works, Convinced that a system of copyright protection appropriate to all nations of the world and expressed in a universal convention, additional to, and without impairing international systems already in force, will ensure respect for the rights of the individual and encourage the development of literature, the sciences and the arts, Persuaded that such a universal copyright system will facilitate a wider dissemination of works of the human mind and increase international understanding, Have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I Each Contracting State undertakes to provide for the adequate and effective protection of the rights of authors and other copyright proprietors in literary, scientific and artistic works, including writings, musical, dramatic and cine. matographic works, and paintings, engravings and sculture. ARTICLE II 1. Published works of nationals of any Contracting State and works first published in that State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to works of its nationals first published in its own territory. 2. Uupublished works of nationals of each Contracting State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to unpublished works of its own nationals. 3. For the purpose of this Convention any Contracting State may, by domestic legislation, assimilate to its own nationals any person domiciled in that State. ARTICLE III 1. Any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture or publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol accompanied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not preclude any Contracting State from requiring formalities or other conditions for the acquisition and enjoyment of copyright in respect of works first published in its territory or works of its nationals wherever published. 3. The provisions of paragraph 1 of this article shall not preclude any Contracting State from providing that a person seeking judicial relief must, in bringing the action, comply with procedural requirements, such as that the complainant must appear through domestic counsel or that the complainant must deposit with the court or an administrative office, or both, a copy of the work involved in the litigation; provided that failure to comply with such requirements shall not affect the validity of the copyright, nor shall any such requirement be imposed upon a national of another Contracting State if such requirement is not imposed on nationals of the State in which protection is claimed. 4. In each Contracting State there shall be legal means of protecting without formalities the unpublished works of nationals of other Contracting States. 5. If a Contracting State grants protection for more than one term of copyright and the first term is for a period longer than one of the minimum periods |