America we employers still have the right to complain. And, you know, I marveled at the courage of these businessmen from all over the world, and the manner in which they sort of stuck together, sort of hoping that America would take the lead and get us out of this predicament. Because, you know, businessmen are pretty good missionaries around the world. They can do the world a lot of good, if you don't restrict them too much.

But in direct answer to your question, you would be amazed at the solidarity of viewpoint and the sympathic understanding that businessmen the world over have for the problems of one another; and the solid front, under the leadership of this great Britisher-I differ with him greatly-Sir John Forbes Watson. He died this last year, from pressure. But under his leadership, as a British employer, all of these employers were held together. And it is a pretty thin fabric. It took a lot of courage. Because I know when a lot of those employers went back to their respective homes, they were pretty roughly treated, perhaps, as a result of the stand that they took on certain issues when they voted alone on issues and voted for issues.

The CHAIRMAN. When you meet there, is there any limitation on debate?

Mr. McGRATH. They have restrictions sometimes in the plenary session. Now, that is like when you gentlemen meet out here on the floor of Congress. I don't know whether you are restricted, but they sometimes have a 15-minute rule; that they will let you talk 15

minutes.

For most of our work, for the 3 to 4 weeks that we are here, we meet in committee. We meet just as if we were gathered around this table. This group here, this center table, would be the government, the employers would be over there, the labor people here, with the chairman presiding. Now, those debates would go on endlessly. You see, we would take 3 weeks until we get out of the maze of detail there. And that is where most of the work of the conference was handled.

Then, finally, at the end of the conference, we would begin, at the end of 3 weeks, to crystallize these conventions, and then we would have the debates on the floor of the world parliament.

Does that answer the questions?

The CHAIRMAN. It does. Thank you very much.

Mr. McGRATH. This is another important reason why action should be taken in this country along the lines proposed by the resolution introduced by Senator Bricker.

The delegates from the various nations attending the ILO are important people in their various countries. They have taken home to their constituents the impression that the United States of America is completely in favor of socialism, and that it is only a question of time until we in this country go Socialist as they have already gone Socialist, or are planning to do so, in the near future.

In this connection, it is hard to realize what a small place the United States of America occupies in the thinking of the people who are planning the Socialist world of tomorrow. In their eyes the world today is engaged in a great struggle between socialism and communism. In this struggle the American competitive system simply doesn't count, All we do is supply the money.

At last June's conference, we asked the United States Government delegates flatly why they followed the policy they did. Their first answer was that their policy was dictated from Washington.

When pressed further, they indicated, in a general but not very informative fashion, that the idea was that the United States should play up to the Socialists because the Socialists would help us contain the Communists. In other words, internationally speaking, we should be hypocrites. We should pretend to support measures which we know our people would never approve of, in the hope that European Socialists would in turn be more sympathetic to our programs with respect to Russia.

My own personal point of view is that hypocrisy is no proper foundation for international relations. I think that the behavior of our United States delegates in voting in favor of Socialist international laws which are contrary to the principles on which our freedom and our economy have been founded is unforgivable. I do not think we can defend ourselves against communism by pretending sympathy for a system which is equally repugnant to the basic principles of the Constitution of the United States.

I do not question the extent and importance of the Socialist bloc which our United States delegates to the ILO have attempted to appease. There is held each year a convention of what is called the Socialist Internationale. Many of the delegates to the ILO stay over to attend this convention. A phrase often overheard in the corridors of the Palace of the United Nations, where the ILO conferences are held, is the phrase "international solidarity."

These Socialists want to impose their ideas on every country they can, and in particular they want to impose them on the United States. They are well aware that they cannot do it here by direct legislative means. But they are fully alert to the possibility that they might be able to achieve their ends by sneaking in through the back door. They may not be able to get socialism by legislation-but unless the loophole in our Constitution is plugged, they might be able to get socialism by treaty.

I have also heard it said that there is little need to worry about ILO conventions because, under the ILO Constitution, a country with a federal system such as ours may, if the subject is deemed appropriate for state rather than federal decision, simply refer the matter to the several states for such action as they may see fit to take. What this means is simply that the United States Government can dodge the issue by passing the buck to the states.

Now, you might be interested in this. The committee I served on for 3 years is a committee called the Committee for Ratification of Recommendations. That is supposed to be the auditing committee and the conscience of ILO. That is the committee that audits all the nations of the world, all these participating members, who have ratified treaties, and yet who have not implemented them by legislation.

Mr. SMITHEY. Is this the embryo of an enforcement agency? Mr. McGRATH. This is a persuasive agency. And you persuade by means of embarrassing the participants of ILO.

So they are brought into this room. And, of course, there are representatives on this committee, labor, industry, and government. Of

course, I saw the record of our own Government. At that time, I think we had voted for five of these conventions. And I saw other nations of the world being dragged before this particular committee. It is a sort of inquisitorial body. And if you want to see these boys sweat, from the nations of the world, just see them come in and try to justify why they have voted for something that they haven't implemented.

So I became a great annoyance to the United States Government representatives, because, when they would bring in these other nations of the world, I would take the position and say, "Well, now, you voted for that convention. Why haven't you done something about it? Don't you believe in it?" And the answers were amazing. I wish sometime we could just go over the record of what took place.

But after having qualified myself, then I looked around at this great United States Government of ours. And when they came in, I began to take the position, which I thought was a pretty good way to put them on a spot, of saying, "You voted for these conventions, didn't you? Now, what action has the Senate of the United States taken on these conventions?"

And that left our representatives quite embarrassed. I said, "I think it is very much out of order for us to critize all these other nations of the world, when our own Government representatives come over here and vote for things that they know they can't put into effect, and then give no accounting as to to why. Now, let's get the issue on the table."

Well, they finally invented something. You see, up to 1948 they didn't have to account, because the Senate took the precaution that that protected us. You remember that little clause I read to you? Senator DIRKSEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCGRATHI. But when they got to 1949, they had to give an accounting of all these. I think there are some forty-two since the inception of the thing that we voted for over there. And they were in a

mess.

Mr. HOLMAN. You mean they had to account to your committee as to why they didn't do something about it?

Mr. MCGRATH. They had to account to this committee. Now, Charlie McCormack wanted me to serve on that committee, because he thought I could do a pretty good job. I just did a lot of questioning of these boys. And so when they got down to 1949, they got into a new period. You see, then the House and the Senate had ratified this new constitution. And I will bet there is not a Member of the Congress that remembers that he voted for the ratification of the new constitution of ILO. Well, under the new constitution of the ILO, our Government here, has to give an accounting to this conscience of ILO. And so, in 1949, I began to demand that our Government give an accounting. The situation was terrifically embarrassing, and they were putting pressure on me to sort of let up. I said, "I won't let up. You fellows quit voting for things that are absolutely un-American, and then you won't have to explain in an international conference why you voted for things and agreed to things in the world that you know we can't live up to. And I am just going to keep on embarrassing you." Of course, I was told I wasn't much of an international representative, that in some respects I was a great discredit to my country.

30572-53-36

I made it clear to them that I didn't represent the Government of the United States. I just represented the poor downtrodden employers in the United States, and I was speaking my own piece as a citizen of the United States, and I was going to keep on asking questions.

Well, then they finally sent over a very smart individual from the Department of Labor, and a very able man. His name is John Bobet. John Bobet is a good lawyer. And I think it was with John's help that they invented this idea that, "We will send all this stuff back to the States. We will send it out to the States, because we don't dare to turn it over to the Senate. We would just raise an awful smell if we tried to dump all these conventions we have voted for. We have to give an accounting. So now let's dump them back on to the States."

Mr. HOLMAN. You mean the several States of the Union?

Mr. McGRATH. The several States of the Union. So I come back the next year, and I say, "I would like to hear what the several States of the Union have done on all these conventions." And the result was that it was just pathetic, you see.

Well, that seemed to be a logical answer. They had sort of run me down the street on that one. But I still kept saying, "You shouldn't vote. You shouldn't vote for conventions here that you can't get enacted." I said, "You know you can't get them enacted, even back in the State legislatures. The chances are there might be even less possibility of it."

So the next year they bring in this huge bale of records. The secretaries of state from the several States would report that no action was taken. It was the funniest, most amusing thing you ever saw in your life. But bales of paper were involved. And I think if you go over to the Labor Department today, you will find they are taking these conventions and, in order to get them out of your hair so that you won't know anything about it, they are dumping them into the hair of the secretary of each State. Now, those poor boys don't know what to do with those things any more than you would know what to do with them, other than to vote "No," I suppose.

Senator DIRKSEN. I am surprised, Mr. McGrath, they did not make a more heroic effort to take you over, over there. Because you being a furnace manufacturer, they figured maybe you knew how to turn on the heat.

Mr. McGRATH. Well, of course, they spoke of heat in terms of hot air when I cut loose. Then I would go back to my favorite slogan, "Well, in our business many are called but few are frozen."

Senator DIRKSEN. Well, as a furnace maker, you have turned out to be a pretty good international lawyer.

Mr. McGRATH. Nobody thinks so. That is the only time I have heard it. I am just a source of annoyance.

Now, let's see here.

You are going to get some witnesses, I feel sure, that are going to come in with this sort of an explanation, you see, as to the reference back to the States. And that is going to be a hard one to get around.

But it may not be as simple as all that. Remember, the President or the Senate itself may decide as to whether a convention is, or is not, appropriate for Federal action. Suppose a convention arises which

deals with matters now handled largely by the individual States. Is there anything to prevent the President or the Senate arbitrarily taking the stand that some matter has now become one for Federal action? In that case, the Senate could ratify a convention and by so doing override large numbers of the existing State statutes and substitute instead a pattern of conformity to Federal law.

Now, the reason that I threw that in there is this: There are now pending, among a lot of other of these conventions, in the Foreign Relations Committee, one convention that has to do with the right to organize and bargain collectively. That is convention No. 87. And you ought to take a good look at that one. And then there is convention No. 98, which practically says the same thing. But when this convention 87 was written, they sold the employers at San Franciscothat Conference was held at San Francisco-that they wouldn't agree to the fact that a man should have the right not to belong, you see. He has the right to belong or the right not to belong, and then the right to bargain collectively or the right to bargain individually. And it was agreed that the other paragraphs would be incorporated.

But the office in Geneva forgot to include the other paragraphs. Now, that particular convention is still standing. And I say to you-and I am no lawyer-that if that convention should someday come before the Senate, and I think it was very deliberately moved in there, if they have too much trouble on the Taft-Hartley Act, they could come in through the back door with that one, and that would give you the closed shop in America, by an international treaty. I think you ought to take a good look at that convention No. 87 and convention No. 98.

There are a couple of other conventions that have to do with employment agencies.

Senator DIRKSEN. Let me pause a moment. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be interesting to insert the text of that at this point in the series.

The CHAIRMAN. Both of 87 and 98?

We will put them both in.

(The material referred to follows:)

[C. 87: Freedom of Associations and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948]

THIRTY-FIRST SESSION

(San Francisco, 17 June-10 July 1948)

CONVENTION 87-CONVENTION CONCERNING FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO ORGANISE

The General Conference of the International Labour Organization,

Having been convened at San Francisco by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirty-First Session on 17 June 1948;

Having decided to adopt, in the form of a Convention, certain proposals concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, which is the seventh item on the agenda of the session;

Considering that the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organization declares "recognition of the principle of freedom of association" to be a means of improving conditions of labour and of establishing peace; Considering that the Declaration of Philadelphia reaffirms that "Freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress";

Considering that the International Labour Conference, at its Thirtieth Session, unanimously adopted the principles which should form the basis for international regulation;