30. United Nations: "Memorandum on International Action to Maintain World Full Employment and Economic Stability Submitted by the Representative of the United States," to the Second Session of the Economic and Employment Commission, June 3, 1947 (E/CN. 1/36).

31. United Nations: "Background Paper on National Measures Concerning Full Employment," November 10, 1947 (E/CN. 1/Sub. 2/2).

32. United Nations: "The Structure of Full Employment," March 9, 1949 (E/CN. 1/Sub. 2/10).

33. United Nations: "Report of the First Session of the Subcommission on Economic Development, November 17 to December 16, 1947" (E/CN. 1/47). 34. United Nations: "Report of the Third Session of the Subcommission on Economic Development, March 21 to April 12, 1949" (E/CN. 1/65).

35. "Interim Report by the Secretariat (of the Interim Commission for ITO) Regarding the Resolution of the Havana Conference Relating to Economic Development and Reconstruction," July 16, 1948 (ICITO/EC/2/7). "Supplement to Interim Report by Secretariat," August 23, 1948 (ICITO/EC. 2/7/Add. 2). Reviews status of international assistance to economically underdeveloped countries, and makes suggestions for future role of ITO in such assistance.

36. United Nations: "Technical Asssistance for Economic Development," a plan for an expanded cooperative program through the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies, May 1949 (E/1327/Add. 1). 37. United Nations: "Methods of Financing the Economic Development of Underdeveloped Countries," June 7, 1949 (E/1333).

38. United Nations: "National and International Measures for Full Employment," report by a group of experts appointed by the Secretary-General, December 22, 1949 (E/1584). 39. United Nations: "Report of the Fifth Session of the Economic and Employment Commission to the Economic and Social Council," January 18-30, 1950 (E/CN. 1/79). This report deals almost entirely with the recommendations contained in the report of the group of experts on "National and International Measures for Full Employment."

40. United Nations: Summary Record of Discussions at Fifth Session of Economic and Employment Commission (January 18-30, 1950) of recommendations of the group of experts for maintaining full employment (E/CN. 1/SR. 93-104).

41. United Nations: Summary Record of Discussions at Tenth Session of Economic and Social Council (February 7-March 6, 1950) of recommendations of group of experts for maintaining full employment (E/SR. 356358).

Mr. LOREE. I have prepared a brief summary of the council's views respecting the Habana charter and the proposed International Trade Organization, which I should like to read to the committee.

The National Foreign Trade Council is not opposed in principle to the establishment of an International Trade Organization. It is opposed to the Habana charter.

Since its founding in 1914 the National Foreign Trade Council has been a strong advocate of measures for the liberalization of international trade. For instance, the council has endorsed the Hull trade agreements program since its inception in 1934 and has supported each successive renewal of the act. In recent years it has given intensified support to the Government's program in the development of treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation. Constantly keeping in mind the best interests of the United States, the council has reiterated proposals for an American foreign economic policy looking toward establishment of a multilateral, nondiscriminatory world trading system, a system in which all nations willing to assume the responsibilities could participate to their mutual benefit. In opposing the charter the council does not feel it is deviating in the slightest degree from its traditional position favoring the liberalization and

expansion of world trade. On the contrary, this traditional position of the council makes opposition to the charter mandatory.

The council supported the objectives set forth in the Department of State's original proposals for an International Trade Organization of the United Nations and formally gave its qualified approval to the London draft of the proposed charter at a public hearing held in New York on February 27, 1947. At that time it released its "Comments on the Revised Charter for an International Trade Organization in Terms of Foreign Economic Policy," which was a comprehensive and detailed discussion of that document. The qualifications in the council's approval of the London draft were because of exceptions and concepts introduced into that document, with which the council was in strong disagreement.

The draft charter was further weakened, at Geneva, by the adoption of additional exceptions and qualifications and by the inclusion of wholly objectionable concepts. At Habana, by the cumulative process of elaborating qualifications, introducing automatic exceptions and providing for special dispensations, the affirmative elements were diluted to the point of frustration. Moreover, concepts alien and hostile to American principles of trade and investments were definitively included in the document and fortified by the exclusion of acceptable standards of conduct. Reluctantly, the council regards the Habana charter as unworkable as an organic instrument for global collaboration toward the objectives stated, and unacceptable as a multilateral engagement for the United States.

The council firmly believes that if the United States subscribes to the charter it will be abandoning traditional American principles and espousing, instead, planned economy and full-scale political control of production, trade and monetary exchange. The charter does not reflect faith in the principles of free, private, competitive enterprise. Yet these very principles are the basis of the economic well-being the political liberties, and ultimately the religious liberties of the American people.

Accordingly, the council opposes the passage by Congress of House Joint Resolution 236 which would authorize the President to accept membership for the United States in the International Trade Organization under the terms of the Habana Charter.

In order properly to appraise the Habana Charter it is necessary to do more than to analyze the principles set forth therein. These principles must be weighed carefully against the exceptions and qualifications that were attached at the London, Geneva, and Habana Conferences to many of the articles of the instrument as first elaborated by the United States Department of State.

It is likewise necessary to give careful consideration to proposals and recommendations for implementing the provisions of the charter made by the Economic and Social Council and other agencies and officials of the United Nations responsible for the development of policies and programs relating to subjects dealt with in the charter. This is especially important with respect to the charter provisions relating to employment and economic stability, in which field the Economic and Social Council is given primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations.

It is also extremely important that similar consideration be given to the financial obligations which membership in the International

Trade Organization would impose on this country. For it must be recognized that, if the United States becomes a member of the ITO, it will have to bear the bulk of the cost of operating the Organization and of any programs put forward by it. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that the United States could be committed to any spending or other program of the ITO by a majority vote of its members, and that this country would have no veto or other control over such action by the Organization.

The main reasons for the council's opposition to the Habana Charter are briefly as follows:

ITO OBJECTIVES

1. Under the charter the United States would pledge itself to take action "to assure a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand" for all members of the ITO.

2. This country would be committed to take action "to increase the production, consumption and exchange of goods" for all member nations.

3. The United States would be under obligation to take action "to foster and assist industrial and general economic development, particularly of those countries which are still in the early stages of industrial development."

Assumption of the obligations inherent in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) would amount, in effect, to the signing of a blank check by the United States in favor of other members of the ITO, and could impose enormous financial burdens upon the American people and a dangerous drain on the resources and productive system of this country.

I think, to digress, I might call attention of the members to the fact that some proponents of the charter claim that these objectives of the charter are not binding, that these are, in effect, pious wishes as the objectives. But I call attention to the fact that in connection with promotion, as used in the United Nations, the courts of California yesterday have rendered a decision that the alien law as regards ownership of land is not to be enforceable as the treaty obligations of the United Nations supersede it, with regard to individual human rights. Mr. VORYS. Would you permit an interruption on that point? Mr. LOREE. Yes, certainly.

Mr. VORYS. It just occurred to me as I read your reference to commitments, the experience we have had in this committee room. We authorized our country to join UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Organization. Will Clayton went up there as the United States representative and said that each country should pay 1 percent of its national income as its contribution. That motion was adopted. Will Clayton then came back to this committee room and said that the 1 percent was an international commitment, that we were bound not to alter and bound to honor and therefore the 1 percent went through exactly as decided upon for UNRRA. We were morally and effectively committed, whether constitutionally or not. Mr. LOREE. I do not know what the difference between a treaty and a joint resolution may be, as regards our courts, but certainly one of our courts has decided that a treaty supersedes a State law and that the mere undertaking to "promote" an act under the United Nations Charter is binding on United States courts.

In that regard, I think it might be well to read a copy of the newspaper article this morning or yesterday on this, pending availability of the transcript of the court's decision.

This is from the New York Times dated April 26, 1950, captioned "U. N. Charter Voids a California Law":

APPELLATE COURT HOLDS CURB ON LAND OWNERSHIP BY JAPANESE IS VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

LOS ANGELES, April 25.-The California appellate court has invoked the Charter of the United Nations to invalidate a State law.

A unanimous decision by three judges of the District Court of Appeals, Division 2, late yesterday held that California's law restricting land ownership by aliens was in conflict with and superseded by the United Nations Charter's espousal of human rights and freedoms.

The court held that the Charter, ratified by the United States in 1945, "has now become the supreme law of the land," and, as a treaty, under the Constitution has precedence over any conflicting State laws.

The court observed that the alien land law, enacted in 1920, originally was applicable to nationals of several countries because of their ineligibility to become United States citizens, but that changes in the naturalization laws had narrowed its application to only some groups of Asiatics, notably Japanese.

LEGAL CIRCLES STIRRED

Chapter I, article 1 of the United Nations Charter, cited by the court, mentions as one of the United Nations' purposes "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

The court noted that the validity of the law under the United States and California Constitutions had been repeatedly upheld by the United States Supreme Court and lower courts.

Legal circles here, in which the decision caused a stir, said that it was the first time the United Nations Charter had been invoked as grounds for invalidating the law of a state. Far-reaching, although not immediately definable, implications were seen if the decision should be upheld. Presumably, it will be appealed to the California Supreme Court, although the office of the State attorney general, defendant in the case, declined to comment.

IN DIRECT CONFLICT

The decision was rendered in the case of Sei Fujii v. California, on appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

It was the latest of many suits asserting the right of persons of Japanese birth to own land, which the lower court had denied.

The opinion was written by Justice Emmet J. Wilson and concurred in by presiding Justice Minor Moore and Justice Marshall F. McComb.

"A perusal of the Charter," the opinion asserted, "renders it manifest that restrictions contained in the alien land law are in direct conflict with the plain terms of the Charter *

The alien land law must therefore yield to the treaty as the superior

Some lawyers here expressed the opinion that such broad interpretation of the Charter's application, if pursued, might open the way to foreign encroachment on State and national sovereignties.

Legal circles knew of only one other instance in which a decision was based on the Charter. This was the invalidation in 1947 of an anti-Semitic housing ordinance by an Ottawa, Canada, magistrate's court.

United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black mentioned the Charter aims in his concurring opinion January 19, 1948, in the case of Oyama v. California. This was another alien land law case in which the court, while declining to declare the law unconstitutional, held that the American-born minor son of an alien Japanese could legally own land paid for by his father.

The Charter was mentioned also in a Los Angeles County superior court decision last month holding the law unconstitutional on the ground that it violated the Federal guaranty against racial discrimination.

FIRST TIME, UN AUTHORITIES SAY

"LAKE SUCCESS, April 25.-United Nations legal authorities said tonight that the Los Angeles case was the first in which the Charter had been used as the principal basis for a ruling by a court in the United States."

4. This country would also be required to grant all member nations access, on equal terms, "to the markets, products, and productive facilities which are needed for their economic prosperity and development." There is grave question as to the advisability of the United States obligating itself under any circumstances to make its resources and productive facilities available to other countries. But there can be no question but that the resources and productive facilities of the United States should be denied to countries which do not cooperate in good faith in promoting economic progress and peaceful relations among all nations.

The United States certainly should not accept any commitment which would support other members of the ITO in the erroneous belief that this country is under obligation or compulsion to supply them with either capital funds or productive facilities. As a matter of fact, the United States Government has no power under which it could assure to other members of the ITO access to the investment funds or intangibles of American citizens, or to the capital goods and other productive facilities produced by American private enterprises. It could not be given such power without transforming the American private enterprise economy into a system of state-owned, or state-controlled enterprise.

By accepting the Habana Charter the United States would relinquish its right to determine what countries should share in its resources and productive facilities.

FULL EMPLOYMENT

5. The Habana Charter imposes an obligation on the United States to take action to achieve and maintain full employment not only within this country, but in all other member countries.

The United States will not have the choice as to what measures and programs it shall adopt for these purposes, but will be expected to cooperate in the measures and programs decided upon by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

This obligation to cooperate in achieving full employment in all member countries might require the United States, during periods of decline in business activity, to participate in programs involving the manipulation of money and credit and heavy Government deficit spending, thus setting in motion dangerous inflationary forces in this country.

That this is not an idle assumption is borne out by proposals for implementing the full employment provisions of the charter made by the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment.

I might say there, that the Preparatory Committee, which was set up by the Economic and Social Council, was the Preparatory Committee which dealt with the United Nations Charter-with the ITO charter.

These suggested measures, in which the Habana Conference later unanimously "affirmed its interest" include:

(1) The concerted timing, to the extent which may be appropriate and practicable in the interests of employment policy, of national and international measures to influence credit conditions and the terms of borrowing;

(2) National or international arrangements, in suitable cases, to promote due stability in the income of producers of primary products, having regard equally to the interests of consuming and producing countries;