Page:EB1922 - Volume 31.djvu/431

Rh exceed eight in the day and forty-eight in the week with the excep- tions hereinafter provided for."

The draft Convention came before the Conference for its final vote on Nov. 28 1919 and secured the two-thirds majority which is necessary for the formal adoption of a draft Convention.

The authentic text of the draft Convention was communicated to the Governments of all States Members of the International Labour Organization by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on Jan. 15 1920.

Since a large number of the industrial States had already adopted, by legal enactment, or otherwise, the 8-hour day, it might have been expected that the ratification of the draft Con- vention would be rapid and practically universal. But this was not the case. Up to Aug. 1921 two countries only, Greece and Rumania, had ratified. Some countries (e.g. Great Britain and Switzerland) had definitely declined to ratify.

In the first place, certain difficulties arose as to the interpreta- tion of those articles of the Treaty which govern the action to be taken by States in connection with the draft Convention. Article 405 of the Treaty of Peace provided that " Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of one year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment, and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing of the session of the Conference, bring the recommendation or draft Convention be- fore the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action." The wording of the last sentence has given rise to certain hesita- tion, but the bulk of the States members have construed " the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies " to mean their respective Parliaments, and have submitted the draft Convention together with the Governmental proposals for action upon it, to those bodies. In Great Britain the difficulty arose from the fact that Article 405 provides also that draft Conventions be submitted " for ratification by the Members." It was contended that the ratifying authority in Great Britain is the Crown, and that the Government was therefore under no obligation to submit a draft Convention for the consideration of Parliament unless legislative action in pursuance of the provisions of the draft Convention was contemplated.

Secondly, difficulties arose in connexion with the actual proce- dure of ratification. The Treaty provides an apparently simple formula:

" In the case of a draft Convention the Member will, if it obtains the consent of the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, communicate the formal ratification of the Conven- tion to the Secretary-General. . . ."

But this procedure was, in certain cases, found to fit awkwardly into the complicated framework of the older diplomatic practice. France considered it necessary to sign with Belgium a conven- tion embodying the terms of the draft Convention on hours, and to add a protocol which was left open for the signature of other States. France and Belgium may thus in some sort be said to have ratified the Hours Convention, though they did not com- plete the procedure laid down in the Treaty. But the act of France and Belgium led to some misgiving on the part of other states members of the organization, who naturally asked whether these two countries would consider themselves bound not only in respect of one another and of any other countries which might adhere to the Franco-Belgian convention by signing the open protocol, but also in respect of other States which might ratify the Washington Convention by the procedure indicated.

Thirdly, the exceptions provided for in the text of the Hours Convention did not appear to meet the circumstances of all countries. Thus, Switzerland, which had adopted the 8-hour day on its railways and in certain branches of industry, and which, in its reply to the Organizing Committee's questionnaire, stated that " The Government prefers the 48-hour week system and is prepared to adopt this limit in factories," declared itself unable to ratify the Hours Convention, principally on the ground that it considered its application to the small trades and undertakings

of the rural and mountain districts to be undesirable. Again,. Sweden, whose Government was " prepared to adopt both limitations (i.e., the 8-hour day and 48-hour week) at the same time," was faced by similar difficulties. The British Govern- ment was " prepared to adopt the limit of 48 hours a week ex- clusive of rest-time." In Great Britain the 8-hour day and 48- hour week (or less) are all but universal. Yet the Minister of Labour declared that the Government was unable to ratify be- cause of existing collective agreements governing the working of the railways, which permit overtime in certain cases which are not provided for in the Convention. The same or similar circum- stances delayed or prevented ratification by Denmark, Holland, Norway and possibly other States. >

Other factors making for non-ratification were the disturbed economic state of post-war Europe, and a reaction both in Govern- ment circles and in public opinion, as to the wisdom of shorter hours of labour in view of the need for greater production. The failure of the Russian revolutionaries to establish a satisfactory social system, the crushing of the attempts of their sympathizers in Hungary and Germany, and the failure of great strike move- ments in France, Great Britain and elsewhere, had moderated the fears of revolutionary action which were a factor in the crea- tion of the International Labour Organization in 1919.

Working Hours at Sea. The Washington Draft Convention was applicable to " industrial undertakings " which were defined partly by enumeration and partly by exclusion. The line of demarcation between industry on the one hand and commerce and agriculture on the other was left to be drawn by the individual States, and the whole question of the application of the 8 and 48 rule to maritime and inland navigation was deferred for the consideration of a special meeting of the Conference. The preparations for this meet- ing were made by the International Labour Office. Questionnaires were sent to the States members of the International Labour Organi- zation, in order to establish the existing position with regard to the hours of labour worked at sea and on inland waterways, and to elicit the views of the Governments as to the establishment in these spheres of the 8 and 48 rule.

The principal maritime countries replied unanimously in favour of international regulation of the hours of labour on board ship, but in most cases with considerable caution with regard to the 8 and 48 rule, which is clearly more difficult of application under sea conditions. On the whole, however, the evidence was again in favour of the possibility of the conclusion of a Convention upon the subject, and the International Labour Office, basing its work upon the replies of the Governments to its questionnaire, elaborated a draft for submission to the Conference.

The second meeting of the Conference took place at Genoa, June 15-July 10 1920. The delegates attending it, whether representing Governments, employers' organizations or workers' associations, were predominantly men experienced in maritime administration or practice. But the result was indecisive. The draft prepared by the International Labour Office was referred as at Washington, to a special commission, and after being amended it was submitted to the full Conference, which approved it by a vote of 48 to 25; the two-thirds majority necessary for formal adoption thus was not attained, though by a very narrow margin.

The questions of the hours of labour in the fishing industry and in inland navigation were dealt with separately by the Conference. In both cases a recommendation was agreed upon, by the terms of which the States members were urged to adopt legislation limiting in the direction of the 8-hour day and 48-hour week the duration of the labour concerned. (H. A. G.*) HOUSE, EDWARD MANDELL (1858- ), American politician, was born at Houston, Tex., July 26 1858. He was educated at the Hopkins grammar school, New Haven, Conn., and at Cornell University (A.B. 1877). He returned to Texas, where he became interested in politics. He never sought office, but as a trusted adviser he became influential in the Democratic party. He became a friend of President Wilson, with whose political ideals he sympathized, and after the outbreak of the World War in 1914 visited the belligerent countries as the President's personal representative, conferring with the leading diplomats informally and advising American ambassadors of the President's attitude on various questions. He himself repeatedly declared that he was not a peace envoy. In 1915 and in 1916 he was again in Europe observing conditions and from time to time making confidential reports to the President. This method of approaching foreign Governments through private personal contact instead of stereotyped diplomatic formality brought