Senator DIRKSEN. I am just curious as to why you put it in there. If it is to impeach the credibility and character of Mr. McCormick, then it is in bad taste and out of place, because certainly our friend from Cincinnati did not reflect upon the integrity or character of anybody else.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like the letter read to this committee from Mr. McCormick:

Mr. SMITHEY (reading):

DEAR SENATOR LANGER: As a citizen and voter, I am convinced that an appropriate constitutional amendment should be passed to protect American rights and American independence from being undermined and engulfed by the vast body of proposed treaty law affecting our internal social, business, and economic affairs. Please permit me to register my reasons for supporting the Bricker amendment.

During the past 4 years, under Presidential appointment, I have been the United States employer delegate to the International Labor Organization con'ferences in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO, as you well know, is the only remaining agency of the original League of Nations. Under our current international setup, the ILO is an affiliate of the United Nations.

The primary purpose of the ILO is to deal with social and labor legislation on a worldwide basis, and it has been enlarging its activities and encroaching upon fields which were not intended under its original bylaws. It is my sincere belief that, because of its present setup and the manner in which representatives are chosen to speak for our country, that it has become a serious threat to many of our national domestic policies.

During the 4 years I attended these conferences, the employers of our Nation were outvoted on each and every occasion on a 3-to-1 basis-1 vote for labor and 2 for Government.

The thinking emanating from these conferences has been predominantly socialistic and prounion, in view of the fact that unorganized labor has not been adequately represented.

I urge you to read the testimony presented by Mr. William L. McGrath, president of the Williamson Heater Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee which is considering the Bricker amendment. Mr. McGrath served as vice chairman of the employer delegation to the ILO for 3 of the last 4 years. You will find in his testimony details clearly outlined as to why we employer delegates are concerned with the infiltration of legislation contrary to our American way of life in the form of conventions which have the same effect as a treaty.

During my tenure of service as the employer delegate a convention was brought before the conference which, if ratified by the United States, would have outlawed the Taft-Hartley Act and forced a closed shop upon us. This is only ore of the numerous proposed conventions which are entirely foreign to our American viewpoint. I can think of nothing more un-American or more unconstitutional than an insidious effort to force upon our people legislation conceived and generated by minds unfamiliar with and unfriendly to the free competitive enterprise system. And it is my belief that this can be done under the guise of social or labor reform unless machinery is set up to guard against it by a measure such as the Senator Bricker proposal. I remind you that all of us would like to know what happened at Yalta.

As United States employers, we are in favor of the nations of the world mak ing laws to fit the needs of their own country and their own people but we are strongly opposed to any possibility of introducing legislation into our economy when it is entirely contrary to our American way of life.

I am convinced of the need for an appropriate constitutional amendment to protect American liberty and American independence from being undermined by treaty law emanating from international meetings.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES P. McCormick.

Senator DIRKSEN. I have no controversy with Mr. Faupl. I just resent the old technique of using somebody as a whipping boy on a personal basis when it does not go to the controversy that is involved here.

Whether Mr. McCormick made any contact in the world that furthered the trade relations of his company should have no bearing here. What is more, that item in the statement should not be left to stand alone to impeach his credibility or seemingly his character and make it appear that in his public international service he was only selfish about it.

Mr. FARPL. I have nothing further to say on that point. I would like to make a concluding statement, if I may.

One of the strongest supporters and founders of the ILO was Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor. No man has ever successfully challenged the loyalty and devotion of Samuel Gompers to the American institution. The ILO today is the same institution it was during Mr. Gompers' lifetime and his participation in its activities.

Mr. Gompers' worthy successors, President Green and President Meany, have wholeheartedly supported the activities of the ILO. I wish to join them in behalf of the International Association of Machinists in supporting the ILO in its activities in opposing

The CHAIRMAN. When was the last time Mr. Gompers attended a meeting of the ILO?

Mr. FAUPL. To the best of my recollection, in 1923, sir.
Senator DIRKSEN. Have you finished?

Mr. FAUPL. Yes, sir.

Senator DIRKSEN. I was only going to say that I think Sam Gompers was a great character and a great labor leader, and when he and Mr. Stresser finally organized the American Federation of Labor their concepts were a little different from what the concepts are today. They made every effort to keep it out of politics and keep all political considerations out.

Mr. FAUPL. I am finished, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITHEY. May I ask the witness a few questions before he is excused?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SMITHEY. Would you explain to the committee how the delegates to the ILO representing the labor unions are chosen?

Mr. FAUPL. To the best of my knowledge the recommendations are made by the American Federation of Labor to the Department of Labor and the President, and from there on the appointments are made. I had been recommended by the American Federation of Labor to the 1951 Congress.

Mr. SMITHEY. Had you attended any prior to that time or any since?

Mr. FAUPL. No. I have subsequently attended the 1952 conference in an advisory capacity to the secretary-general of the International Metalworkers Federation and also attended, last December, as one of the American labor representatives on the productivity conference. Mr. SMITHEY. Would you tell the comittee whether there has been any formal action taken by the International Association of Machinists on the resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 1?

Mr. FAUPL. By formal action you mean what?

Mr. SMITHEY. By resolution of the convention of the International Association of Machinists.

Mr. FAUPL. Not by convention but by authorization of the international president who speaks for the membership between conventions under the constitution of the IMM.

Mr. SMITHEY. He is permitted under their constitution to speak for the union in matters not decided by the union at its convention? Mr. FAUPL. That is right.

Senator DIRKSEN. In other words, the international president, notwithstanding what the ideas, notions, and viewpoints of the membership are, can pledge them for or against this legislation?

Mr. FAUPL. He is authorized to speak for the membership during conventions by constitutional provision.

Senator DIRKSEN. Of course we have a right to consider that as one man speaking rather than the membership speaking, unless the matter has been considered in convention.

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Faupl, you heard me read from the letter of Mr. McCormick in which he made the allegation that one of the conventions which was brought before the conference would, if ratified by the United States, have outlawed the Taft-Hartley Act and forced a closed shop upon us.

Are you familiar with that convention? I presume he refers to Convention No. 87.

Mr. FAUPL. I am somewhat familiar and, of course, I cannot concur in Mr. McCormick's conclusions, because there are a number of countries which already have ratified that convention, and to the best of my recollection they are Sweden, Great Britain, and 1 or 2 other countries who do not have a closed shop in spite of the fact they have ratified that convention.

Mr. SMITHEY. It was not then the design of the labor delegates in supporting this convention at the ILO to secure the repeal of the TaftHartley Act by treaty.

Mr. FAUPL. Not to my recollection. The Taft-Hartley Act, or any of its provisions, never came under discussion in that resolution by the labor group.

Mr. SMITHEY. How about the Government delegates?

Mr. FAUPL. We have, of course, only had occasional contacts with them.

Mr. SMITHEY. So you have no knowledge whether they discussed it or not?

Mr. FAUPL. That is right, sir. I have no knowledge.

Mr. SMITHEY. On page 3 of your testimony where you referred to safety provisions in the building industry and mentioned several other conventions which have been adopted by the ILO and submitted to the assemblies of the constituent members, you point out we have several of these things already in the United States. I ask you is this really the point? Is not the point really whether they are proper subjects of international agreement?

Mr. FAUPL. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. They deal with labor standards and labor conditions. We have adopted, as I have pointed out in my presentation, such standards by legislation, by collective bargaining, or a combination of both.

Mr. SMITHEY. You mention in the list of conventions one dealing with government benefits for maternity. I have before me a copy, No. 25, the provisional record, 35th session, in Geneva, Switzerland, of the

International Labor Conference. In that document at page VIII, article V, it says:

If a woman is nursing her child, she shall be entitled to interrupt her work for this purpose at a time or times prescribed by national laws or regulations. Interruptions of work for the purpose of nursing are to be counted as working hours and remunerated accordingly.

Do we have anything similar to that in the United States?
Mr. FAUPL. Not that I know of.

Mr. SMITHEY. Then when you made that comment in your statement you were not referring to that particular article of that convention? Mr. FAUPL. Not as submitted by the convention exactly. I said some or all of these items we have established by legislation or collective bargaining.

Mr. SMITHEY. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The vote over there is almost always 3 to 1? Mr. FAUPL. I participated in a conference in December and out of approximately 40 votes cast, there were only 2 opposing votes.

The CHAIRMAN. I am referring to the American delegation. Did Mr. McGrath vote with the other three subsequently? If so, how

often?

Mr. FAUPL. That I would not know.

The CHAIRMAN. Or Mr. McCormick?

Mr. FAUPL. In the working group I participated in a number of times we were unanimous.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the working group include the employers? Mr. FAUPL. Yes. I was there like Mr. McGrath as an adviser and not a delegate. Naturally we do not participate in the plenary session unless we are designated by the delegate.

The CHAIRMAN. I take it you are four square against the Bricker resolution?

Mr. FAUPL. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Thank you.

Call the next witness.

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. George Washington Williams.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY,
BALTIMORE, MD.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Senator DIRKSEN. Mr. Williams, where do you live?
Mr. WILLIAMS: In Baltimore, Md., 231 St. Paul Place.

Senator DIRKSEN. What is your business?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am a lawyer, and may I say I am a member of the Baltimore and Maryland Bar Associations, and of course I am a member of the American Bar Association and am now and have been for several years a member of one of the international law committees of the American Bar Association.

I have held some local political offices and was for a time United States district judge for the Virgin Islands. I have had a general practice and from my youth I have been very much interested in public affairs and Federal, international, as well as local affairs.

I was for some little time an instructor in constitutional law in one of the local law schools. I would say I am very intensely interested

in preserving our institutions, in their pristine form as far as possible. I have been some 9 or 10 generations in the same neighborhood which ought to indicate that I have a deep, abiding interest in the community. I have a deep-rooted interest in the country. I think I have had some people scalped in the process of laying the foundations of it.

Senator DIRKSEN. Do you appear as an individual or as a representative?

Mr. WILLIAMS. As an individual, but I know some of the organizations I am associated with would fully agree with me, although I am not authorized to speak for anybody except myself, which grows out of my intense interest in the preservation of our institutions.

Mr. SMITHEY. Are you a member of the section on international and comparative law of the American Bar Association?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No. It is the peaceful settlements section.

I would like to address myself first, with a good deal of diffidence, to the word arrangement of this proposed treaty and in some respects the composition.

Senator DIRKSEN. We might say, if you are not already informed, that there has been some discussion about composition, about the verbiage that is used there, the conflict between drafts that have been submitted by the American Bar, by Senator Bricker, a resolution by Senator Watkins. So that we proceed on the theory that this is not necessarily in final form and that it may have to be recomposed.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, sir. I rather assumed that. I assume that the subcommittee wants it to go in in lawyerlike fashion as near as possible.

As to the first section I would suggest that you might add after the word "Constitution" and before the word "shall" the words "or eliminates or qualifies any prohibition therein.”

Senator DIRKSEN. Where are you in your statement?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not using a statement.

Mr. SMITHEY. Would you like to have your statement submitted and included?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will do so at the end of my statement.
Senator DIRKSEN. Section 1?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would add to that section at the end of the word "Constitution" the following words: "or eliminates or qualifies any prohibition therein."

Senator DIRKSEN. Then you continue "shall not be of any force or effect."

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

As to the second section I notice that the word arrangement is not the same as in section 4. I think in legal papers they should conform as nearly as possible.

In the second section you refer to "foreign power" and "international organization" and in your fourth section you refer to "international organization, foreign power" which twists them around and it does not look good in a legal paper.

In section 4 you add the words after "foreign power" "or official thereof." I can see no reason for those words being in section 4 any more than being in section 2. I think they should be in section 2 along the same line as in section 4.