Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956
File 045
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956 - File 045. 1956-02. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. August 9, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/909/show/884.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-02). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956 - File 045. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/909/show/884

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956 - File 045, 1956-02, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed August 9, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/909/show/884.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 1956
Alternate Title Facts Forum News, Vol. V, No. 2, February 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date February 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States
Item Description
Title File 045
Transcript \1\0* TRADE COOPERATION at can the S» ake an 1 binds 0> I its tee*-, precisely ' Gener; Trade' tld i '■nrnent to place another coordinate iianeh in such an untenable position? . . the Secretary of Stale, Mr. Dulles, '""self enunciated the doctrine that 'as guided State Department action nee 1945. Responding to questions "on. Senator Byrd, Chairman of the Senate he Fin ince Committee, during : would & "earings on the Trade Agreements ,1 \orceins11', pension bill of 1955, on March 23, epartment ' 1J», Mr. Dulles declared: iff rates *'«' ation, a"'1 rt quotas ^ ds of regulj lower 1"S Depan tries' d Congre^J ■r cottnii" and th in of acting ! dishonoring | means tn*X put a toA path of he honor °l j meuvering . inch of thej n Tope I would go on the tlicory that when you g|Vx. t])(. l)rosU|t.nt iliserction t,l negotiate tariff reductions you impliedly '"«> due htm discretion to negotiate the conditions and terms under which those ■"luctmns arc made, and tlie terms and IMlditloiis under which we will get "'cipioia! advantages. There you have it in a nutshell! Mr Dulles evidently did not stop to think of the implication of this doctrine. Its fallacy is more readily appreciated if its perils are brought home to us in other fields. When a sheriff deputizes a citizen, for example, to help arrest a citizen suspected of crime, certainly there is no implied discretion vested in the deputy to do as he likes. He is not at liberty to arrest without a warrant, to wield a club or brandish a gun to subdue the suspected person in the absence of strong resistance. The Secretary is thus obviously on false ground in suggesting that the President can in Itis discretion negotiate the conditions and terms under which the tariff reductions are made. lie should rather have said: The President, subject to constitu tional or other legal limitations, can in his discretion negotiate. . . . Certainly if the condition to be agreed to internationally is that Congress will not legislate, will maintain a standstill in legislative action in a particular field, the agreement would be a gross violation of good faith in the international field and an abominable grasp for unjustified power, in the domestic. U. S. membership in the OTC should therefore be defeated. Then Congress should call the General Agreement before it for a thorough review. Alter all, that is what Congress is asked to approve, lock, stock and barrel, without looking at it, in approving the OTC. END "'"J other subsidiary body of the yrganfzation shall have the effect of ll'l'oiing on a member ami new obli- ^<i ion which the member lias not spe- 'I'caiiy agreed to undertake." THE NECESSITY FOR GATT AND THE OTC wl IS' of course, difficult to estimate Yjat part the General Agreement has I u 'Vi '" tne tremendous expansion in since I9fy ofw^ f "'"'nt years The value rt of the 1 of W trade as a whole during each ,qei .1 e last three vears has been more ^ \SA Z double that of the best prewar 0|«","'/' aid :,','ilr aml 'ts volume has been roughly " ''■ i,er1r£,Per Cent '"'id'cr during each of with oth^, these years than a„v time in history. ' V-"'' /riie,re can be no question that N ' n0* fori ,,', I, s eontribution to this develop- "ization t< ( <'nt has been as much in what it has '""ister \$ 'Rented as in what it has positively ., to pert" ''el'ieved. During the life of GATT functions' ^rorn 1947 on, nothing has happened govemmen ,s relating ntal ,d.' ol intern"''", „.,l,ev .""': \N\ ,asl occurred following the first oiiu War when the practice of in- tradS.lng tUri!Fs and other forms of tn e restrictions was so universal as create virtually a chronic state of tion %X-l,rfare between nearly all na- i.,',| ,rhe restrictions which have 1VVV 11 , from the dislocations of of e '•" have been the subject "i'1 <<"'"'"'.«jun(l,?J1Staint international consultation g paid ! , " r"les laid down bv the General ,,f other '"• ^'eement and are now on the de- ,, l/n .''a' If GATT should be termi- ' neni' evo" "mv- a"<l "» arrange- itnaU(n;<','l'rma<1!:t"take_its Place, the ke rccoin"'6 ,1 data re ',. mil con,n"r, ion s'"1" XUted' even l""'/''",1",;;;,,f.we: '»" "I: »" I, w 1 ,'°n after World War' I A.s.sf" V- be repeated th sists of 11 onnnue F.'/i."1 ngressional fail ure to approve the proposed OTC would greatly weaken the position of the United States in its trade relationships with the other countries of the free world. It would make unworkable the most effective system ever devised by governments for cooperative reduction of the barriers to world trade. There can be no doubt that such a development would be disastrous for the free world system of alliances, for GATT is the counterpart, in the field of commercial relations, of the free world's military and political alliances, formal and informal. If the tree world should not maintain unity and strength in the economic field there can be little hope that our common front in defense against the Communist bloc could endure for long. The GATT system is an essential part of that strength and unity. CONTENTIONS AND ANSWERS TO THE OPPOSERS Opposition to the GATT is based on protectionist and alleged legal grounds. The protectionist contentions are similar to those that have been put forward in opposition to the Trade Agreements Program from the beginning and that are advanced today in opposition to HR I. These need not be enumerated here. The alleged legal arguments rest on the following contentions: (1) That the Trade Agreements Act is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; (2) That the Trade Agn tents Act contemplated only the negotiation of bilateral agreements, not a multilateral agreement such as GATT; (3) That some of the authority granted </<>« u"'s Forum News, February. 1956 by Congress to the President has been unconstitutionally "rcdelegated" by him to the GATT organization. Constitutionality of the Trade Agreements Act Under the separation of powers principle of our Constitution the Congress cannot delegate any of its lawmaking powers to the President. The Supreme Court has held, however, that by legislating an "intelligible principle" or standard in connection with a grant of discretion to the President in administering an act, the Congress has fulfilled its law-making function. In the Trade Agreements Act the main standard laid down to govern the exercise by the President of his discretion is that reductions in the U. S. tariff shall be for the purpose of expanding foreign markets for the products of the U. S., and in order to secure such benefits such reductions shall correspond to action taken by other countries to reduce their barriers against U. S. exports. Congress has renewed this Act nine times since 1934 and thus has repeatedly confirmed its view that this delegation is constitutional. Validity of o Multilateral Agreement The Trade Agreements Act does not limit the President to the negotiation of bilateral agreements nor is there anything in the legislative history of the Act to indicate that Congress intended to confine the authority to the negotiation of bilateral agreements. The purpose of the Act was to expand (Continued on Page 53) Page 43 V Is ing
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n002_045.jpg