gram designed to expand international trade. These matters are dear win in articles I. VI, IX, and XV, respectively, of the treaty with China. The first and last of these subjects are not considered as of consequence in a treaty with Italy. As to commercial arbitration, as I have aiready said, the Italian negotiators felt that the provision which we had included in the China treaty was not well adapted for appication under Italian law. As to copyright matters, the two Governments concluded that their relations, based upon proclamations issued under their respective laws in 1910, were satisfactory and that no Treaty provision would be necessary.

A number of provisions in the treaty with Italy have been restated in language somewhat different from that in the treaty with China. The objective has been to clarify the language or to make the provision more explicit. Examples are the article relating to internal taxation article X in the China treaty, IX in the treaty with Italyand the article relating to exchange controls-articles XIX and XVII, respectively, in the Chinese and Italian treaties. There are, of course, a number of minor differences in phraseology and even in substance between the two texts that have not been referred to above.

NEED FOR THE PROTOCOLS

In negotiating the treaty with Italy, it was necessary to give special consideration to the grave economic situation facing Italy as a result of the war and the present inability of Italy to supply, unassisted, the minimum needs of its people or the minimum requirements of economic recovery. Accordingly, there has been attached to the treaty a protocol. the purpose of which is to relax under certain conditions some of the rules of the treaty, such as those relating to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, in order to enable Italy to protect its international-payments position and obtain the essential needs of economic recovery.

The Department of State regards this treaty as a very favorable one from the standpoint of American interests. Prompt ratification would not only have the effect of affording immediate treaty protection for American interests in Italy but would also further strengthen our cordial relations with the government and people of Italy. The announcement of the signature of the treaty on February 2 was particularly well received by the Italian press and public. Approval of the provisions of this treaty by the Senate will provide the Department with an accepted standard which will afford necessary guidance in proceeding with the negotiation of treaties with other countries. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Thorp.

Is Mr. Egan here? Will you please state your name and your address, and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. EGAN, GREAT LAKES CARBON CORP., NEW YORK CITY

Mr. EGAN. Richard M. Egan, Great Lakes Carbon Corp. I am oreign sales manager of Great Lakes Carbon Corp., New York City, S East Forty-eighth Street. I have had some experience in Italy, aving been there for the greater part of 2 years and having had m amily there for about a year and a half.

cents on the dollar. In that case we would insist that we be given the full 100 cents on the dollar, because that had been done with a third country.

Oftentimes it works the other way around-that the nationals of a given country will be treated more favorably than the aliens because, shall we say, their political strength may be a little greater with the country, and in this case, if it were more favorable treatment for the nationals, we would get the more favorable treatment.

This is irrelevant in the United States, because in the United States there is no differential treatment at all. If we nationalize property, the owner is entitled to court protection and a determination, if necessary, by going to the courts, of what he will be paid in connection with the expropriation, quite regardless of his nationality.

Senator LODGE. So this is a one-way proposition, is it? It works insofar as Italy is concerned.

Mr. THORP. It happens that we already have a procedure here which would identify national treatment with the treatment of the alien, and what this does is to bring Italy, shall we say, up to that same standard.

Senator LODGE. In this country, if the Government takes something it condemns it, as I understand it, and pays damages to the private person from whom the thing has been taken. Does that not hold true in Italy?

Mr. THORP. Yes; this does not change what happens today in Italy. Italy has the same basic principle with respect to nationalization and condemnation that we have. But we have discovered that there is some tendency throughout the world for differential treatment to develop, and it seemed just as well to establish the principle in the treaty, although, as I say, it is not a new principle that is established here. This is confirming by an international agreement an established practice in both countries.

Senator LODGE. Thank you.

Mr. THORP. In addition to the danger of being expropriated, a serious danger faced by American private enterprise abroad is that of being subjected to unfair competition from state owned or controlled enterprises. In this treaty, an effort is made to deal with this problem by providing that, with certain exceptions, special favors granted by one country to its publicly controlled business enterprises shall be extended also to the private enterprises of the other in situations in which the public enterprises operate in fact in competition with private enterprises. Somewhat related to this provision is another which provides that no publicly owned or controlled enterprises of one country, if it engages in business activities within the territories of the other, shall claim for itself or its property immunity from taxation, from suit, from execution of judgment, or from any other liability to which a privately owned or controlled enterprise is subject therein.

COMPARISON WITH CHINA TREATY

There are a few subjects dealt with in the treaty with China that are not covered in the treaty with Italy. There are no provisions here dealing with the reception of diplomatic representatives, the recognition of agreements and awards in commercial arbitration, the protection of literary and artistic property, and adherence to a pro

gram designed to expand international trade. These matters are dealt with in articles I, VI, IX, and XV, respectively, of the treaty with China. The first and last of these subjects are not considered as of consequence in a treaty with Italy. As to commercial arbitration, as I have already said, the Italian negotiators felt that the provision which we had included in the China treaty was not well adapted for application under Italian law. As to copyright matters, the two Governments concluded that their relations, based upon proclamations issued under their respective laws in 1910, were satisfactory and that no treaty provision would be necessary.

A number of provisions in the treaty with Italy have been restated in language somewhat different from that in the treaty with China. The objective has been to clarify the language or to make the provision more explicit. Examples are the article relating to internal taxation-article X in the China treaty, IX in the treaty with Italyand the article relating to exchange controls-articles XIX and XVII, respectively, in the Chinese and Italian treaties. There are, of course, a number of minor differences in phraseology and even in substance between the two texts that have not been referred to above.

NEED FOR THE PROTOCOLS

In negotiating the treaty with Italy, it was necessary to give special consideration to the grave economic situation facing Italy as a result of the war and the present inability of Italy to supply, unassisted, the minimum needs of its people or the minimum requirements of economic recovery. Accordingly, there has been attached to the treaty a protocol, the purpose of which is to relax under certain. conditions some of the rules of the treaty, such as those relating to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, in order to enable Italy to protect its international-payments position and obtain the essential needs of economic recovery.

The Department of State regards this treaty as a very favorable one from the standpoint of American interests. Prompt ratification would not only have the effect of affording immediate treaty protection for American interests in Italy but would also further strengthen our cordial relations with the government and people of Italy. The announcement of the signature of the treaty on February 2 was particularly well received by the Italian press and public. Approval of the provisions of this treaty by the Senate will provide the Department with an accepted standard which will afford necessary guidance in proceeding with the negotiation of treaties with other countries. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Thorp.

Is Mr. Egan here? Will you please state your name and your address, and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. EGAN, GREAT LAKES CARBON CORP., NEW YORK CITY

Mr. EGAN. Richard M. Egan, Great Lakes Carbon Corp. I am oreign sales manager of Great Lakes Carbon Corp., New York City, 8 East Forty-eighth Street. I have had some experience in Italy, aving been there for the greater part of 2 years and having had my amily there for about a year and a half.

cents on the dollar. In that case we would insist that we be given the full 100 cents on the dollar, because that had been done with a third country.

Oftentimes it works the other way around-that the nationals of a given country will be treated more favorably than the aliens because, shall we say, their political strength may be a little greater with the country, and in this case, if it were more favorable treatment for the nationals, we would get the more favorable treatment.

This is irrelevant in the United States, because in the United States there is no differential treatment at all. If we nationalize property, the owner is entitled to court protection and a determination, if necessary, by going to the courts, of what he will be paid in connection with the expropriation, quite regardless of his nationality.

Senator LODGE. So this is a one-way proposition, is it? It works insofar as Italy is concerned.

Mr. THORP. It happens that we already have a procedure here which would identify national treatment with the treatment of the alien, and what this does is to bring Italy, shall we say, up to that same standard.

Senator LODGE. In this country, if the Government takes something it condemns it, as I understand it, and pays damages to the private person from whom the thing has been taken. Does that not hold true in Italy?

Mr. THORP. Yes; this does not change what happens today in Italy. Italy has the same basic principle with respect to nationalization and condemnation that we have. But we have discovered that there is some tendency throughout the world for differential treatment to develop, and it seemed just as well to establish the principle in the treaty, although, as I say, it is not a new principle that is established here. This is confirming by an international agreement an established practice in both countries.

Senator LODGE. Thank you.

Mr. THORP. In addition to the danger of being expropriated, a serious danger faced by American private enterprise abroad is that of being subjected to unfair competition from state owned or controlled enterprises. In this treaty, an effort is made to deal with this problem by providing that, with certain exceptions, special favors granted by one country to its publicly controlled business enterprises shall be extended also to the private enterprises of the other in situations in which the public enterprises operate in fact in competition with private enterprises. Somewhat related to this provision is another which provides that no publicly owned or controlled enterprises of one country, if it engages in business activities within the territories of the other, shall claim for itself or its property immunity from taxation, from suit, from execution of judgment, or from any other liability to which a privately owned or controlled enterprise is subject therein.

COMPARISON WITH CHINA TREATY

There are a few subjects dealt with in the treaty with China that are not covered in the treaty with Italy. There are no provisions here dealing with the reception of diplomatic representatives, the recognition of agreements and awards in commercial arbitration, the protection of literary and artistic property, and adherence to a pro

gram designed to expand international trade. These matters are dealt with in articles I, VI, IX, and XV, respectively, of the treaty with China. The first and last of these subjects are not considered as of consequence in a treaty with Italy. As to commercial arbitration, as I have already said, the Italian negotiators felt that the provision which we had included in the China treaty was not well adapted for application under Italian law. As to copyright matters, the two Governments concluded that their relations, based upon proclamations issued under their respective laws in 1910, were satisfactory and that no treaty provision would be necessary.

A number of provisions in the treaty with Italy have been restated in language somewhat different from that in the treaty with China. The objective has been to clarify the language or to make the provision more explicit. Examples are the article relating to internal taxation article X in the China treaty, IX in the treaty with Italyand the article relating to exchange controls-articles XIX and XVII, respectively, in the Chinese and Italian treaties. There are, of course, a number of minor differences in phraseology and even in substance between the two texts that have not been referred to above.

NEED FOR THE PROTOCOLS

In negotiating the treaty with Italy, it was necessary to give special consideration to the grave economic situation facing Italy as a result of the war and the present inability of Italy to supply, unassisted, the minimum needs of its people or the minimum requirements of economic recovery. Accordingly, there has been attached to the treaty a protocol, the purpose of which is to relax under certain conditions some of the rules of the treaty, such as those relating to quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, in order to enable Italy to protect its international-payments position and obtain the essential needs of economic recovery.

The Department of State regards this treaty as a very favorable one from the standpoint of American interests. Prompt ratification. would not only have the effect of affording immediate treaty protection for American interests in Italy but would also further strengthen our cordial relations with the government and people of Italy. The announcement of the signature of the treaty on February 2 was particularly well received by the Italian press and public. Approval of the provisions of this treaty by the Senate will provide the Department with an accepted standard which will afford necessary guidance n proceeding with the negotiation of treaties with other countries. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you, Mr. Thorp.

Is Mr. Egan here? Will you please state your name and your ddress, and whom you represent?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. EGAN, GREAT LAKES CARBON CORP., NEW YORK CITY

Mr. EGAN. Richard M. Egan, Great Lakes Carbon Corp. I am reign sales manager of Great Lakes Carbon Corp., New York City, 8 East Forty-eighth Street. I have had some experience in Italy, aving been there for the greater part of 2 years and having had my Tmily there for about a year and a half.

ek