Mr. FULTON. Could I comment, too, that it is often overlooked that we will have a permanent membership in the Executive Committee of the International Trade Organization. At the present time, on commodities, when a producing country decides that it will not sell us, and will hold us up. for example, on their terms and prices, there is nothing we can do about it. But in the future if we join the International Trade Organization, under commodity agreements, the consuming nations-and we are probably the largest consuming Nation-will have an equal status, 50 percent, with the producing nations. That means that on the consuming side of the table, under commodity agreements under the ITO, representation is given by the amount of trade or the amount of consumption that will take place under the agreements. So, therefore, when it comes to specific commodities under the charter, we are getting representation first on the consuming side; and, secondly, we will have almost a predominant representation on that side as the largest consuming country on practically every commodity.

Chairman KEE. We thank you very much, Mr. Kauffman, for coming here.

We have with us this morning Mrs. Margaret F. Stone, legislative chairman, National Women's Trade Union League of America.

Mrs. Stone, we are very happy to have you with us this morning. If you have a written statement, you may read it or you may speak extemporaneously, just as you wish.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARGARET F. STONE, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL WOMEN'S TRADE UNION LEAGUE OF AMERICA

Mrs. STONE. I am sorry I do not have a written statement. The extenuating circumstances are that I have been ill with the flu that has been going around and also we have had a board meeting this week and I have not had time to have it mimeographed.

I am Mrs. Margaret F. Stone, chairman of legislation of the National Women's Trade Union League of America, and I would like to make a very brief statement in strong support of House Joint Resolution 236, which provides for ratification of the ITO charter, and United States membership in the International Trade Organization.

The National Women's Trade Union League has supported the trade-agreements program from its very beginning, because, for one reason, we believe that expanded international trade makes more jobs for men and women in all countries, including our own, and thus raises the living standard in all countries, including our own.

We believe, therefore, that the logical corollary is support of the International Trade Organization, which has the same broad objec tive-expansion of competitive international trade, implying increased world production and consumption.

Also, the International Trade Organization Charter takes up, of course, many more aspects of international trade than the trade-agreements program, and these all tend to take away restrictions that nations are bound to impose if there are no set rules and regulations. Thus the ITO Charter goes further in the direction of removing causes of friction in international relations.

We hear very much these days about strengthening the United Nations. Our Organization is one of the organizations very strongly in favor of doing this. We know that that is one of the objectives of United States foreign policy.

The Women's Trade Union League believes that the International Trade Organization is a necessary part of the United Nations Organization. It is interrelated with, and interdependent on, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the ECA program, possibly even the ILO, in its aspects of full employment and raised living standards.

It seems to us that the coming into being of the International Trade Organization would immeasurably strengthen the United Nations. That is one of the very strong reasons why we support it.

We also feel that the United States, having been the main architect of the charter, has a special responsibility to see the International Trade Organization become a reality.

I would like to emphasize the point made by Representative Fulton, which I intended to emphasize anyway, that the objectives as set forth in the charter are not new. They are a natural outgrowth, as he has said, of the Atlantic Pact, the master lend-lease agreements, and the whole program of international cooperation up to this time.

We admit that in negotiating an instrument of such complexity, involving a large number of nations with different forms of government and their own national problems and interests, it was of course necessary to make compromises. However, these compromises are emergency ones and are of a temporary character.

It is specifically stated in the charter that there are broad general principles which are the ultimate goal in international trade relations and when the nations for some reason or another-balance of payments or something of that sort-have to make exceptions at this time, they are required to take such steps as they can to bring their economies to the point where they can erase the exception and adhere to the general principles laid down.

Some opponents of the charter say, "Why not renegotiate?" This kind of argument completely ignores the fact that the countries involved negotiated for a long period of time in three successive conferences-London, Lake Success, and Geneva-before finally reaching agreement after three more months of negotiation at Habana.

The real issue, it seems to me, is whether we want this charter, or no charter, as has been said before this morning. As Judge Kee said, the other countries are waiting for the United States to take its action because they believe in the leadership of the United States, and without action by the United States I believe there would be no charter at all.

The point that people forget-and I think this is perhaps my most important point-is that now, without the charter, any country has a right to impose any kind of restriction it wants in international trade. It can be as mean as it wants to and go as far as it likes.

With the charter, we have general principles outlined; and, although there are some exceptions, these exceptions are, as I said, emergency exceptions, and we have an ultimate goal to look forward to where restrictions will be removed and the causes of much friction in international trade will disappear.

Therefore, gentlemen, by putting the exceptions in the charter, you are only saying that certain countries have a right to do something temporarily, whereas without a charter they would have the right to go as far as they like, which they would undoubtedly do, because they have gone quite a way since World War II in making all kinds of

restrictions.

The need for adherence to a set of principles outlining orderly procedure for trade between countries seems to me to be obvious. Orderly procedure is preferable to anarchy in any kind of relationship, whether it is private, public, or international.

The remarkable thing is that 54 nations with such differing backgrounds were able to get together and agree on a set of rules. I just wonder what the United States is waiting for in hesitating to join an organization of which it has been largely the architect.

Chairman KEE. You have given us a very fine statement, Mrs. Stone, I am glad you mentioned the question of the exceptions. I think that few people recognize the fact that the exceptions contained in the charter are only to be used in exceptional cases and it is not expected that they be continuously used or used by every country. As a matter of fact, they will be used only for emergencies and finally the exceptions will become obsolete. I think that is really the expectation. So many people, however, base their opposition to the charter upon the fact that it does contain exceptions, all of which, under the circumstances, anyone who has studied the matter can see, are necessary.

Is that your view?

Mrs. STONE. Yes, Mr. Kee.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Richards, have you any questions?

Mr. RICHARDS. Mrs. Stone, you have given us a very fine statement. I like the way you went right at the main points of the thing and stated the position of your organization, in concise and no uncertain

terms.

How many women belong to your organization?

Mrs. STONE. That is a difficult question, and I always hesitate to give a definite answer because we are a federation of trade-unions with women members. I mean the unions have both men and women in them. Also, we have our own local leagues in various parts of the country, and then we have national members such as myself. I have not been in industry; but I was one of those sympathetic with raising conditions for working women. We have quite a few of that type of member in the organization. Our membership does overlap somewhat, so I hesitate to say how many there are.

Mr. RICHARDS. Is your organization tied together in the several States?

Mrs. STONE. Yes. We have local leagues in about 15 States.
Mr. RICHARDS. You have a central committee?

Mrs. STONE. Yes; our legislative program is set up by our convention, which meets only every 3 years, because the working women cannot get away from their jobs easily. The last convention was in 1947, and there they reaffirmed their support of the trade-agreements program. Shortly after that-it was unfortunate but it was shortly after that that the problem of the ITO charter came up, and in the interim between conventions the executive board had the authority to fix the program. The executive board endorsed our

65515-5031

ratification of the ITO charter, and this endorsement was sent out to all the local leagues and all our national members. Any league which wished to object had the right to, and we had no objection from any of the leagues. In fact, at the time of the hearings on the Geneva agreements for trade and tariffs, the hearings that the State Department held throughout the country, we had five of our members from five different local leagues volunteer to testify in favor of the International Trade Organization.

We have had no objections from any of the leagues after the executive board approved it.

Mr. RICHARDS. We have a very distinguished member of this committee, Mrs. Bolton, whose face always beams when we have a witness such as you.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Richards, in his previous question on members, should know that the importance of women is not to be measured by their numbers.

Mr. RICHARDS. You are right about that. They run the show whether they have the majority or not.

Chairman KEE. Mrs. Bolton, do you have any questions?

Mrs. BOLTON. I have no questions except to thank Mrs. Stone for coming and making such a helpful statement. She knows what I think of her and the trade-union league and the pleasure it is to me when I have the privilege of meeting with them.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Fulton, do you have any questions?

Mr. FULTON. Could I compliment the witness, too, on a very explicit and concise statement.

I believe you have emphasized one of the important matters in the development of this charter. That is this: That beginning clear back in the 1920's on a bipartisan basis the country as a whole embarked on a course of policy in international relations and trade with but few deviations, and that this charter is simply a further small step in implementing such basic policy. Don't you think that is correct? Mrs. STONE. Yes; I agree with you.

Mr. FULTON. Under the various declarations of policy that we have made in very solemn agreements and treaties, it is incumbent upon us immediately to assume the leadership to show the world that this is a time when cartels and state trading and wars and rumors of war are rife; that we will nevertheless, although we have the greatest economic power, be bound by reasonable rules of private trading and will submit ourselves along with every other nation, on a democratic basis, to an organization endorsing good policies. Mrs. STONE. Yes: I firmly believe that.

Mr. FULTON. Do you think the charter should be negotiated again, or do you think the United States delegation has come to the best result that could practically have been done under the particular circumstances, at the time.

Mrs. STONE. I think undoubtedly they have done the best that possibly could be done and that if renegotiations were opened up it would give each nation a chance to sound off on its own problems and there would be a worse charter instead of a better one.

Mr. FULTON. If the charter stays within these general principles, with certain exceptions, as it has done, you then feel that is a good basis for organization?

Mrs. STONE. Definitely.

Mr. FULTON. May I point out to you that every law that is passed by this Congress, at any time that we meet, is a particular exception to the then-established general rule of law; is it not!

Every law that we proceed to pass is an exception to the thenestablished rules of law, because we are starting out anew to make an exception in a particular instance or circumstance that comes up that we feel could be better handled by a new law.

Mrs. STONE. Sometimes the law follows custom, though, and custom is already ahead of the law.

Mr. FULTON. Now we are developing the same point.

Therefore, when there are certain customs which exist in the world in international trade, sometimes the law has to follow the custom that might embody an exceptional situation; does it not?

Mrs. STONE. Yes.

Mr. FULTON. When there is a criticism of the ITO Charter that there are too many exceptions, you have the choice then of having a charter that meets those customs and then tries to lead the members toward proper policies and principles, or have a charter clear up in the air stating theoretical policy that does not meet practicality. Would you agree finally that the charter by looking at what is now practical for international trade and saying that there are certain exceptions which we will try to eliminate in the future, and also laying down general policies for all of us to follow and aim toward, is a practical document! Mrs. STONE. I think it is a very practical document.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you very much.

Chairman KEE. I think you were right in not agreeing with Mr. Fulton when he says every law passed by Congress is an exception, because the common law of England, you know, is based upon customs there which obtained "from the time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary."

Mrs. STONE. I was thinking, too, of the proposed equal-pay law for women. It is the custom in many places, but we want to get the few in line who are not already in line.

Chairman KEE. I believe that finishes our testimony for today. We will adjourn until Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12: 50 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene Tuesday, May 9, 1950, at 10 a. m.)