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.'"

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 see ondary 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 deman 1 for an intens bration 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

for training, technique, assistance, and advice, for modern methods of labor protection, organization, and regulation, for work in the field, and in these areas, so that the experience of this great organization may be made immediately and practically available for the solution of the many problems with which social and economic pioneers are normally confronted. It is our great opportunity that people everywhere may now have the full advantage of the years of experience which the International Labor Organization has accumulated. It is an additional force which the organization must now unloose with vigor, and which will serve as an additional and powerful implement in accelerating the achievement of its essential purposes. The direct assistance to be given to lessdeveloped countries in developing their productive capacity in accordance with modern and scientific ideas in respect of employment and conditions of work is a direct challenge to the International Labor Organization which, if fully accepted, must inevitably impose fresh executive, technical, and regional tasks upon the International Labor Office. This is the new emphasis which I am proposing in ILO policy and which I wish to put before the Conference for discussion and debate."

STATEMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF LABOR MARTIN P. DURKIN CONCERNING SENATE JOINT RESOLUTIONS 1, 2, AND 43

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the committee for this opportunity to present my views concerning Senate Joint Resolutions 1, 2, and 43. This statement will be confined to the possible effect of these resolutions on the areas in which the Department of Labor has a special interest-namely, the International Labor Organization and migrant labor agreements. While the Department also has an interest in certain other aspects of our international activities and in the work of the United Nations and its specialized agencies in addition to the ILO, no attempt will be made to discuss those areas in this statement.

Before reviewing the provisions of the three resolutions I wish to discuss briefly what I consider to be the reasons why our membership in the International Labor Organization, and our participation in its work, are desirable.

INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION

The purpose of the ILO is to further among the nations of the world programs to improve the working and living standards of wage earners and their dependents. The organization was formed to achieve such objectives as a minimum living wage and decent working conditions, greater safety on the job, adequate child-labor protection, proper facilities for training workers, and improving their opportunities for profitable employment. It is self-evident that these objectives of the ILO are identical with the objectives of the United States both a home and abroad. They are basic to our foreign policy. I know of no one in the United States who has any quarrel with the ILO insofar as its goal is concerned. The disagreement about the work of the organization centers around method. Before discussing the nature of that disagreement, however, I would like to point to another way in which our membership in the ILO assists in the achievement of our overall foreign policy objectives. The ILO supplies the United States with the only international forum in which are represented not only governments but labor and management from 66 countries of the world. Clearly, the opportunity for our Government, employer, and labor representatives to further good will for, and understanding of, the United States among the leaders of labor and management of other countries is a valuable one.

The ways in which the ILO works to achieve its goal are several. At its annual conferences it adopts instruments stating desirable standards in various fields affecting the working people of the world. Those standards may be adopted in the form of conventions which are, of course, draft multilateral treaties open to ratification, or in the form of recommendations and resolutions which are not open to ratification. The ILO also convenes periodically a number of so-called industrial committees which are tripartite in nature, and which consider problems peculiar to, or of importance in, particular industries, such as textiles or petroleum. Finally, the ILO has an extensive program of research and technical assistance.

So far as ILO activities may be affected, I am primarily concerned by the provisions of section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. This section would forbid the negotiation of any treaty authorizing or permitting a foreign power or

international organization to "supervise, control or adjudicate" rights of our citizens within the United States as enumerated by the Constitution or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.

The supposed threat arising out of United States participation in the ILO at which this section of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is directed seemingly lies in its adoption of conventions. The contention is that the ILO has no business drafting treaties on purely domestic problems. In order to evaluate that contention. it is necessary to determine what is meant by "domestic," under section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1.

What definition the courts would give to the word "domestic" as used in the resolution, I cannot, of course, say. However, whether it be in technical assistance or in the adoption of recommended standards, the objective of the ILO to help raise the standards of life and work of people throughout the world cannot be pursued unless the ILO concerns itself with matters which might be held to be essentially domestic. The improvement of working and living conditions is necessarily a matter for domestic action. Indeed, this fact does not contradict. but forms the basis of ILO activities. Because of the very fact that recommended ILO standards do involve matters which are in the field of domestic action, each country is left entirely free to take whatever action, if any, it considers desirable with respect to such standards. ILO conventions and recommendations are not imposed on member states; they are implemented only insofar as each member country freely elects to act upon them. Even were a convention adopted by the ILO and ratified by all 65 other member nations, nevertheless the convention coud never become effective as to the United States unless and until we should voluntarily ratify it.

Minimum wages are cited as an example of a domestic problem, but it is a domestic problem which has worldwide impact. The wages paid in Japan, in Italy, in every country of the world, are a subject of interest to the United States for two reasons: First, as we in this country have recognized, a minimum wage law is a method of raising the minimum standards of living of our working population. The raising of these standards in other countries of the world is one of the best protections we have against the spread of communism. Secondly, the wages paid in other countries are of interest to the people of the United States because the goods produced by the people who are paid these wages com pete in our own markets and in world markets with United States goods.

I do not say that any nation has a right to tell any other nation what minimum wage it should pay. In this connection I wish to reemphasize the point that no member of the ILO has any obligation to ratify an ILO convention. I do say. however, that for a group of nations to agree to consider the observance of certain standards of wages and to provide machinery through which those countries wishing to do so may ratify a treaty to that effect, is a legitimate and worthwhile procedure.

An ILO convention dealing with minimum wages, however, would not be considered or acted upon as a treaty in the United States. Since it would fall in part within the jurisdiction of the several States, it would be referred to the Congress, and to the several Sates, for such consideration in their respective domestic jurisdiction as they might wish to give it. I will discuss the provisions of the ILO constitution, which establish this procedure, later in my statement. Our labor standards are among the highest in the world. Any closing of the gap between our standards and those existing over a large part of the world is to our advantage. It would not be in our interests to withdraw (as might be required by sec. 2 of S. J. Res. 1) from an organization which enables us to participate in the formulation of recommended standards which are to be considered by the 65 other member countries of the world. And the fact that we. too, along with them, must consider whether or not we wish to take any domestic action with respect to the subjects included in these suggested standards certainly is not a sufficiently valid reason to forego the advantages of participating in this organization.

The United States has ratified three substantive conventions which are now in force, dealing with standards of competency for officers on sen201′′g ships, liability of a shipowner in the event of sickness or injury of a seaman and the minimum age for admission to employment at sea. Last spring the Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratification of four other conventions, all dealing with maritime matters. Certain of those conventions provide that they will not come into force until a minimum number of rat finetions from the leading maritime nations of the world have been secured. Such

a matter as the minimum age requirement which another nation imposes for employment on its ships is clearly a matter of domestic concern to that nation. At the same time, the equalization of competitive conditions in the maritime industry throughout the world is of concern to the United States. As the Supreme Court said in the case of Warren v. United States (340 U. S. 523), "The aim (of the convention dealing with shipowner's liability) indeed was not to change materially American standards, but to equalize operating costs by raising the standards of member nations to the American level." While I am on that point perhaps I should clarify the nature of that case, since it was referred to in testimony by a witness before this subcommittee, and the committee may have received the impression that the case was decided on the basis of the ILO convention and that the employer would not have been held liable in the absence of the convention. Factually, the case was an action for maintenance and cure by an injured seaman. The court held that the convention effected no change in, and was merely declaratory of, our preexisting maritime law.

There is a final consideration as to the effect of section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1. Although the ILO procedures carry no effective power to enforce a decision that a member is failing to carry out its obligations, nevertheless the language of the section might well have the unfortunate effect of requiring the United States to terminate membership in the ILO. This could conceivably arise from the effect of the prohibition against treaties authorizing an international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. Actually the ILO can impose no legally enforceable sanctions or remedies upon a nation which fails to secure effective observance within its jurisdiction of any convention which it has ratified. Procedures relating to complaints of noncompliance with a ratified convention are found in articles 24 through 34 of the ILO constitution. They provide for (1) an investigation by a commission of inquiry if appointed in the discretion of the governing body of the ILO; (2) publication and the consideration of the commission's report by the governing body; (3) voluntary submission, in the discretion of the member, of the recommendations of the commission to the International Court of Justice for final decision; and (4) submission, in the discretion of the governing body, of any unresolved matters arising from the commission's report to the conference with such recommendations as the governing body "may deem wise and expedient to secure compliance therewith."

Another area of possible application of a proposed constitutional amendment such as is contemplated by section 2 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 is in respect to the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, established by virtue of article 7 of the General Standing Orders of the ILO. This committee considers the measures taken by member nations to give effect to the provisions of conventions which they have ratified and submits reports thereof to the conference.

It seems to me that all of these procedures are at most designed to gather information and to bring to bear the influence of international opinion, but they fall far short of any real measure of supervision, control, or adjudication, Certainly they do not constitute any threat to our domestic institutions. Nevertheless, these provisions of Senate Joint Resolution 1 may force us to take the extreme action of abandoning a sound course of participation in international efforts which help to protect the high standard of living of our own workers by improving conditions of workers throughout the world.

Sections 1, 3, and 4 of Senate Joint Resolution 1 would not seem to have any substantial effect upon the ILO activities of the United States. Section 1 deprives treaty provisions of force or effect if they deny or abridge rights enumerated in the Constitution. As already explained no conventions are submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification if they would appear to have such an effect or would contain matters appropriate for State rather than Federal action.

Section 3 provides that treaties shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation.

This section appears to describe the policy which the executive branch of the Government has followed, at least in the recent past, with respect to ILO conventions. Further, most ILO conventions are non-self-executing and would require the enactment of legislation by the Congress if such legislation did not already exist. It is the policy of the Department of Labor to recommend that 80572-53-70

the President not ratify any ILO convention until, and unless, any requisite implementing legislation is enacted.

It has been pointed out by Senator Bricker that "there is very little in (ILO conventions) which conflicts with the Constitution, or which encroaches on States' rights." In that connection the ILO constitution has a special provision for nations with a federal system of government under which conventions and recommendations which are appropriate, in whole or in part, for action by the constituent States are not considered for ratification at all. This point should be emphasized. There is, in fact, no obligation on the United States to ratify any ILO convention even though it falls entirely within the Federal jurisdiction. Secondly, in respect to conventions which deal to any extent with matters under the jurisdiction of the States, there is no obligation even to consider them for ratification. This procedure has received the specific endorsement of the American Bar Association. In February 1952 the house of delegates adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the American Bar Association is of the opinion that the participation of the United States in international measures for the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be provided for within a framework similar to that of the International Labor Organization."

I think it worthwhile that the committee have before it the full text of a Joint report by the standing committee on peace and law through United Nations and the section of international and comparative law of the American Bar Association, upon whose recommendation the house of delegates adopted the foregoing resolution:

"Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the house of delegates at its meeting of September 1951, the standing committee on peace and law through United Nations and the section of international and comparative law have continued their joint and several study of constitutional aspects of international agreements.

"The names of the members of the standing committee are shown at the end of this report. The members of the Section Committee on Constitutional Aspects of International Agreements are Jacob M. Lashly, Ross L. Malone, Jr. William D. Mitchell, George M. Morris, Sylvester C. Smith, Jr., Charles W. Tillett, Harold E. Stassen (chairman until December 27, 1951), and Edgar Turlington (chairman since December 27, 1951).

"The joint report submitted by the standing committee and the section in September 1951 contained the following statement:

"It was agreed that if the subject of human rights and freedom in the world under the United Nations Charter is to be pressed in the current state of conflicting and confused ideologies, the best approach would be by way of the procedure followed by the International Labor Organization, rather than by way of legally binding multipartite treaties. The International Labor Organization proceeds in an advisory way formulating standards which are embodied in reeommendtions for legislative action by the members of the organization or in conventions for ratifications in the usual course, except as specifically provided with respect to Federal States which, where an international labor organization convention is wholly or partly within the sphere of State action, have the duty to make effective arrangements for reference of the convention to the proper Federal or State authorities for the enactment of legislation or other action, and to report from time to time what has been done.'

"The House was not requested to take any action on the basis of that statement. The committee and the section consider it appropriate that approval of the agreement indicated in the statement be expressed by the House in the resolution recommended above.

"Respectfully submitted.

"Committee on Peace and Law Through United Nations: Eberhard P. Deutsch, George A. Finch, Vermont Hatch, Orie L. Phillips, Frank B. Ober, Carl E. Rix, vice chairman, Alfred J. Schweppe, chairman. Section of International and Comparative Law: Lyman M. Tondel, Jr., chairman, Wilder Lucas, secretary, Edgar Turungton, section delegate."

While I am discussing the ILO constitution, I would like to clear up a possible misconception. It has been asserted that in 1934 when the United States first became a member of the ILO, the United States was not bound by convention procedure, that the Congress at the time the original resolution was passed took the precaution to insure that ILO conventions would be considered as recom