Senator THOMAS of Utah. Give us the relationship between the article and what we have attempted to bring about in the World Conference on Freedom of Information at Geneva, Mr. Thorp. Mr. THORP. I think they are both directed at the same objective. Our fundamental objective is to achieve all that is meant by the phrase "freedom of information" the opportunity of individuals to go in and make inquiry, regardless of what the jursidiction over the area may be; their freedom to send reports out and the freedom of publication within the area as much as freedom may exist within the area. There is no distinction, really, between the objectives that are incorporated in this treaty and the objectives of our delegation at the recent conference. Of course, at that conference there was a great deal more in the way of elaboration of such problems as who was responsible for honesty on the part of the press, and so forth. But this is really taking action as between ourselves and Italy in a field in which the United Nations is trying to write policy but has not yet reached a point where action as such is on the horizon. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Can we go so far as to say that what we are doing is quite experimental? Mr. THORP. I think that is true. I think I would prefer to call it pioneering rather than experimental. It is a new area. Senator LODGE. What is the United Nations doing about it? Mr. THORP. The Freedom of Information Conference, which has recently been held, was for the purpose of trying to develop an international opinion which might be incorporated into conventions or a multilateral agreement that would establish certain principles with respect to freedom of information. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS TREATIES Senator LODGE. Has the State Department made a list anywhere of the features of this treaty which are different from what we have done in the past? Mr. THORP. I have summarized that briefly in an earlier statement, but we can make a very exact and formal statement on it if you would like. Senator LODGE. I would like to have it exact. I do not want to have it too formal. I would like just a general idea of how this is different from what we usually do. That is, after all, what we have to confront up. here. Can you do that? It seems to me it is pretty hard to reach a decision on a matter of this kind which is as long as this is, and as intricately written as this, unless you know what is new and what is merely repeating the traditions. Mr. THORP. I think the total picture should be clear if you take the material that was presented to this committee with respect to the China treaty, where there was a fairly general discussion of both the standard provisions and some new provisions, and if we incorporate in the record, or if I present, the statement which I have prepared, which outlines things that are new in this treaty or things which are different from the China treaty Senator LODGE. Can you not save us the labor by comparing the whole thing? Can you not give us a brief list of the things in this treaty that are new? Mr. THORP. I will be glad to give it to you or to outline again, if Senator Thomas wants me to, a brief list that I gave before. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I think as a sum-up of what has already been said in answer to Senator Lodge's question, we could have it all in one paragraph. Mr. THORP. All right. Senator LODGE. You can see for yourself the things that are traditional, that we have always done, are matters that on the committee we can put to one side, but things that are new are the things that we can put the magnifying glass on. Mr. THORP. We will prepare such (The statement is as follows:) statement. COMPARISON OF THE TREATY WITH ITALY, SIGNED FEBRUARY 2, 1948, WITH PREVIOUS TREATIES OF FRIENDSHIP, COMMERCE, AND NAVIGATION CONCLUDED BY THE UNITED STATES In the period from 1923 to 1938, during which the Department of State was engaged in an extensive program directed to the conclusion of treaties of friendship, commerce, and navigation, about a dozen treaties of this general type were concluded, including treaties with Germany (1923), Austria, (1928), El Salvador (1926), Finland (1934), Honduras (1927), Hungary (1925), Norway (1928), Latvia (1928), Poland (1931), Siam (1937), and Liberia (1938). These treaties differ among themselves as to detail but are generally similar. The last two in the group, the treaties with Siam and Liberia, have more points in common with the treaty with Italy now under consideration, than do the earlier ones in the group. For the purpose of more detailed comparison with the treaty with Italy, the treaty with Norway, signed at Washington June 5, 1928 (IV Treaties (Trenwith) 4527), may be taken as representative of the group enumerated in the preceding paragraph. There are a few quite obvious differences between the two treaties. The Norway treaty deals extensively with consular rights. This is true of most, but not all of the treaties in the 1923-38 group. It is now the practice of the Department of State to deal with these matters in separate consular conventions. Much subject matter is common to the two treaties and the standards of treatment established is the same in a large number of the provisions. In the treaty with Italy, however, most of the provisions have been restated with the object of making them more specific, more explicit, of adapting them more fully to the coverage of situations which experience has indicated are likely to arise, and of bringing them wherever practicable into more complete accord with United States law and judicial decisions thereunder. There follows a tabular comparison of the provisions of the two treaties. (NOTE. The statements in the following tabulation are designed to provide guidance to, and to facilitate the consultation of, the provisions of the two treaties to which they refer, and should not be construed as interpretations of those provisions.) Treaty with Italy Arts. I (1, 3), XXIV (7). Rights of entry, travel and residence, Art. I. Rights to carry on specified activities on national treatment Art. II (3). Rights to carry on specified activities on national treat- Art. III (1). Rights to participate in, manage and control corpora- Art. IV. Most-favored-nation treatment with respect to exploration Art. V (1). Constant protection assured, and rights specified for Art. V (2). Right of expropriated person to prompt, just, and effec- Art. V (4). Freedom of access to courts, and right to employ counsel. Art. VI. No unlawful entry or molestation. National treatment as Art. VII (1). National treatment for American nationals and cor- Art. VII (2). If local law bars alien from succeeding to real property, Art. VII (3, 4). Right of disposition specified, and charges and Art. VIII. National and most-favored-nation rights as to patents, Art. IX. Nondiscriminatory treatment stated in terms related to provisions of existing United States tax legislation. Exception for double-taxation treaties and reciprocity arrangements. with respect to custom Art. X. Most-favored-nation treatment with respect to customs and other rights and privileges. Treaty with Norway Art. I and Additional Article. Provisions comparable, though differently stated. Art. I. Provisions comparable, though differently stated. List of Art. XII. No comparable provisions. Activities of corporations Art. XIII. Rights much less extensive than in Italian treaty. Most- Art. XIII. Most-favored-nation rights accorded for the mining of Art. I. Rule as to compensation almost identical with that in Italian- Art. I, XII. General rule on access to courts comparable to that in Art. IV. Provisions similar to those in Italian treaty. Art. IV. Rights as to disposition comparable to those in Italian treaty. No reference to rights to acquire personal property, or to mostfavored-nation treatment. No comparable provision. Art. I. National treatment is specified, without exception, except that the national treatment rule is not to apply to taxes related to the exploitation of waterfalls, mines, and forests. Art. XIV. Provisions similar to those in the Italian treaty. Art. I (2), II (3), XI (1). Unqualified right to liberty of conscience Art. XI (3). Right to bury dead according to religious customs in Art. XI (2). Adherence to principles of freedom of press and free Art. XII (1). National treatment under laws establishing civil Art. XII (2). National treatment with respect to application of Art. XIII. Nationals of one country within other to be exempt from Art. XIV. Most-favored-nation treatment generally as to treatment Art. XV. Laws, etc., to be published. Advances in rates imposed Art. XVI (1). National treatment of imported articles with respect Art. XVI (2). National treatment to be accorded. Art. XVI (3). National treatment with respect to export bounties, Art. XVII. Nondiscriminatory treatment in application of such Art. XVIII (1-2). Fair and equitable treatment as to purchases or Art. XVIII (3). Harmful effects of such practices recognized, and Art. XIX. Recognition of national status of vessels of other. Most- Art. XX. National treatment of vessels and cargoes. Art. XXI. No discrimination between national vessels and vessels Arts. I, V. Provisions similar to those in Italian treaty, but without reference to the rights of corporations and associations. Art. V. Provisions nearly identical with those in Italian treaty. No comparable provision. Art. VI. In event of war with third state, either country may draft Art. VII. Provisions generally comparable though differing in some Art. VIII. Same treatment to be accorded imported articles as to domestic articles, but provision is less specific than in Italian treaty. No comparable provision. Art. VIII. Provision comparable to that in Italian treaty. No comparable provision, except to extent general provision for most No comparable provision. Art. VII. Provision comparable to that in Italian treaty, except that Art. IX. Provisions similar to those in Italian treaty. |