and work out what is best, rather than have, say, the Webb-Pomerene Act with amendments or the Smoot-Hawley tariff put in. Then in the latter case, other nations take action, based on our unilateral action, which is only faced inward. We have come to the point in the world where we are to me about the same as the early United States was in the period from about 1820 to 1840. I would like to explain that to you because I am one who is simply trying to reach a legitimate result. I am not giving you what I consider clichés or taking a position pro or con with your organization, or politically, one side or the other, but I am trying to work out as some unnamed people did in this country in the second quartercentury of the 1800's. We had the problem then between the States. Shall we get a system of rules that are uniform for contracts between States? Shall we have uniform written bills of lading and negotiable instruments and bills of exchange? Shall the railroads be uniform and shall the weights and measures be uniform, and shall these uniformities exist to make a larger trade area than either Pennsylvania that I represent or Illinois that you are here representing? That had to be by a gradual growth, and people of good will came up with uniform laws that let people in Pennsylvania sell to people in Illinois, and allowed us to compete with you. And as a matter of fact, in our letting you compete at that time, we in Pennsylvania gave up the exclusive 100 percent of the iron and steel business which we then had. You did not have it. Now you have part of it. But we liked to have you have it because we in Pennsylvania have an old saying that the man who has bankrupt customers lives in a tumbled-down house. We want you to be good customers and good competitors. With that as a concept in the United States, and with you in Chicago, you must remember you were further away in time from the city of Pittsburgh than it is possible to get in the world now. You were further away from us, and yet we went out of our way to say "We would like to deal with you in a larger trade area, even to the point of where you take part of our steel industry away from us." It has been better for Pittsburgh and for Chicago, too. The problem now comes when Berlin is closer to Washington, D. C., than was Richmond, Va., just prior to the 1830's. The problem now comes when, well, South America, Buenos Aires, is about the same relative distance from us as Chicago was then; that we must think of some sort of postwar methods of dealing that keep it on a privatebusiness level and prevent it from getting back into the higher and higher tariff situation and the Balkanization of the world that we had in the thirties. Let me finish the concept, because I am trying to sell you something here. What is the best method of doing it? Well, as one of the delegates to this Habana convention, I was certainly as open-minded as anyone there, because I watched the other delegates work and I sat in on the various meetings that were held to plan the next steps. In doing that, I tried to have the feeling that we ought not merely attempt to get general principles set out clear up at the top, but must take things as they are practically. I am afraid your association is saying that we would like everybody dealing with us in the world, as the people in Pennsylvania deal with those in Illinois. You made one good point here: That the world is not like that. My suggestion then is for you people, if you will, read over some of the questioning that we have been doing at these hearings. Mr. Lazarus of Columbus was especially good on his thinking. There is no tight little answer to it. On the other hand, I can assure you, from the Republican side of this table, that, if you will reread the article again that you have just read, you will see there is no commitment, but actually simply an obligation to negotiate on exports and imports just as there is under the Taft-Hartley law. Mr. WHIPPLE. That obligation to negotiate falls so heavily upon the United States that it really becomes a commitment because, without us, this whole thing will fall apart. Now I would like to ask you one more thing. You were at Habana ? Mr. FULTON. Yes, and I was at Geneva before that. Mr. WHIPPLE. Now that Habana Conference started on November 21. It was supposed to go for 3 weeks when it started; was it not? Mr. FULTON. Yes; that is right. Mr. WHIPPLE. Tell me why it went to March 24 if it was not, because you could not agree to anything down there because these foreign countries would not accept your precepts, and you kept them all there until you forced an agreement out of them. That is exactly what happened. And Mr. Clayton wouldn't let you disband until you got weetning. Mr. FULTON. Now that is a very good point. We are getting some place. Mr. WHIPPLE. And you took something that you didn't want you didn't start out with that in London at all, and at Geneva. You took something. You were sold a bill of goods and you were sold down the river, I think. Mr. FULTON. If we took that long, from November 21, 1947, to March 23, 1948, representing the United States interests and trying to get the best agreement, you will have to admit that the United States delegation certainly stood up for United States interests; did it not? Mr. WHIPPLE. No, sir. Mr. FULTON. It did not? Mr. WHIPPLE. I say this is purely the desire of a bureau in this country and was not the will of the people. Mr. FULTON. I won't comment on your opinion on that, but may I say this to you Mr. BATTLE (presiding). We must close this hearing for the morning. Mr. FULTON. We must allow these people to see the position of the delegates. They have never seen them. It is this translation work backward and forward that I think is a great gain. Mr. BATTLE (presiding). Will you please end your questions as quickly as possible? Mr. FULTON. You do agree that the United States delegation negotiated and negotiated and negotiated to get as nearly prefect a set of principles as they could get during that period? Mr. WHIPPLE. No; they did not. They kept negotiating and negotiating and took things they didn't want just to force something and bring it back here to try to put something over that doesn't meet with the desires nor the needs nor the wants of our people. That is my own opinion. Mr. FULTON. May I compliment you as one of the greatest liberals who has ever appeared before this committee, because one of the criticisms of the United States delegation was that we were too practical-minded and took things as exceptions because they were then in existence as customs and we did not raise ouselves to a level of theoretical principles. If you had been there, you would have been in the position of President Wilson when he came back to the United States Senate with a wonderful system called the League of Nations. And the Republicans and some of the Democrats who are the conservatives of the country said: "Oh no, Mr. Wilson; you don't do that to us, because you are changing it from what it now is. If you had come here with a set of organization principles that were accepting the world just as it is, and had exceptions to these high and lofty ideals of yours, we would have been for it, but when you come here, Mr. Wilson, and want us to accept a set of high and lofty principles, we call you an idealist." I consider you one of the greatest liberals who has come before the committee, because you are in the same position Wilson was when Wilson came back in the 1920's and said: I have these lofty aspirations and ideals; and, unless you people will take it just as it is without any variation, then you can't have it. Perhaps you wanted the American delegation to say: "You take it our way or we won't play ball." It is not that kind of world any more. Mr. WHIPPLE. I disagree with that entirely. Mr. BATTLE (presiding). Mr. Whipple, we appreciate your appearance here. I am sorry it came at a time when so many of our members had to be at another meeting. Mr. FULTON. May I compliment the gentleman on his good presenta tion. Mr. BATTLE. I would like to compliment him also, and I believe the testimony will prove to be worth while as these hearings continue. The committee will be adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning. (Whereupon, at 1: 10 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, May 10, 1950). MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1950 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met pursuant to adjournment at 10:45 a. m., in the Foreign Affairs Committee Room, United States Capitol, Hon. Omar Burleson presiding. Mr. BURLESON (presiding). The committee will come to order. The question has been raised regarding certain implications in connection with copyrights and patents and changes which may have to be made if the ITO Charter is adopted. We have a letter addressed to the chairman from the Librarian of Congress, and also the Registrar of Copyrights, and without objection the letter will be inserted in the record at this point. (The letter referred to is as follows:) THE LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS, Hon. JOHN KEE, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. KEE: With your permission, we take this opportunity to present briefly for the consideration of the committee the views of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office with respect to those aspects of the ITO (Habana) Charter dealing with the United States copyright law, title 17, United States Code. We respectfully request that this communication be made a part of the committee's record of the hearings. We refrain from specific comments on the merits of the ITO Charter in its over-all aspects as it represents essentially a document having to do with international trade and concerns us officially only insofar as its provisions may have some impact on our copyright statute and its operation. We note with interest the position of the Department of State as it developed in the testimony presented to your committee on April 20, 1950, by Willard Thorp, Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs, to the effect that the charter "shall not be constructed to prevent adoption or enforcement of the measures necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations relating to the protection of copyright," and that "the charter does not in any way interfere with reasonable laws and regulations necessary for the protection of copyright"; that the charter, however, requires that "members shall not use their copyright laws as disguised trade barriers," and that the manufacturing clause and related provisions in the copyright law are disguised trade barriers; that, therefore, ratification of the charter by the United States would require changes in title 17, United States Code, to conform to the charter in the above respect. We are opposed to the "manufacturing clause" of title 17, United States Code, and would be glad to see it eliminated. We think that it is ineffective to the extent that it does not affect the importation of books as to which copyright protection is not desired and too effective to the extent that it, in a large measure, prohibits the importation of books in the English language as to which copyright protection is desired. We leave to you the question whether the elimination of the "manufacturing clause" will do such serious damage to the American publishing and printing industry that an increase in the tariff on books or the use of other measures available to this Government would be desirable. We have already assisted the Department of State in drafting a statute to repeal the "manufacturing clause" and will be glad at all times to assist the Department of State or your committee on matters relating to copyright regardless of our views on the desirability of particular features of the legislation as to which assistance is requested. Sincerely yours, LUTHER H. EVANS, Librarian of Congress. SAM B. WARNER, Registrar of Copyrights. Mr. BURLESON (presiding). It has been suggested we hear Mr. Farmer since he is from out of town. The two witnesses ahead of Mr. Farmer on the list being in town, I hope it is agreeable with them if we hear Mr. Farmer. Mr. FULTON. Mr. Chairman, by unanimous consent may I insert an item in the record because it has particular reference to the testimony of the witness who was heard yesterday, Mr. Barnes, for the American Bar Association? Mr. BURLESON (presiding). You have the copy? Mr. FULTON. Yes. May I comment that since yesterday's hearings I have had come to me a report of the subcommittee on the International Trade Organization of the committee on international trade regulation of the international and comparative law section of the American Bar Association. This was headed by Mr. Wendell Berge, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and as able and as good an analysis of the charter as I have seen. The report of this subcommittee happens to be very favorable to the charter. The testimony of Mr. Barnes yesterday for the American Bar Association might have left the impression that the opinion of the American Bar Association was unanimously in opposition to the ITO Charter. As a matter of fact the existence of this very favorable subcommittee report of that organization was not mentioned. I recognize that the testimony of Mr. Barnes here was actually the testimony of the higher authority of the bar association and was in opposition to the charter. I think the attention of the committee should be called to the existence of this report to avoid any impression that the opinion of the American Bar Association is unanimous, and also because I believe this report has intrinsic merit in its analysis of the ITO Charter. The bar association's testimony included reports of other subcommittees and for that reason I request that this report also be included in the record so that the testimony might be complete. Mr. BURLESON (presiding). Without objection it is so ordered. (The information referred to is as follows:) REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION TO COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE REGULATION, SECTION OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION The charter of the International Trade Organization, if it becomes operative, will, for the first time, bring together the principal trading nations of the world in an organization through which trading principles can be cooperatively established and carved out. The charter is recognized the world over as bearing the hallmark of American leadership in the trading communities of the world. Its failure, should it fail, will tend to be regarded as demonstrating the inability |