Paris Peace Conf. 180.0201/4
Preliminary Peace Conference, Protocol No. 4, Plenary Session of April 11, 1919
The Session is opened at 15 o’clock (3 p.m.) under the presidency of Mr. Clemenceau, President.
-
Present
-
For the United States of
America:
- The President of the United States.
- Honorable Robert Lansing.
- Honorable Henry White.
- Honorable Edward M. House.
- General Tasker H. Bliss.
- For the British Empire:
-
great britain:
- The Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George.
- The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour.
- The Rt. Hon. A. Bonar Law.
- The Rt. Hon. G. N. Barnes.
- The Hon. C. J. Doherty.
- Dominions and India:
-
canada:
- The Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden.
- The Hon. Arthur L. Sifton.
-
australia:
- The Rt. Hon. W. M. Hughes.
- The Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph Cook.
-
south africa:
- General The Rt. Hon. Louis Botha.
-
new zealand:
- The Rt. Hon. W. F. Massey.
-
india:
- The Rt. Hon. The Lord Sinha.
- Major-General His Highness The Maharaja of Bikaner.
-
For France:
- Mr. Clemenceau.
- Mr. Pichon.
- Mr. L. L. Klotz.
- Mr. Jules Cambon.
- Marshal Foch.
-
For Italy:
- Mr. V. E. Orlando.
- The Baron S. Sonnino.
- The Marquis Salvago Raggi.
- Mr. Crespi (replacing Mr. Antonio Salandra).
- Mr. S. Barzilai.
-
For Japan:
- The Marquis Saionji, former President of the Council of Ministers.
- The Baron Makino.
- Mr. K. Matsui.
- Mr. H. Ijuin.
-
For Belgium:
- Mr. Hymans.
- Mr. van den Heuvel.
- Mr. Vandervelde.
-
For Bolivia:
- Mr. Ismael Montes.
-
For China:
- Mr. Lou Tseng-tsiang.
- Mr. Cheng-ting Thomas Wang.
-
For Cuba:
- Mr. Antonio Sanchez de Bustamante.
-
For Ecuador:
- Mr. Dorn y de Alsua.
-
For Greece:
- Mr. Nicolas Politis.
- Mr. A. Romanos, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Majesty the King of the Hellenes at Paris.
-
For Guatemala:
- Mr. Joaquín Mendéz, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Guatemala at Washington, former Minister of State for Public Works and Public Instruction.
-
For Haiti:
- Mr. Tertullien Guilbaud.
-
For the Hedjaz:
- His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal.
- Mr. Rustem Haidar.
-
For Honduras:
- Dr. Policarpo Bonilla, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Honduras at Paris.
-
For Liberia:
- Hon. C. D. B. King.
-
For Nicaragua:
- Mr. Salvador Chamorro, President of the Chamber of Deputies.
-
For Panama:
- Mr. Antonio Burgos.
-
For Peru:
- Mr. Francisco Garcia Calderon.
-
For Poland:
- Mr. Roman Dmowski.
- Mr. Ignace Paderewski, President of the Council of Ministers, Minister for Foreign Affairs.
-
For Portugal
- Dr. Alfonso Costa, former President of the Council of Ministers.
- Mr. Augusto Soares, former Minister for Foreign Affairs.
-
For Roumania:
- Mr. Jean J. C. Bratiano.
- Mr. Vaida-Voevod, Minister of State.
-
For Serbia:
- Mr. N. P. Pachitch.
- Mr. Trumbitch.
- Mr. Ivan Zolger.
-
For Siam:
- The Prince Charoon.
- The Prince Traidos Prabandhu.
-
For the Czecho-Slovak Republic:
- Mr. Charles Kramar.
- Mr. Edouard Benes.
-
For Uruguay:
- Mr. Jacobo Varela Acevedo, former Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Senator.
-
For the United States of
America:
The Minutes of the Session of the 14th February, 1919 (Protocol No. 3), are passed.
The Agenda Paper provides for the submission to the Conference of the Report of the Commission on International Labor Legislation (Annex 1).
Mr. Barnes (British Empire) delivers the following speech:
“Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen.
“It falls to my lot to-day to present to you the Report and recommendations of the Commission on International Labor Legislation. We have issued with our Report two separate and distinct documents, one being the text of a scheme for an organization embracing States, employers, and workmen (Annex II); the other, nine resolutions which have been adopted by the Commission and are suggested for insertion in the Peace Treaty, or issue therewith (Annex III). Before, however, dealing with the documents which have been issued, I might be allowed to offer a few observations of a general character as to our conception of the duty which was entrusted to us. And, first of all, [Page 242] I want to say that we approached our work, as I am sure you would have had us do, in a sympathetic spirit, and from a humane point of view. Some of us knew our labor world at first hand, and we knew that there were many in it condemned to lives of penurious toil, relieved only by spells of compulsory idleness. In normal days, before the war, labor conditions were largely the result of blind chance. Age and want, that ill-matched pair, too often haunted the mind of the worker during his working life, and we must remember that the worker to-day still lives very largely in pre-war memories; he dreads return and is determined not to return to those pre-war conditions. Mr. Chairman, those pre-war experiences of labor have laid upon the world a heavy burden and a great danger. They have produced a workman who is class-centered, who regards work as a blessing, and has been deluded into the belief that the less work he does the more is left for his workmates. That feeling, and the practice based upon it, is demoralizing to the individual, and harmful to the community. But it can be eradicated only by security against unemployment and improved conditions of employment. In saying that, Mr. President, I am not casting stones at any class in regard to existing conditions. It has not been conscious cruelty, but rather the long arm of circumstances that has cast the devil’s chain around the workmen of some countries. Nor do I deny that there is room for some to rise and to share in the pleasure of life, but, nevertheless, it is true to say that the mass remain a misfit in their present conditions, a source of concern to all lovers of their kind and a menace to the peace of the world. It is that latter aspect of it that makes labor regulation, and I should say labor improvement, an integral and an urgent part in the work of a Peace Conference. And the question, therefore, which we had to consider, Mr. Chairman, was not only how to improve material conditions, but how to provide the means whereby to produce a better mental atmosphere.
“Hitherto it has sometimes happened that efforts at improvements in a country have been checked by the fear or the plea of competition with other lower-wage countries. I do not enter into the question of the validity of the plea, although it may here be said, in parenthesis, that the highest wage countries, such as America, are not the least successful in world competition. I merely mention it as a factor which has often prevented improvements taking place; and international co-operation has hitherto been but fitful and sectional, sometimes on the part of some States and some workmen and some employers, sometimes on the part of workmen alone, sometimes on the part of employers alone.
“We are seeking now, for the first time in history, so far as I know, to get the willing co-operation of all concerned—States, employers, [Page 243] and workmen—engaged in a common task and animated by a common desire to improve the workingman’s conditions in all countries.
“But, Sir, at the threshold of our proceedings we came across two very real obstacles. First of all there were the different degrees of industrial development in the different countries and, second, there were the limitations imposed on States against accepting the decrees of any super-authority. And therefore we had perforce to give up ideas of uniformity or coercion, and to rely mainly upon the goodwill of States to accept advice and guidance which might be given to them. I freely admit that at one time I had a good deal more faith in penalties; but, Sir, closer inspection led me to the conclusion that penalties must be kept well in the background and can be applied only through the League of Nations and under the authority of the League of Nations.
“That provision is now embodied in our draft.
“But, Sir, while our minds were driven from one channel, our minds were at the same time attracted to the possibilities of another one. Publicity and agreement presented themselves in stronger and clearer colors. After all, it is not coercion so much that is wanted in most things; it is more, I think, knowledge and goodwill. And we have therefore provided in our scheme for meetings of States, employers, and workmen to be held in the light of day, to be representative of all concerned, and to be armed with the fullest possible information. It will be the duty of the organization which we propose to collect and distribute information, to promote healthy public opinion and, generally speaking, to diffuse light in dark places, wherever such may be found.
“That, then, may be said to be the fundamental and, as we believe, the effective idea in our scheme—the creation and mobilization of healthy public opinion.
“Mr. Chairman, having, I hope, conveyed the right impression as to the character of our proposals, let me just say a few words, without, I hope, any unnecessary detail, about our scheme of organization.
“First, let me say that the scheme was drafted in Paris and was submitted first of all to the British Delegation and British employers and Labor representatives, then presented to the Commission which you set up, and, after it had emerged from the Commission, again submitted in an altered and expanded form to British representatives. I do not want to pose as the champion of Britain in this matter. I do not want to take undue credit for anything; we can only take credit for the initiation. I am speaking now for the British Delegation. This document as it now appears before you is the product of many minds; it is the unanimous finding of the Commission which you yourselves set up. It puts into concrete form [Page 244] what has been asked for and seen as a vision in France above all countries for many years.
“Now, let me say a few words about its main provisions. First of all, its boundaries are made to coincide with those of the League of Nations. We have two reasons for this: firstly, because in doing that the League of Nations is thereby invested with duties of a positive nature and associated with the everyday life of the community; and secondly, because all the nations in the League are brought into world cooperation for industrial improvement and thereby a favorable impression will be created on Labor in all countries because the impression will be created that the Peace Conference is seriously regarding this Labor problem.
“In the second place we provide for annual Conferences. These annual Conferences will consist of four members from each State; two members being directly representative of the State, and the others being representative of Labor and employers respectively. In so far as is possible and, in fact unless otherwise provided, the annual meetings will be held at the capital of the League of Nations, and we propose a new and novel form of voting at the Conferences. Each delegate will vote separately and independently, our object being to promote a spirit of internationality and moreover to enable Labor, as a whole, to take a due part in the deliberations. We propose that there should be a permanent office also constituted at the seat of the League of Nations, the duty of which would be to collect and distribute the information, as I have before mentioned; that that body should be under the control of what we call the Governing Body, and that the constitution of that Governing Body should be in the same proportion as the Conference itself, that is to say, one-half of States representatives and one-half of non-Government delegates.
“Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to procedure, and the most important article in that part of the document is No. 19. That article cost us a great deal of trouble. It was the article upon which it was most difficult to agree, but I am glad to say that agreement was ultimately reached—agreement being reached upon it by compromise, as most agreements are. It now provides that if proposals are endorsed by an annual Conference, they are cast into the form of a Convention, or, alternatively, into the form of a Recommendation, and that if either one or the other gets two-thirds of the votes passed at a Conference, it then becomes the finding of the Conference, and is deposited with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Each High Contracting Party then comes under obligation to submit the Recommendation or Convention, as the case may be, to its appropriate competent authority; and, unless the Recommendation [Page 245] or Convention is accepted by such authority, that is the only obligation resting upon an affiliated State. But if the competent authority of this State accepts the Convention or the Recommendation, then, subject to a proviso in the next clause, about which I will say a word in a moment, subject to that proviso, then, it is under obligation to give it effect. But here we came upon the difficulty of the Federal State. There are some states which have no authority to make labor agreements in the form of Treaties. There are some States, such as the United States of America, that embrace many competent authorities in the sense in which the words are used in our document; and each of these competent authorities has a right, and must be left to decide for itself. It was because of this that we had to give the right to the Conference—to impose an obligation upon the Conference rather—to cast their finding in certain cases in the form of a Recommendation instead of a Convention, and we also had to provide, even if it were cast in the form of a Convention, that it would still be open for a Federal State to adopt it as a Recommendation to put before its own competent authorities and give effect to it, if at all, in its own time and in its own way. The net result of this—I want to be perfectly candid with the Conference—the net result of all this is, that a less degree of obligation falls upon a Federal State than upon other States signatory to our document. That is bad; it is regrettable, but, as we found, unavoidable. The difficulty was there. We did not make it, but we had to get over it in the best way open to us.
“I want to introduce two slight additions and, if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, when the time comes for proposing the adoption of our scheme of organization, it will be understood that these have been made with the concurrence of all the countries with whom I have got into touch—France, United States of America, Italy (as far as she was able to say this morning), Japan, and India and the British Delegation. It will be remembered that I said a State was under obligation to put a Convention or Recommendation to its competent authorities within twelve months’ time from the end of the Conference. It has been pointed out to us that there might be unforeseen and exceptional circumstances and, in fact, a general election was mentioned as one which might occupy several months. It does in some countries, I believe; and we must provide against that particular contingency. It is therefore proposed that after the words ‘twelve months after the meeting of the Conference’ there should be inserted ‘or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within a period of one year, then at the earliest possible moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the end of the Conference.’ This, as I have ascertained, is generally agreed to by the signatories. Then we propose [Page 246] to add a protocol to Article 19 to cover another point. You will remember that I said we ought to give up ideas of uniformity, at all events in some respects. There are some things in regard to which uniformity is impossible. That is implied by the document itself, because each nation has a right to accept or reject the findings of a Conference and therefore the Conference will always work under the knowledge that if they try the impossible—in the way of imposing upon an Eastern country for instance what was altogether out of the question for our day and generation—that country would simply reject the finding. However, in case there should be any misunderstanding, a form of words has been put forward as follows:—
“‘In framing any recommendation or draft Convention of general application the Conference shall have due regard to those countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development of industrial organization or other special circumstances make the industrial conditions substantially different, and shall suggest modifications, if any, which it considers may be required to meet the case of such countries.’
“Then the words in Clause 20 to which I have referred, if a State adopts a Convention it shall not be obliged to accept that Convention because there might be words in the Convention—what we have in mind is this: that the Convention might not be enforceable, to use a word which is in the document—it might not be applicable unless it was found that a certain number of States or a certain proportion of States had also adopted it. That is the proviso that I mentioned a while ago. Now only a word on the enforcement clauses from Number 23. It will be noted that although the machinery of organization is brought into play, reliance is placed on inquiry and publicity. The persons making the inquiry have to be selected from a panel by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. It will also be noted that the Court of the League of Nations may reverse, vary or affirm any decision. Then I pass over a lot of comparatively unimportant articles and I want to say that we have decided—subject to approval and subject to the United States agreeing to convene the Conference and cooperate—we have decided on a Conference being held this year. And we are most anxious to get authority to go on with that Conference as soon as possible.
“I now come to the resolutions. It was felt by the Commission that it was not sufficient to deal only with machinery. Great hope has been expressed—has been raised in different countries. We were told that something of a direct nature would be done here in Paris by the Peace-makers to make industrial as well as military peace. Of course it was not within our competence to deal specifically or in detail with anything of that kind, nor should I say, Mr. Chairman, is [Page 247] it within the competence even of this Conference to lay down industrial changes for adoption by affiliated States. Still the Commissioners were so much impressed with the need for giving expression to some fundamental principles that they have adopted nine resolutions, each one of them having been adopted by a majority of two-thirds. Those are now before you for adoption or otherwise.
“That, Mr. Chairman, completed our work; the record is now before you in print and, providing you give us the necessary authority, we are quite ready to proceed forthwith to arrange for our first Conference. It is proposed that the first Conference should be held at Washington next October. That of course is subject to the co-operation of the Government of the United States and other arrangements being satisfactorily made by a Committee which we suggest should consist of seven, one of them being a representative of Switzerland, thereby bringing in the neutral countries.
“Well, Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I need scarcely remind you of the urgency of this work of labor amelioration because it is known to all of us that new thoughts are surging up all around and among us, and as a result the world is at present in a ferment. Nor need I remind you of its importance, an importance, I should venture to say, second only to the preservation of peace, to which we have already given our hand and seal in the Covenant of the League of Nations. We believe that our scheme will give life and strength and vitality to the League of Nations by bringing it in contact with the daily life of the people. We believe that our scheme gives hope and will bring help to those whose lives are seared and scarred by toil and sorrow.
“Therefore, on behalf of the Commission, and subject of course to the modifications which may have to be made under your rules by the Drafting Committee or Commission, I have much satisfaction in commending it to your favorable consideration.” (Applause.)
President Wilson expresses his opinion on the meeting of the first Conference in the following terms:—
“I rise not to add anything to what Mr. Barnes has said. I have admired what he has said altogether and concur in the conclusion with the greatest heartiness. I rise merely to say that no detail of the document is more welcome to my ears than the suggestion that the first Conference should be held in Washington in the United States, and I can assure the Conference that a most cordial invitation will be extended to the Conference to meet there.” (Applause.)
Mr. Colliard (France), speaking in French, expresses the views of the French Delegation on the Report of the Commission in the following speech:— [Page 248]
“Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen:
“As Mr. Barnes has just explained to us, the Commission on International Labor Legislation has used every endeavor to attain the objects for which it had been created.
“The Commission has paved the way for the establishment of a new and permanent organization which will render it possible to translate into deeds those feelings of humanity and justice which the democracies of the world regard as one of the necessary guarantees of peace.
“The results sought have been attained because a single principle has governed all our discussions, while the Delegates have always been in agreement with it.
“This principle is that, in the interests of the working men themselves, and in order that humane legislation may develop smoothly and without suffering by economic competition, it is necessary, at frequent intervals and by means of International Conventions, for the working men of all countries to be assured of certain minimum guarantees.
“These are the only conditions in which they will be able to see their lot improve day by day, and whereby they may find amid the riches and power of modern society the ease and leisure to which the development of civilization enables them legitimately to aspire.
“Thanks to the draft which is laid before you, the International Conventions will be drawn up with a facility which has not hitherto been attained. They will, moreover, acquire the breadth and importance which they ought to possess because adhesion to the permanent organization which will be charged with their preparation will be one of the necessary conditions of admission to the League of Nations.
“During the preparation of the draft, and while the details of the organization now adopted were being examined, divergent opinions were able to make themselves heard both in regard to determining the number of Delegates allotted to each constituent part of the Nations represented, and as regards reconciling the sovereignty of State rights in the matter of Labor legislation with the authority that the permanent organization ought to possess. In particular, certain Delegations wished to give more power to the decisions of that organization, and to invest it to some extent with a more direct legislative authority.
“No doubt these Delegations already foresaw the constitution of an International Parliament, which may be the solution of the future. Other Delegations were more careful of the sovereignty of the people which they represented, and were apprehensive lest, by the pursuit of premature settlements, they might hamper the initial steps of a [Page 249] work which must grow, strengthen itself and, by the fact of its own development, lead to lasting peace.
“However, all the Delegations were inspired by the same desire to achieve the task which had been entrusted to them, and they were able to make the necessary sacrifices in order to obtain the important result. So far as we are concerned we regret none of these sacrifices, certain as we are that the future will bring with it the settlement most favorable to a progressive and continuous improvement in Labor legislation.
“The British Delegation has submitted three draft amendments to the text which is laid before you. These amendments do not appear to us to touch fundamental principles, but the Commission was obliged to submit its Report before examining them, as a certain number of important Delegates had already left. The examination of these few amendments, therefore, now falls to the lot of the Plenipotentiary Delegates to the Conference.
“Whatever may happen, Gentlemen, I think we may congratulate ourselves on the results which the Commission on International Labor Legislation has attained, not only with respect to what it contributes to the present, but also to what it contains in embryo for the future; moreover, the solemn affirmation of its scope is recorded in the clauses which you are asked to introduce into the Treaty of Peace.”
Mr. Vandervelde (Belgium), speaking in French, sets forth his reasons for concurring in this Report of the Commission in the following speech:—
“Gentlemen,
“I am present at this session in a dual capacity. I represent Belgium, and I belong to the Commission on Labor. There may, however, be yet another motive for my having been honored by a request to speak, namely, that for many years past I have been among those who have striven for the institution of International Labor legislation, and I am no doubt qualified on that score to welcome the results which are about to be achieved: in the first place, the creation of a permanent organization of international legislation; secondly, the fact that in the Conferences which are to be held from this year onwards, members of the working-classes will sit for the first time as Plenipotentiaries; and, lastly, that, as we have every reason to hope, there will be inserted this very day in the Treaty of Peace the reforms which are laid down in our draft Labor Charter, especially those which the working-classes hold so dear, namely, a minimum wage and an 8-hour day.
“Hardly 48 hours ago I was present at a meeting of the Belgian Labor party at the ‘Maison du Peuple’ in Brussels. We were awaiting [Page 250] on the following day the grant of the vote by universal suffrage for which we had been striving for more than a quarter of a century. We have won it. It was, moreover, known that this Assembly would have laid before it a proposal intended to proclaim the principle of an 8-hour day and, quite spontaneously, the working men present there said:—
“‘We only await a telegram from Paris in order to organize a double festival and a double manifestation in honor of the equality which we have acquired and of the 8-hour day.’
“This will show you, Gentlemen, the great importance which the Belgian working classes, like the British working classes, attach to the resolution which they await from you, and my reason for making this statement—I say so quite frankly—is that in other countries people are less optimistic in regard to the results which the Conference may be able to secure in this respect, and are less satisfied with the resolutions formulated by the Labor Commission.
“I should like to sum up briefly the objections which have been made to the proposals which my honorable friend Mr. Barnes, explained to us so fully just now.
“In the first place there is a complaint that Labor representation in the future Conference is inadequate.
“You are aware that, according to our draft resolution, the labor organizations are to have one representative, the employers’ organizations another one and States are each to be represented by two delegates. It is objected that this means giving Government Delegations an excessive preponderance and that it would be more rational for working men to be represented by one of their own number, the employers likewise, and the State by a single delegate who would act more or less in the capacity of an umpire.
“Personally, I was inclined at first sight to support this idea; however, after mature reflection, and after seeking the opinion of the Belgian technical delegates, both workmen and employers, I became firmly convinced that the proposal made by the British Delegation for one workman, one employer, and two Government Delegates, was more favorable than the other proposal to the interests of the working classes. You will at once grasp my reasons.
“By the terms of the draft a Convention, if it is to be submitted by the Governments to their Legislatures for ratification, must obtain a two-thirds majority of votes. Very well, in an assembly where employers, workmen and Governments each commanded one-third of the votes, it would suffice for one State representative to vote with the employers’ third in order to secure the rejection of a proposal; on the other hand, by the system which we propose, Governments and states have a preponderant influence and, in these circumstances, [Page 251] if they incline to the side of the working classes it is they who will form, with the Labor representatives, the indispensable two-thirds majority.
“It will be argued that the State, however, will not incline to the side of the working classes, that the State today is the Capitalist State and will be on the side of the employers.
“You will not expect me, Gentlemen, as a Socialist, to maintain that the Governments of today are not Capitalist Governments, and undoubtedly if an interest of a vital character for the propertied and ruling classes were involved, the State, in its present form, would undoubtedly range itself on the side of the capitalists. The experience of the last few years has, however, shown that in matters of labor legislation and when there is a question of protecting the weak against the strong, the weak have acquired through their organizations sufficient strength to induce the State to incline towards them rather than towards their masters, and I am convinced that Mr. Lloyd George at any rate, who has just solved so successfully one of the gravest conflicts between Capital and Labor that has ever arisen in the world, will not dream of contradicting me on this point.
“Wherever democracy has become powerful and the working classes, by their syndicalistic efforts, have already acquired sufficient influence to oblige the State to take their wishes into account, those classes need not fear to find the Government Delegates against them; that is the reason for which, without further hesitation, I have energetically defended and voted for the proposal of the British Delegation.
“Another objection has been made to the Draft Resolution of the Commission, for the Italian Delegates considered that the powers given to the future Labor Legislation Conferences were insufficient. In point of fact these Conferences will be, in spite of everything, Conferences of Plenipotentiaries; they will not be able to vote for anything except recommendations or Conventions which must necessarily be submitted for ratification to the different Legislatures. Many, indeed, would have wished the creation of a Super-Parliament, the decisions of which would have bound the Parliaments and Governments of the various States represented.
“I do not hesitate to say, Gentlemen, that I regard the creation of such an International Super-Parliament as an ideal towards which we should strive. I hope that one day the League of Nations may be sufficiently developed to be able to dictate laws to the world. Politics, however, are the science of what is possible, and it is precisely because I expect great things from the International Labor Conference that I have been among those who did not wish to demand from [Page 252] the Peace Conference the national abdications to which the nations themselves would not have consented. We must deal tenderly with the sovereignties which are beginning to draw closer to each other, and one day will federate, and it is in order to spare them that I have accepted the present text.
“Further objections have been made with regard to the Labor Charter which it is proposed to include in the Treaty of Peace. Some would have wished to make it more abundant in promises, and compared its text, which one must admit is somewhat meagre, to that of the resolutions recently adopted by the Labor Conference at Berne. But need I point out that ‘comparison is not reason’? The Berne Conference gave expression to the wishes of the working classes and defined their aspirations. What we require of the Conference is something more, and also something less; it is to translate into declarations of principle by Governments a portion of the aspirations of the working classes. It will, too, be a great step forward if the Governments of the whole world declare as a point of principle that they regard a minimum wage, equality of wages as between the sexes, the protection of night work, the protection of child labor, freedom of trades-unions, and, lastly, the 8-hour day, as essential conditions of a just peace.
“Lastly, Gentlemen, there is one final objection to which I beg leave to draw your attention: it is proposed that the International Labor Conference and the International Labor Bureau should be dependencies of the League of Nations. In my opinion that is not merely desirable, but actually necessary, and as advantageous to the League of Nations as it is to the International Labor Conference. It has this result, however, that when, a few months hence, the first Labor Conference is assembled at Washington, we risk seeing a certain number of empty seats and some nations absent; there will be representatives of the working classes or employers of the Entente and of neutrals, but there will probably not be by then any representatives of the Powers which are still enemy Powers.
“Now, if that is conceivable, if it can even be maintained that it is inevitable at the present stage when the League of Nations is involved, who does not see how difficult, if not impossible, it will be to legislate in matters of International Labor Legislation without the presence of all the great industrial nations and without the representation of all the proletariats? Moreover, if such a situation were to be other than a merely transitory one, two things would come about: firstly, we should run the risk of seeing our Conference confronted by another Conference at which the proletariats would perhaps be more powerful and more influential; and secondly, that if such a situation became protracted, our International Legislation would risk being partially [Page 253] inefficacious, because it would only be applied to a certain number of the great industrial countries. That was the reason for which the Commission was unanimous, not in demanding in the organic Statute of the Conference the immediate admission of all the industrial nations, but in voting the expression of a wish in favor of their incorporation as quickly as possible in the organization which we are about to establish.
“I must further express my conviction that the needs in regard to the protection of labor and to industrial legislation will be among the most powerful factors in the complete reconciliation of peoples to which I aspire with all the strength of my soul and my heart.
“That, Gentlemen, is what I wished to say to you. To sum up, I consider that the work of the Labor Commission has been one of fairness and moderation, one of ‘give and take,’ and, if I may say so, one of transition between the absolutism of the employers, which was the rule of yesterday, and the sovereignty of labor, which, I am ardently convinced will be the rule of tomorrow. For passing from the one to the other there are many roads: some are beset with violence and insurrection; others, on the contrary, give just as quick a journey, but without clashes and shocks. If I dared to express my thoughts in a tangible way, I should say that there are two methods of making the revolution which we feel is happening throughout the world, the Russian and the British method. It is the British method which has triumphed in the Labor Commission; it is the one which I greatly prefer, and it is for that reason that with all my heart I support the conclusions of my friend, Mr. Barnes, in expressing the hope that they may be accepted by the Conference, and that the events of today will show that the working classes, having been one of the decisive factors in winning the war, shall receive their due recompense at the moment in which we are about to make peace.”
Mr. Barzilai (Italy), speaking French, expresses the views of the Italian Delegation in the following speech:—
“Gentlemen,
“It will be the honor of the Peace Conference to have established as one of its principal aims the drawing up of a Charter for Labor, and it will be a source of great satisfaction for the Italian Delegation to have used all its endeavors in the direction of a wider and more liberal comprehension of the principles which should animate this Charter in accordance with the proposals of Mr. Barnes, which it accepts in their entirety.
“For we feel, and I am sure of here reflecting faithfully the thoughts of us all, that there is no question of concessions to be granted but rather of rules to be fixed in the interests of the workingmen [Page 254] who are, together with their fellow-citizens, those who have given us our mandate to attend this Peace Conference.
“It has for long been the rule in Italy to treat Labor questions in a spirit of courageous foresight; and even quite recently, it might almost be said by the anticipated influence of the collective organization which is about to be set up, a free agreement between workmen and employers accepting the eight-hours day, to which Mr. Vandervelde, with all the weight of his authority, has just directly alluded, has marked a solemn stage on the road towards a better welfare and peace between the classes.
“I, therefore, feel it to be a special subject of congratulation that all the questions put down on the Agenda for the forthcoming meeting of the International Labor Conference, which is to be held at Washington, correspond to those formulated in the proposal for a Labor Charter made by the Italian Delegation during the early sessions.
“It is also a matter of satisfaction that Italy, in agreement with the great American Republic, should have laid before the Commission a proposal recognizing the necessity of social legislation in regard to the workers on the soil. This proposal did not command the two-thirds majority of votes, and could not therefore be inserted in the Labor Charter. But it commanded unanimity among the voters as regards the recognition of its great importance, for those who voted against it explained that they had done so solely because they considered agricultural laborers to be sufficiently protected by the general measures relating to all working-men.
“One question which is of especial interest to the Italian representatives is that of Labor emigration. The Italian Government during the last quarter of a century has paid the closest attention to this great social phenomenon which brings peoples closer together, which links up with each other the interests of different nations, and creates new affinities and fresh reasons for peace. I myself, as a member of the Italian Delegation to the Peace Conference, feel that I must state here that the sympathies by which my country is now surrounded are certainly due to a great extent to the spirit of work, sobriety, economy and enlightened patriotism which the Italian working-man has shewn abroad. It will therefore appear to you perfectly natural that questions concerned with emigration should be the subject of our especial attention; the Italian Delegation has only withdrawn certain proposals in regard to this argument in order not to retard the drawing up of the Labor Charter and because of the hope which it firmly entertained of being enabled to renew those proposals whenever circumstances might permit.
[Page 255]“You will allow me, Gentlemen, in conclusion, to express two wishes:
“The first one is that in the Labor Charter room should soon be found for the application of constitutional forms in the relations between Capital and Labor in order to enable Labor to have a say, not only in the drafting of Labor regulations, but also in the control of the economic life of industrial or agricultural enterprise. Italy has, moreover, quite recently set her footsteps courageously in this path.
“My second wish is, I am sure, shared by you all: it is that employers and employees may feel, as we feel, that the peace which we are forging here will not be in vain if each citizen contributes to the maximum his own efforts for the preservation of social peace.”
Lord Sinha (India) expresses the views of British India in the following speech:—
“Mr. Chairman,
“I desire, with your permission, to offer a few observations on behalf of India which I and my friend, the Maharaja of Bikaner, have the privilege of representing. We have, in India, an industrial population fairly large in number, but relatively small as compared with our immense population. The reason is that, unfortunately for ourselves, our country is, from an industrial point of view, in an extremely backward condition, though it is our hope and our belief that, in the near future, a great impetus will be given to the development of indigenous industries. If, in bringing about that development, we are to build on safe and secure foundations, I, for one, feel convinced that the efficiency of our labor must be increased, and to that end we must devise measures to improve the conditions of labor and to provide facilities for the education and general well-being of our workers. Something has already been done in India in these directions. Eight years ago, after an elaborate investigation by an influential and representative Commission, the Indian Legislature passed a Factory Act, the result of which has been a considerable improvement already in the previous law and practice. But having regard to our climatic, social, and other conditions, so radically different from those existing in Western countries, that Factory Commission recommended, in the best interests of the country, that progress must necessarily be slow, and that, in the interests of the workmen, they must not lay down standards prevailing in Western countries. I admit that there is room for much improvement, but still, so far as India is concerned, I must confess that we who are here to watch over and to protect, so far as we can, the interests of India, watched the building up of this Convention with some misgiving. We feared [Page 256] that the special conditions of Eastern countries might not be sufficiently realized. We apprehended danger that the international regulation of labor might, under the pressure of public opinion, tend to make backward countries adopt, contrary to their best interests, and possibly against their will, measures which were not adapted to their conditions. Happily these differences of conditions have now been fully recognized by the slight addition which Mr. Barnes commended to your attention to-day—the addition in the form of a protocol to Article 19, which runs as follows:—
“‘In framing any recommendation or draft Convention of general application, the Conference shall have due regard to those countries in which climatic conditions, the imperfect development of industrial organizations, or other special circumstances make the industrial conditions substantially different, and shall suggest modifications, if any, which it considers may be required to meet the case of such countries.’
“With this safeguard, to which we in India attach the highest importance, we gladly and whole-heartedly accept this Convention, and I am sufficient of an optimist to believe that the International Labor Convention will prove, not an instrument to compel India and other countries in the same situation, against their will and contrary to their best interests, to accept impracticable standards, but a body on which India and other countries in the same situation will rely for advice and counsel for the steady and progressive amelioration of labor.”
The Maharaja of Bikaner (India) expresses the views of the States of India in the following speech:—
“Mr. President and Gentlemen,
“In endorsing generally the remarks made by my Right Honorable colleague, Lord Sinha, I should like also to give expression to my warm sympathy in regard to ameliorating the conditions of labor wherever the necessity is apparent. In view, however, of the conditions and circumstances—economic, industrial and otherwise which prevail in India, it would have been impossible for me, as one who has the honor of representing the ruling Princes of India, to bind the Indian States to proposals which, however suitable they may be for Western countries, would have proved prejudicial both to the interests of the people of India as well as to the labor and industries of the country. I am, therefore, very glad that due regard has been paid to the special conditions of India and that a provision has been inserted to which Lord Sinha has already referred. It therefore remains for me only to make one point quite clear.
“As the territories of the ruling Princes lie outside British India, and as legislation enacted for British India by the British Government cannot apply to the Indian States, and as furthermore the only [Page 257] competent authority to legislate for an Indian State is the Government of the State concerned, it should be clearly understood, with reference to Article 19 of the draft Convention, that ‘the authority or the authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action’ shall be the constituted authorities of the various Indian States concerned.”
Mr. Barnes (British Empire): I now beg to move, Mr. Chairman, the following resolution:—
“That the Conference approves the Draft Convention creating a permanent organization for the promotion of international regulation of labor conditions which has been submitted by the Labor Commission, with the amendments proposed by the British Delegation; instructs the Secretariat to request the Governments concerned to nominate forthwith their representatives on the organizing committee for the October Conference, and authorizes that committee to proceed at once with its work.”
You will remember I said our work was divided into two parts. A scheme for the organization of State employers, and workers, which is covered by this resolution. I move this resolution for the adoption of the scheme of organization. That still leaves the road open for the consideration of the second part, namely, the nine resolutions at the end, which are separate and distinct, and have still to be dealt with.
Mr. de Bustamante (Cuba), speaking in French, makes, in the name of the Cuban Delegation, the following reservations regarding the draft Convention:—
“The Delegation of the Cuban Republic will vote with pleasure for the draft Convention which has been submitted to us, and the clauses for the Treaty of Peace. However, I must make a reservation in regard to Article 37, respecting the amendments to the Convention, because it is incompatible with the constitutional law of the Republic. I request the insertion of this reservation in the Minutes of the proceedings.
“After making this clear, it only remains to me to express my concurrence in the words which have been spoken this afternoon and with the desires expressed for an improvement in the condition of labor throughout the whole world.”
Sir Robert Borden (Canada), moves in the following terms an addition to the motion proposed by Mr. Barnes:—
“Mr. Chairman: It would be both presumptuous and unnecessary for me to attempt to add anything to the very eloquent speeches which have been made this afternoon upon the all-important subject which has engaged the attention of the Labor Commission for several [Page 258] weeks past. It is possible that some of us would have framed the dispositions of the proposed Conventions somewhat differently, but the main purpose, and after all, the great purpose, in respect of this Convention, as in respect of the League of Nations, is to secure the adhesion of the different States to an arrangement which will tend to the welfare of humanity in the future. That purpose, I think, has been accomplished in the draft Convention which has been laid before us; and I desire to offer my congratulations to the Labor Commission on the good work which it has done in that regard.
“I have just one word to add. This Convention is linked in many ways by its terms to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and I think it desirable to make it perfectly plain that the character of its membership and the method of adherence should be the same in the one case as in the other. Probably, after all, in view of the dispositions of the Convention, that is only a matter of drafting; but in order to prevent any misapprehension and to make the matter perfectly clear, I move the following words be added to the motion which has been proposed by Mr. Barnes:—
“‘The Conference authorizes the Drafting Committee to make such amendments as may be necessary to have the Convention conform to the Covenant of the League of Nations in the character of its membership and in the method of adherence.’”
The Delegates of Bolivia, Ecuador and Panama make reservations in regard to Article 37 of the Draft Convention in view of the provisions of the Constitution of their Countries.
Mr. Montes (Bolivia): For reasons connected with the constitutional law of Bolivia, which is unable to accept emendations of the Acts passed by the legislative power, except such as may originate from that power, I am compelled to make, and do therefore make, the same reservations as the Cuban Delegation in regard to Article 37. If, indeed, as a result of ratification by the majority of States, the amendments became binding even on those which had not ratified them, the power to legislate would in point of fact have been thereby delegated, a thing which is forbidden by the Bolivian Constitution.
Having made these reservations, I hasten to add that I will cordially vote for the acceptance of the Draft which has been submitted at today’s session to the Conference.
Mr. Dorn y de Alsua (Ecuador).
“The Ecuadorean Delegation will have every pleasure in voting for the Draft which has been presented, but entirely associates itself with the reservations made by the Delegations of the Cuban and Bolivian Republics on the subject of Article 37.”
Mr. Burgos (Panama).
“Gentlemen: If a society is to make progress, it is indispensable that its members should not be benumbed by indifference or inertia. Each one of them must use all his energy, must bring his contribution to the common task, and share according to his means in the complex organization of the social edifice.
“But if a definite result is to be obtained, communion with one’s own thoughts is not enough; we must live in the world and with the world; and by that I mean that each one must take up his share of the common burdens, must reach an understanding of the conditions of labor, and must follow the trend of prevailing ideas, for that is the only way of contributing to general progress by a more accurate knowledge of the worth of each social class. Thence arises the necessity of watching over the usefulness of our acts, of shunning all methods of constraint whether moral or physical, of respecting every category of workers, for each category contributes in its own way to social harmony. That is the way to apply the principle of relativity so as to ensure general cohesion.
“The time has passed when people could rest satisfied with the enunciation of a few utopian ideas from which the happiness of the world should spring. The hour has now struck for carrying into effect the changes recognized as indispensable in order to enable the working-classes to hold the place in modern society to which they are entitled, and to take their great share of the welfare of humanity. Without that, the inventions of the brain, progress in technical methods and economic laws, would be of no avail, for the working-classes make for all progress and their interests may not be hampered by anything which is old, or seems old.
“Such are the considerations which confer its importance on the scheme for International Labor Legislation which has been submitted for your deliberation. The Panama Delegation gives its enthusiastic adhesion and likewise reserves the right to point out to its Government the scope of Article 37.”
Mr. Varela Acevedo (Uruguay), speaking in French, declares in the following terms that he unreservedly concurs in the draft Convention.
“The Uruguayan Delegation accepts forthwith and unrestrictedly not only the Convention which has been laid before you for examination, but also the social principles which are to be embodied in the Treaty of Peace. The most important of these principles, viz., the 8-hour day, the weekly rest, the protection of children, stand already on our Statute Book. They have contributed to the economic development of our country, and to social pacification.
[Page 260]“We wish that the success of our experience, however modest, may encourage other countries to enter on this path, which is the one of justice, and even a safeguard for democratic institutions.
“We should therefore be proud to see our policy shared by the great men present here.”
President Wilson expresses in the following terms his deep regret at the absence of Mr. Gompers:—
“Mr. Chairman: No one could have desired a more adequate exposition of this report than that which Mr. Barnes has given. But I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing my personal regret that my fellow countryman, Mr. Samuel Gompers, is not here. Mr. Gompers, as you know, was the Chairman of this Commission. He went home only under the compulsion of imperative duties there. I know how thoroughly and truly he represents the sentiment of the working-men of America. I wish very heartily that he were here to do what I am not qualified to do—express their sentiments and their entire concurrence in what I regard as this admirable document.”
The President calls upon Sir Robert Borden to read his amendment.
Sir Robert Borden reads his amendment, which runs as follows:—
“The Conference authorizes the Drafting Committee to make such amendments as may be necessary to have the Convention conform to the Covenant of the League of Nations in the character of its membership and in the method of adherence.”
This amendment is added, with the assent of the Conference, to Mr. Barnes’ resolution.
Mr. Barnes’ resolution, thus completed, is put to the vote and unanimously adopted.
The session is adjourned at 17.30 o’clock (5.30 P.M.).
The
Secretary-General,
P.
Dutasta.
The Secretaries,
J. C. Grew
M. P.
A. Hankey
Paul
Gauthier
Aldrovandi
Sadao Saburi