¹ This number includes Costa Rica, which was admitted to the Organization by action of the Conference. Provisional Record of the Conference, No. 2 (communication to the Conference on the subject) and No. 4, p. 14 (report of the Selection Committee), p. 15 (admission of Costa Rica voted by the Conference).

² Iceland, Nicaragua, and Paraguay were represented by official observers. Danish observers also attended the Conference. As in 1941, there were no delegations from Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Rumania, Spain, and the USSR. '

³ That is, sent two government delegates, one worker delegate, and one employer delegate. These countries included the leading industrial countries, the governments-in-exile, most of the Latin American countries, and the British Dominions. The full list of countries sending complete delegations is as follows: United States of America, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, British Empire, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Union of South Africa, Sweden, and Yugoslavia.

⁴ In the United States delegation Senator Elbert D. Thomas, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was one of the two Government delegates and Mrs. Margaret C. Smith, Member of Congress from Maine, was one of the twelve government advisers.

⁵ The size of the session was also an interesting indication of the transportation which could be eked out by the United Nations, in the midst of war, for an international gathering. The total number of delegates and advisers in attendance was 360. Two other international conferences dealing with post-war problems and policies were not so large: the United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture was attended by 291 government representatives, the first meeting of the Council of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration by representatives numbering from 292 to 337, the Bretton Woods Conference by 296. See note 8, below.

⁶ In addition to those of ministerial and legislative status were innumerable government delegates and advisers who were under-secretaries, assistant deputy ministers, labor ministers of states and provinces, directors of departments and chairmen of boards. The delegates and advisers of employers and workers likewise brought to the Conference considerable experience with many of the subjects on the agenda.

⁷ “What Is the I.L.O.?,” Fortune, Sept., 1944, p. 160.

⁸ The United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture was held at Hot Springs, Virginia, May 18-June 3, 1943. See United Nations Conference on Food and Agriculture: Final Act and Section Reports, Washington, 1943. The first session of the Council of UNRRA was held at Atlantic City, N. J., Nov. 10-Dec. 1, 1943. See First Session of the Council of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, Selected Documents, Washington, 1944. The United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference was held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, July 1 to July 22,1944; Final Act (Doc. 492 of the Conference, dated July 22,1944, mimeographed). See also Carter Goodrich, “International Labor Conference of 1944,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 58 (1944), p. 490.

⁹ The agenda of the Conference included the following items:

1. I. Future policy, program, and status of the International Labor Organization.

2. II. Recommendations to the United Nations for present and post-war social policy.

3. III. The organization of employment in the transition from war to peace.

4. IV. Social security: principles, and problems arising out of the war.

5. V. Minimum standards of social policy in dependent territories.

6. VI. Reports on the application of Conventions (Article 22 of the Constitution).

7. VII. Director’s Report.

¹⁰ Partly because of the broad policy questions on the agenda, the session was given unusual attention in many countries, particularly in the United States, the United Kingdom and Latin America. In the United States, the newspapers of Philadelphia and nearby cities devoted considerable front-page publicity to the session which was also the subject of extensive comment by editors and columnists throughout the nation. For some of the events and proposals to the Conference which stimulated additional journalistic interest in the session as it proceeded, see the New York Times, April 28 and 29, May 1 and 3, 1944. Special facilities were extended to newspaper, magazine, and radio correspondents by the International Labor Office itself, which facilitated the session’s publicity. For a reference to this see Prov. Rec., Nos. 22 at p. 189 and 36 at p. 279. For the first time in their histories, the Saturday Evening Post and Fortune, inspired by the Conference, carried articles on the I.L.O., the Post on April 15, 1944 (“An International Organization at Work,” by John G. Winant) and Fortune in Sept., 1944 (“What Is the I.L.O.?”).

The tenth anniversary of the membership of the United States in the I.L.O. (some time later) evoked renewed newspaper references to the decisions of the Conference. See, for example, Washington Post, Aug. 20, 1944.

¹¹ See, for example, Walter Lippmann’s comment in his column “Today and Tomorrow,” New York Herald Tribune, May 20, 1944; The Economist, London, Vol. CXLVII, No. 5266 (July 29, 1944), p. 143. See the debate in the House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, Vol. 401 (June 21, 1944; daily issue), col. 223, where the Minister of Labor, in a debate on the White Paper setting forth the British Government’s employment policies said: “We welcome the initiative taken in the employment field by the International Labour Organisation. Attention should be particularly directed to the resolutions passed at Philadelphia on the economic policies for the attainment of social objectives which are broadly in line with the policy of this White Paper.” See also same, Vol. 402 (July 26, 1944), cols. 777 ff. for the debate on the International Labor Conference. The editors of Business Week on May 20, 1944 commented (p. 120): “Already the highlights of what is to be known as the Philadelphia Charter are beaming out on the airwaves to underground radios in the Nazi continent. Already the leaflets in a dozen languages are being dropped on Fortress Europe.”

On May 29, 1944, the President transmitted to Congress the declaration, the resolution concerning economic policies, and the resolution concerning social provisions of the peace settlement, as certain “important decisions” of the Conference of which he thought “the Congress should be informed,” New York Times, May 30, 1944; Congressional Record (daily issue), Vol. 90, pp. 5181 (Senate) and 5187 (House). Later, on Aug. 22, 1944, in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the membership of the United States in the I.L.O., the President transmitted to Congress the seven Recommendations adopted by the Conference. The same, pp. 7248 (Senate) and 7271–2 (House).

¹² The 1941 Conference was held in New York and Washington. It was not a session of the International Labor Conference but a “Conference of the International Labor Organization.” See Record of Proceedings, Conference of the International Labour Organisation, 1941, New York and Washington, D. C., Montreal, 1941. For reviews of that Conference see “The Social Objective in Wartime and World Reconstruction: the New York Conference of the International Labour Organisation,” International Labour Réview, Vol. 45 (1942), pp. 1–24; Goodrich, Carter, “Program of the International Labor Organization,” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 54 (1942), pp. 305–317 Google Scholar; Simpson, Smith, “The International Labor Conference, 1941,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 36 (1942), pp. 102–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Watt, Robert J., “The I.L.O. Conference,” American Federationist, Vol. XLVIII, No. 12 (Dec., 1941), p. 9 Google Scholar.

¹³ International Labor Office, Official Bulletin, Vol. XXVI, pp. 92–99, for text. Prov. Rec., No. 28 (report of the Conference Committee); No. 35, pp. 255–6 (discussion and adoption by the Conference). For the text of the resolution as proposed by the Office, see Report II, Recommendations to the United Nations for Present and Post-War Social Policy, International Labour Conference, Twenty-sixth Session, Montreal, 1944, pp. 71–76.

This Resolution has been construed as an expression of the I.L.O.’s responsibility, expressed in the Declaration on aims and purposes of the I.L.O. (adopted by the Conference and described below), to “examine and consider all international economic and financial policies and measures.” Historically this would appear to be a somewhat limited view. Beginning with its first session in Washington in 1919 delegates to the International Labor Conference have assumed the responsibility of discussing all “economic and financial policies and measures” insofar as these affect labor standards. The Director’s Report, from the very first, likewise assumed the responsibility of discussing these matters. The Office assumed the same responsibility in preparing its reports on the textile industry in preparation for the World Textile Conference in Washington in 1937. International Labor Office, The World Textile Industry: Economic and Social Problems, Geneva, 1937. It is true that while delegates, the Director, and the Office have assumed the responsibility of discussing “international economic and financial policies and measures,” the responsibility (as compared with the right) of the Conference as a whole to adopt resolutions or make other appropriate decisions concerning them has not been formally acknowledged until the adoption of the Declaration on aims and purposes. It would seem clear, however, that none of the decisions of the twenty-sixth session depend on the Declaration for their justification.

¹⁴ Official Bulletin, as cited, pp. 78–85. Prov. Rec., No. 34 (report of the Conference Committee); No. 35, pp. 256–8 (discussion and adoption by the Conference). For the text of the resolution as proposed by the Office, see Report II, as cited, pp. 77–81.

¹⁵ These matters are:

1. 1. Employment, wages, and conditions of work;

2. 2. Standards of living and the distribution of income, with particular reference to wage and salaried workers;

3. 3. Technical education and training for employment;

4. 4. Industrial health, safety, and welfare;

5. 5. Industrial relations;

6. 6. Social security;

7. 7. Administration of labor and social security legislation.

¹⁶ The proposed conference would be an I.L.O. conference: Part II, paragraph 1, of the Resolution.

¹⁷ Part V of the Resolution.

¹⁸ One finds a remarkable continuity between earlier Director’s Reports of the International Labor Office and the resolutions adopted by the twenty-sixth session. Much of the orientation and content of these resolutions will be found, for example, in The I.L.O. and Reconstruction, Report by the Acting Director of the International Labour Office to the Conference of the International Labour Organisation, New York, Oct. 1941, Montreal, 1941. This points, perhaps, to the influence of a permanent staff of international officials in the development of international policy; but in a broader sense it also indicates the success with which the I.L.O. has. identified itself with a developing social consciousness throughout the world.

¹⁹ Memorandum on the Twenty-sixth Session of the International Labour Conference, Montreal, 1944, p. 4. This Memorandum was issued in advance of the Conference to provide preliminary information on the agenda of the Conference.

²⁰ Report I, Future Policy, Programme and Status of the International Labour Organisation, International Labour Conference, Twenty-sixth Session, Montreal, 1944.

²¹ Same, p. 3. For text of the Declaration as finally adopted, see Official Bulletin, as cited, pp. 1–3. Prov. Rec., as cited, No. 16, pp. ii-iv (text submitted by the special drafting committee of the Conference); No. 22, pp. 184–5 (action by the Conference), 185–6 (comment of the Acting Director of the Office).

²² Part II, paragraph (b).

²³ Part II, paragraph (e). The Declaration therefore is not simply a testament of faith, hope and benevolence but an important recasting of the objectives of the Organization. Whereas the earlier statement of aims and purposes of the I.L.O. catalogued abuses which the I.L.O. should assist in correcting, the present Declaration calls attention to a general program of national and international action directed toward the elimination of poverty and want. See article by Walter Lippmann referred to above, note 11.

In remarks to the delegates during a reception at the White House following the Conference President Roosevelt said of the Declaration on aims and purposes adopted by the Conference: “Your Declaration sums up the aspirations of an epoch which has known two world wars. I confidently believe that future generations will look back upon it as a landmark in world thinking.” Department of State Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 256 (May 20, 1944), pp. 481–482. See also remarks of Walter Nash, President of the Conference: Prov. Rec., No. 36, p. 276.

²⁴ Report I, p. 113. For text of the resolution as drafted by the Office: same, pp. 187–191. The general subjects with which the resolution dealt included membership in the Organization, financial contributions by member states, the Governing Body’s constitution and powers, reports and information from member states, committees, technical and special conferences, regional organization, relationships with other international organizations, complaints concerning the non-observance of International Labor Conventions, technical and other assistance to governments by the International Labor Office, representation at the International Labor Conference, freedom of speech of members of the Governing Body and delegates to the Conference while engaged in their official duties as such, and the international character of the Office.

In addition, the Office proposed a resolution “concerning facilities for the efficient discharge of the responsibilities entrusted to the International Labour Organisation,” dealing with such matters as immunity of the Organization from suit and legal process', inviolability of its premises, exemption from taxation, correspondence, circulation of publications, and travel, facilities: same, pp. 192–194. This resolution was referred to the Governing Body for further consideration. For a similar resolution see First Session of the Council of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration: Selected Documents, pp. 62–63.

²⁵ Official Bulletin, as cited, pp. 89–91 for text. Prov. Rec., Nos. 5 at p. 21, 6 at p. 36, 7 at p. 55, 8 at p. 70, 9 at p. 90 and 10 at p. 109 (general discussion); also No. 21, pp. ii-iii (report of committee); No. 35, p. 254 (adoption by the Conference).

²⁶ A resolution was adopted on the international character of the responsibilities of the Director and staff of the International Labor Officer Official Bulletin, pp. 91–92; Prov. Rec., No. 35, p. 254 (action by the Conference). This resolution embodied paragraph 19 of the draft resolution on constitutional practices prepared by the Office. Other resolutions, discussed below, dealt with industrial committees and regional conferences.

²⁷ Prov. Rec., No. 7, p. 57 (van den Tempel, Netherlands Government). See, however, the remarks of Messrs. van Zeeland (Belgian Government), same, p. 61; Stancyk (Polish Government), pp. 66, 67; Soubbotitch (Yugoslav Government), pp. 76, 77.

²⁸ Same, No. 7, p. 57 (van den Tempel); No. 8, p. 75 (Hambro, Norwegian Government and member of Supervisory Commission of the League of Nations). The Indian Government had not received the report before the departure of its delegates. See Minutes of the Committee on Items I and II, CI-II/PV 4, p. 3.

²⁹ Prov. Rec., No. 7, p. 57 (van den Tempel).

³⁰ Same, No. 10, p. 109 (Martin, Canadian Government).

³¹ Same, No. 8, p. 74 (Hambro); No. 10, pp. 110–111 (Martin).

³² Remarks of Mr. Claxton (Canadian Government delegate) in the Committee on Items I and II. CI-II/PV 4, p. 1. For a more extended analysis of the Constitutional issues raised at the Conference, see Simpson, Smith, “Constitutional Development of the I.L.O. as Affected by the Recent International Labor Conference,” American Political Science Review, Vol. XXXVIII (1944), pp. 719–725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Various proposals concerning the constitutional development of the Organization were made by the delegates, but these were not acted upon. See note 25, above.

³³ Art. II.

³⁴ Report II, pp. 82–85.

³⁵ Prov. Rec., No. 26, p. i (report of committee); No. 35, p. 255 (action by the Conference).

³⁶ Report IV (2), Social Security: Principles, and Problems Arising out of the War, Twenty-sixth Session, International Labour Conference, Montreal, 1944, pp. iv-v.

³⁷ Same, p. 48 (text), 22 (comment).

³⁸ These claims would include pension, accident, and unemployment insurance as well as “sums payable out of public funds to social insurance institutions under the legislation of the country in which the recruited worker was employed.” They include “liability for the aggravation of the risks of invalidity and death during the period of employment in the recruiting country, so that the insurance institutions of the countries of origin would be indemnified for their heavier expenditure for pensions during the years following the cessation of hostilities.” They include claims of individual nationals of the United Nations in respect to treatment contrary to international law or other inequitable treatment connected with working conditions and social protection. For text of the resolution see Official Bulletin, p. 104. For report of the Conference committee see Prov. Rec., No. 18, p. xxviii.

³⁹ Same, No. 29, p. 216 (action by the Conference).

⁴⁰ Official Bulletin, pp. 86–89.

⁴¹ Same, pp. 85–86.

⁴² The strong regional interests expressed at the Washington Conference in 1919 centered around such issues as the election of the Governing Body, official languages of the Conference and the Organization, selection of Conference Committees, election of Conference Officers and special consideration requested by committees of certain regions in connection with various conventions adopted by the Conference.

⁴³ In his reply to the Conference debate on the Director’s Report Mr. Phelan remarked: “The emphasis which has been laid upon the importance of vigorous regional action by the International Labour Organisation in many parts of the world has indeed been one of the outstanding features of this Conference.” Prov. Rec., No. 22, p. 188. See also “The Twenty-sixth Session of the International Labour Conference,” International Labour Review, Vol. L (1944), pp. 1, 35.

⁴⁴ The resolution adopted by the Conference on the subject of an Asiatic Conference arose in connection with the social security items and was considered by the committee dealing with these items. See First Report of the Committee on Social Security, Prov. Rec., No. 16, p. vi.

⁴⁵ By Article 7 of the I.L.O. Constitution delegates to the Conference select the eight non-permanent government members of the Governing Body as well as the employers’ and workers’ members. China became one of the eight members of chief industrial importance by virtue of a decision of the Governing Body at its ninety-second session and, Spain having withdrawn from the Organization, two non-permanent government seats on the Governing Body were vacant. These were filled by the election of Peru and Greece. By virtue of the elections by the Conference the Governing Body now consists of the following members:

It was agreed that the term of office of the new members of the Governing Body should expire at the next ordinary session of the Conference. Concise accounts of the ninety-second and ninety-third sessions of the Governing Body will be found in International Labour Review, Vol. L, No. 1 (July 1944), pp. 73–80. See also New York Times, May 1, 1944.

⁴⁶ The Indian Government delegate, referring to the doubts entertained in his country as to whether India was “getting value from the money paid to the League of Nations,” stated his Government’s anxiety that “the Asiatic side of the Organisation be strengthened” and suggested that the International Labor Office should undertake continuously “a careful scrutiny of the reports of all kinds received from Asiatic countries, a scrutiny done on the spot and done quickly, and circulated to us in Asiatic countries. We would like them to prepare memoranda based on new improvements taking place in other countries and send us a report telling us which of those particular new improvements in other countries might be suitable to us in Asiatic countries. I do not think that they do that at the present time. They send us a lot of paper. We may not have time to study it all and we cannot ourselves always pick out that part of it which is of most value to us. We would welcome the help of the I.L.O. in doing that for us.” Prov. Rec., No. 17, p. 157.

⁴⁷ These committees would deal with the labor problems of separate industries, as the Joint Maritime Commission deals with those of the maritime industry. For text of the resolution see Official Bulletin, p. 92, and Prov. Rec., No. 21, p. iv (report of Committee); No. 35, p. 255 (action by the Conference). No conclusion was reached as to whether such committees should be bi-partite or tri-partite. It was felt that this question required further consideration by the Governing Body. Workers’ members of the subcommittee which considered the subject of industrial committees expressed a definite preference for a tripartite constitution. Nor did the subcommittee reach any conclusions as to the scope of activities of industrial committees. There is a reference to the subject in I.L.O. and Reconstruction, work cited, pp. 105–108, and the 1941 Conference adopted a resolution requesting the Director of the International Labor Office “to begin immediately the preparation of a definite scheme for the establishment, under the aegis of the International Labour Organisation, of a World Textile Office, based on the tripartite principle, to be responsible for the international organisation of economic and social measures to secure prosperity and social justice in the textile industry.” Proceedings, p. 165.

⁴⁸ Official Bulletin, p. 101 for text; Prov. Rec., No. 35, p. 255 (discussion and adoption).

⁴⁹ Official Bulletin, p. 113 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 23, p. 213 (adoption without discussion).

⁵⁰ Prov. Rec., No. 22, p. 189. Mr. Phelan added: “ I am particularly glad that, in spite of the limited resources at the disposal of the Office, we have been successful in our efforts to make good the promise which I made at the New York Conference to produce more of our publications in Spanish, and we will continue our efforts in that direction.” Referring to the Inter-American Conference on Social Security, he remarked: “The Office will be glad to do everything in its power to help this agency to perform the important regional tasks which lie within its field …” and added: “ The Latin American countries have difficult and special problems which need to be discussed on a regional basis. …”

⁵¹ Official Bulletin, p. 115 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 36, p. 274 (discussion and adoption).

⁵² Official Bulletin, pp. 116–117 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 36, p. 274 (adopted without discussion). Reference has been made above to the readmission of Costa Rica to the Organization. Text of the resolution confirming this readmission will be found in Official Bulletin, p. 114.

⁵³ The adoption of the seven Recommendations by the Conference was an interesting development. For some years the strong inclination of the Conference was to decline dealing with any subject by a Recommendation alone. See The International Labour Organisation: The First Decade, Geneva, 1931, pp. 315 ff. The decision of the twenty-sixth session to adopt Recommendations was of course influenced by war conditions and the impracticability of adopting draft Conventions in the midst of such conditions. No draft Conventions were adopted by the session.

⁵⁴ Official Bulletin, p. 4 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 16, pp. v-xxxii (reports of the Conference Committee);.No. 23, pp. 194–211 (discussion by the Conference); No. 23 at p. 212, No. 29 at p. 217, and No. 35 at p. 259 (action by the Conference). The form of this Recommendation marked something of a departure from that common to Recommendations previously adopted. “ Guiding Principles ” are first set forth, followed by suggestions for their application. This form permitted the inclusion of details and principles which might discourage or prevent the adoption of the Recommendation if incorporated in it as basic principles. Compare the form of Recommendation No. 53 concerning safety provisions in the building industry: Conventions and Recommendations, 1919–1937, Geneva, 1937, p. 455; International Labor Code, 1939, Montreal, 1941, Arts. 387–390. There was some discussion as to whether the three texts prepared by the Office on the subjects of income security, medical care, and social security for persons discharged from the armed services, etc., in the form of Recommendations, should be adopted as Recommendations or resolutions, the chief advocacy of the latter form of action being assumed by the British Government. It was decided to adopt them as Recommendations.

⁵⁵ Official Bulletin, pp. 26–28 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 16, pp. xxxiii-xxxvi (report of the Conference committee); No. 23, pp. 194–211 (discussion by the Conference); Nos. 23 at p. 213 and 35 at p. 260 (action by the Conference).

⁵⁶ Official Bulletin, pp. 29–45 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 18, pp. i-xxvi (report of the Conference committee) ;No. 29, pp. 218–220 (discussion by the Conference); No. 29 at p. 220 and No. 36 at p. 266 (action by the Conference).

⁵⁷ Official Bulletin, p. 61 for text. Prov. Rec., Nos. 20 at pp. i-xxxix and 27 at pp. i-ii (report of the Conference committee); No. 31, pp. 237–246 (discussion by the Conference); Nos. 31 at pp. 247–248 and 36 at p. 269 (action by the Conference).

⁵⁸ Official Bulletin, pp. 74–75 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 20 at pp. xvi–xvii (report of the Conference committee); No. 31, pp. 237–246 (discussion by the Conference); Nos. 31 at pp. 247–248 and 36 at p. 270 (action by the Conference).

⁵⁹ Official Bulletin, pp. 75–77 for text. Prov. Rec., No. 20 at pp. xvii–xviii (report of the Conference committee); No. 31, pp. 237–246 (discussion by the Conference); Nos. 31 at pp. 247–248 and 36 at p. 271 (action by the Conference).

⁶⁰ Official Bulletin, pp. 45 ff for text. Prov. Rec., Nos. 19 and 24 (report of the Conference committee); Nos. 29 at pp. 220 ff and 31 at pp. 231 ff (discussion by the Conference); Nos. 31 at pp. 235–236 and 36 at p. 267 (action by the Conference). While this was a technical item, it presented a number of social and political issues of the first order. See New York Times, April 27 and May 3, 1944.

⁶¹ For reference to this factor see the reply of the Acting Director of the International Labor Office, Prov. Rec. No. 22, p. 187. No Conference had been held for three years and no regular session for six. The 1941 Conference was a Conference of the International Labor Organization, not a regular session of the International Labor Conference. Of the 360 persons attending the twenty-sixth session 64 had attended the 1941 Conference. Of these 64 only 22 had attended the twenty-fifth session in 1938.

⁶² Prov. Rec., No. 22, p. 187.

⁶³ Same. See also remarks of Congresswoman Margaret Chase Smith in the House of Representatives: Congressional Record, Vol. 90, p. A2347 (daily issue).

⁶⁴ The Conference was not unaware of the preparations for the invasion of Northern France which occurred on June 6. In the provision of travel arrangements it had been made clear to delegations that no assurance could be offered of an immediate return to their respective capitals. The atmosphere of the Conference was therefore surcharged with the expectation of momentous military developments. This had the effect of inducing caution on the part of many delegates.

⁶⁵ Prov. Rec., No. 22, p. 188.

⁶⁶ Same, pp. 187,275 (closing remarks of the President of the Conference) and 280 (closing remarks of Sir John Forbes Watson). See also New York Times, April 21, 1944, etc., esp. April 28, 29.

⁶⁷ See report by Hon. Elbert D. Thomas, United States Senator, and one of the government delegates of the United States to the Conference, Congressional Record, Vol. 90 (daily issue), May 31,1944, p. A2863. Also Prov. Rec., No. 36, p. 280 (closing remarks of Robert J. Watt), p. 281 (closing remarks of Roberto Fontaina).

⁶⁸ So far as is known, the practice of the International Labor Office in systematically preparing reports on the agenda items of the Labor Conference is unique among international organizations. It has had the effect, through the years, of greatly facilitating action by the Conference by providing all delegates a starting point of discussion. This practice has had the effect, also, of preserving a continuing and consistent policy or point of view with respect to matters in which the I.L.O. is interested. The declaration and resolutions adopted by the twenty-sixth session, for instance, bear a striking relationship to the Acting Director’s Report to the 1941 Conference of the I.L.O.: The I.L.O. and Reconstruction, Montreal, 1941.

⁶⁹ See remarks of the Honorable George Tomlinson, Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Labor and National Service, and one of the government delegates of the British Empire to the Conference. Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons (daily issue), July 26, 1944, col. 778.

⁷⁰ For recent and vivid references to those desperate days, when disaster was imminent, see the address of Secretary of State Cordell Hull, April 9, 1944, and remarks of President Roosevelt to the Conference delegates on May 17, 1944. The Secretary’s address will be found in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. X, No. 251 (April 15, 1944), pp. 335–342, and the President’s remarks in, same, No. 256 (May 20, 1944), pp. 481–482. For a description of the desperate situation of the I.L.O. see Smith Simpson, The International Labor Organization in 1940, this Journal, Vol. XXXV (1941), pp. 359–363; also The I.L.O. and Reconstruction, as cited, Chapter I.

⁷¹ Address of the Secretary of State, April 9, 1944, as cited.

⁷² The I.L.O. and Reconstruction, p. 1.