have a witness here who will be prepared to give answers on all questions affecting that particular matter. I may say there are some 170 various conventions that have been drafted since we became parties to the International Labor Organization. Of those, just five have become treaties of the United States, all having to do with conditions of labor on board ships.

Mr. SMITHEY. Maritime conventions.

Mr. PHLEGER. Maritime conventions.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is going to be that representative of Labor who is going to appear here?

Mr. PHLEGER. Maybe I misspoke myself. They are going to file a statement dealing with the International Labor Office and its functions and what has been done, the number of treaties, the number of conventions, and all about it.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not going to ask for additional time. They are going to get it in this week.

Mr. PHLEGER. That is right. It is due for filing and arrangements have been made with the executive officer of your committee.

Mr. SMITHEY. I wanted to find out what extent the State Department participated in the formulation of these treaties so that the committee might be aware just what part the Department of State plays in the international relationships. These are treaties, these ILO conventions, or will be treaties which will have domestic effect. I would like to find out how far and to what extent the State Department participates in the formulation and adoption of those conventions.

Mr. PHLEGER. It is my understanding they do not participate at all. The negotiations of the ILO, International Labor Office, are conducted under the Department of Labor. There is a provision which has been implemented by congressional legislation that the United States has, I think, three representatives, one of the Department of Labor, one representing the employers, and the other representing labor. They proceed in convention to suggest various protocols, conventions, and agreements. The sole obligation of the United States in its participation is when those conventions are drawn, to submit them to the appropriate persons for consideration. Some are sent to States because they apply only to internal matters of States; some are sent up to Congress. Most of them are sent up without any recommendation whatever, and as I say, out of the one-hundred-seventy-odd, there have only been five which have eventuated in ratified treaties.

Mr. SMITHEY. Along that line, before I develop it a little further, I want to know whether the Department was consulted as to whether the convention on the maternity protection was a proper subject for international agreement.

Mr. PHLEGER. I think it was not consulted. In fact, I know of no consultation that they have had with the State Department before they drafted any of these conventions, certainly not since the new administration has been in. I can answer that categorically that since I have become Legal Officer, there has been no advice or consultation with the ILO.

Mr. SMITHEY. Is it not an embarrassing thing, sir, for the United States Government delegation to endorse conventions in the ILO conference for submission to the appropriate ratifying authorities, and then have the United States Government balk at submitting them for ratification?

c. PHLEGER. I have not heard anyone express any chagrin at that. is become an accepted fact that when those conventions come up, few are submitted at all, and practically none of them are ratified. nk they are drafted with that very clearly in mind.

r. SMITHEY. I suggest, sir, that if you want to see some chagrin read some testimony of Mr. McGrath in the record of this com

ee.

r. PHLEGER. I have read it.

г. SMITHEY. Now, what effect does it have on our international tionships when we are "cited to the bar of public opinion" for ire to implement conventions for which our Government delegahas voted?

r. PHLEGER. Will you read that again?

r. SMITHEY. I will be happy to, sir. I would like to know what et does it have on our international relationships when we are ed to the bar of public opinion" for failure to implement convens for which our Government delegation has voted?

[r. PHLEGER. I am not aware of any great embarrassment. The gation which are currently attending these international conferes are advised in advance what the attitude of the administration ith respect to them. The current delegation who are attending the vention in Geneva on human rights, and so forth, are advised of the tude of this administration, and they will advise those who will ticipate to that effect. So I look for no further embarrassment if re has been any in the past.

Ir. SMITHEY. I would like to return to the questioning of the Secary, if we may, on the question of international obligations. I want develop the line of questioning which Senator Dirksen suggested by erence to the American Association for the Advancement of United tions brief.

Mr. Secretary, is it a well-established principle of international law t when a nation enters in a treaty or other international obligation given subjects theretofore a matter of domestic concern, that subt ceases to be a matter of domestic concern, and becomes one of ernational concern.

Secretary DULLES. No, sir, not automatically.
Ir. SMITHEY. That is not true?

Secretary DULLES. No, I have pointed out in my statement here t we do not intend to sign the treaty on political rights of women, ause of the very fact even though it is put in treaty form, as Í nted out, in my opinion it is not a proper field for the exercise treatymaking power. I cannot see that the increase and welfare the United States are necessarily advanced by giving the women right to hold political office in some foreign power. In fact, I think of some foreign countries where the present state of educan of women is so little advanced that you would think the interional welfare would be hurt rather than helped by their holding itical office until they have a greater opportunity to be informed ut world affairs.

In many parts of the world women today are not allowed to read I write. To demand under those circumstances women should hold itical office equally with men is getting a little bit ahead of the me, it seems to me.

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Secretary, have human rights become matters of international concern by virtue of articles 55 and 56 of the United Nations Charter?

Secretary DULLES. I believe that human rights have always been a matter of international concern. My authority in that respectI will pick Abraham Lincoln, who perhaps will be accepted here as a good authority on these matters, where he talked about our Declaration of Independence, and how it in his opinion gave hope not only to the people of this country, but to all the peoples of the world for all future time. He said in due course the weight should be lifted from all shoulders of all men, and that men should be free. In that sense human rights is and always has been a matter of concern for the United States. That was Lincoln's interpretation of our own Declaration of Independence.

Then you go to the second question. How do you carry out that concern? I do not believe the fact that the United Nations Charter or anything else says that if human rights are a matter of concern means it is a proper subject for treatymaking. That is the reason why we have decided not to go ahead as prospective signatories of the Covenant on Human Rights.

Mr. SMITHEY. I would like to ask you further, are articles 55 and 56 of the charter limited by the domestic jurisdiction clause in article 2, section 7, of the United Nations Charter?

Secretary DULLES. They are in my opinion; yes.

Mr. SMITHEY. The reason I ask that, sir, is that there has been a brief inserted in the record by the American Association for the Advancement of the United Nations, urging differently.

Secretary DULLES. Yes.

Mr. SMITHEY. Now, when Senator Wiley was discussing with you your statement at Louisville, I do not recall that he quoted to you the last phraseology appearing in the first paragraph of your statement, namely, that "they," meaning treaties, "can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitution and Bill of Rights." Would you like to elaborate on what you meant by that statement, sir?

Secretary DULLES. There are a good many international agree ments, you might say international common law, which can well be reflected by treaties dealing with such matters as piracy on the high seas, and so forth. I do not think that in those matters it is necessarily the case that because the pirate happens to be an American citizen, that he necessarily should, when caught abroad, for instance, have the right of trial by jury, and so forth, that is called for by the Bill of Rights.

Mr. SMITHEY. You were not asserting then that they could cut across the rights given the people by their Constitution and Bill of Rights in the United States?

Secretary DULLES, No.

Mr. SMITHEY. Mr. Secretary, I gather it to be your opinion, sir, that the present attitude of the committee should be that the amendment be sidetracked for the moment, because there is no fear that the present administration will violate any of our constitutional rights; is that correct, sir?

Secretary DULLES. It is my view that the attitude of the present administration is such that the committee can well take further time

dy this matter. There is no great urgency. I would like to see mittee, a Bricker committee, if you will, which would have on it sentatives of the Judiciary Committee, of the Foreign Relations nittee, perhaps of the House, some leading jurists in the country, Further study to this problem.

think there is time to do that. The very fact there have been around this table today a number of new proposals which I never 1 before, certainly seems to suggest that the resolutions in their nt form do not represent necessarily the final word. If the come should come up with new and different proposals, I believe it would be appropriate, given the gravity of this subject, there d be an opportunity to see what those are, what their significance should think you would want to have further expression of views the Executive if a new and different constitutional proposal is itted.

. SMITHEY. You are not advocating a government of men rather of laws?

retary DULLES. Advocating a government of men rather than

. SMITHEY. By saying, "Trust in us"?

retary DULLES. No. I think I said earlier-if I did not make it I will say it again—I think I did say that perfectly clear, that not for one minute come to this committee and say not to take this n because of the personality of the present President of the ed States. I think I said that emphatically, and I say it again atically.

. SMITHEY. I am not unaware, sir, that you may not consider Mr. rson a very appropriate person from whom to comment, but I a statement here of Mr. Jefferson which was quoted by John W. es, in the steel-seizure case; I would like to have your opinion of and see you agree with it.

if

questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

cretary DULLES. What is your question?

. SMITHEY. Would you agree with that?

retary DULLES. I very rarely agree with any statement that is out of context. As I said to you today, if you apply that literyou take away all power from the President, and from the Con

If you are going on the theory that you can never trust any iduals, then you give them no power. Now certainly that is tio ad absurdum which I do not think this committee wants to w. Therefore, you have to put some trust in them. The only to apply that literally, if you are not willing to trust anybody, have a Constitution which says no representative of government have any power at all. Then you will not have any abuses.

. SMITHEY. You do not mean to infer that I took it out of context I quoted?

cretary DULLES. Yes, sir; not deliberately, but I say if you will that statement in the whole context of Jefferson's writings, and 3 participation in the making of the Constitution, I do not think ds to the inference which just taken alone might be drawn from it, ly, there should be no delegation of power.

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Secretary, for appearing here today.

Secretary DULLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow when Mr. Brownell, the Attorney General, will appear. We will be glad if you will have a representative here to hear Mr. Brownell.

Secretary DULLES. Thank you very much.

(Thereupon, at 1: 40 p. m. a recess was taken until Tuesday, April 7, 1953, at 10 a. m.)