Oral History Interview with
In the Truman Administration served as Director of Labor
for the Military Government Group in Germany; general counsel to the National
Labor Relations Board, 1945-46; Assistant Secretary of Labor, 1946-47;
Under Secretary of Labor, 1947-48 (Acting Secretary June 9-August 2, 1948);
and as U.S. Government member, International Labor Office, Geneva, Switzerland,
1946-48. From 1948 to 1970 was Director-General of the International Labor
David A. Morse
August 3, 1977
by James R. Fuchs
[Notices and Restrictions | Interview
Transcript | Additional Morse Oral History Transcripts]
This is a transcript of a tape-recorded interview conducted for the Harry S. Truman Library. A draft of this transcript was edited by the interviewee but only minor emendations were made; therefore, the reader should remember that this is essentially a transcript of the spoken, rather than the written word.
Numbers appearing in square brackets (ex. ) within the transcript indicate the pagination in the original, hardcopy version of the oral history interview.
This oral history transcript may be read, quoted from, cited, and reproduced for purposes of research. It may not be published in full except by permission of the Harry S. Truman Library.
Opened October, 1980
Harry S. Truman Library
[Top of the Page | Notices
and Restrictions | Interview Transcript | Additional
Morse Oral History Transcripts]
Oral History Interview with
David A. Morse
August 3, 1977
by James R. Fuchs
FUCHS: Mr. Morse, we are now down to 1948 when you
left the Department of Labor. I thought you might begin by telling us
how you came to be nominated for election as the Director-General of the
International Labor Organization -- by whom and so forth, at the conference
in San Francisco?
MORSE: Well, what happened, Mr. Fuchs, before the election I think was
interesting. It started back in the end of '47. The representatives of
industry and labor in the United States contacted me. At that time, the
head of the employer delegation of the ILO from the United States was
a fellow from San Francisco named J. David Zellerbach. He was Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Crown, Zellerbach Corporation,
and labor was represented
at that time by a delegate, name of Frank Fenton. He represented William
Green, then president of AF of L. These two chaps, speaking on behalf
of U.S. industry and labor, were very insistent that I stand for election
as Director-General. The term of office of my predecessor, who was an
Irishman who had been in the British Civil Service, and after that acted
as Director General when John Winant left, was coming to an end. The election
was to be in June, 1948. I had reservations about standing for election
because there are a number of things that happened at that time. In the
first place, I had been asked to come back to practice law in Newark,
New Jersey by a great friend of mine, Bernie Shanley. Shanley was later
the legal counsel to General Eisenhower when he was President of the United
States. We'd been in the Army together. We came from the same part of
New Jersey; he wanted me to come
back home. I actually had agreed with Bernie that I would do that, but
I hadn't announced anything. We were waiting for sometime in late '48
for me to make that announcement. At the same time I was asked to be the
candidate for the United States Senate in the State of New Jersey. This
I was requested to do by the leaders of the trade union movement: Carl
Holderman who was then head of the CIO in New Jersey; Al Barkan who was
with the textile workers in New Jersey and is now head of COPE, the AFL-CIO's
political action group; and a man called Stetton who was then president
of the Textile Workers Union and is now one of the officers in the Amalgamated
Clothing Workers -- they have merged his union with that. They all came
to see me. They said that they had had a long talk with Frank Hague who
was then the political boss in Jersey City and they insisted that someone
run for the U.S. Senate in '48 who
would be clean and honest; otherwise, they were going to split the Democratic
Party. Hague said to them, “Fine, if you can find a candidate to
fit those terms, I’ll agree to go along with it.” So they
came to see me when I was Under Secretary of Labor and asked me if I would
I said, “I would be glad to consider it.”
So all these things happened at the same time and the President, President
Truman, spoke to me and said, “I think, Dave, I’d like you
to be the candidate for the ILO. It’s important. I’ve had
talks with Ernie Bevin, the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdon, and
they can get the United Kingdom candidate to stand down in your favor
if you’ll be prepared to stand. Ernie Bevin would also like you
to stand; and we think it’s important to our world relations, East-West
situation, that you do.”
FUCHS: Where did you talk with the President?
MORSE: In the White House.
FUCHS: You had an appointment for that discussion?
MORSE: I had an appointment for that discussion; it was right there.
Then I said, "Well, I'll think about that," and I did and I
consulted Dean Acheson.
Dean said, "Well, it's a great thing, but I'd like you to stay in
national life. I think you ought not get yourself lost abroad."
I talked with Dean Rusk who was Assistant Secretary of State in charge
of International Organizations, and Dean thought I ought to stay home
and not become Director-General. One of his reasons was that it would
be better for the Director-General not to be an American.
FUCHS: Why was that?
MORSE: Well, he just thought we had a lot of Americans then as heads
of international organizations which
is 100 percent the opposite right now. The Director-General, I think,
of FAO was, and so on. He thought maybe it would be too many, and I said,
“Well, I think I’d better do what the President wants. The
President thinks it ought to be an American; that it ought to be me. I’ll
abandon the option of running for the U.S. Senate, which was a nomination
without contest. I’ll withdraw from going into law practice with
Shanley and I’ll do this.”
I talked to my wife and I remember saying, “Well, we won’t
do it for long. I think we might do it just to satisfy the President and
see what it’s like. Let’s say two years.”
Well, we went, got elected -- and that was in San Francisco in June of
1948 -- nd I served five terms. I had been there 22 years when I finally
resigned to come back in May of 1970.
FUCHS: What is the normal term?
MORSE: Well, the normal term, when I was elected, was 10 years, interestingly
enough. But you couldn't succeed yourself.
FUCHS: Had Mr. Phelan had ten years?
MORSE: No, he was never elected Director-General. He was Acting Director-General.
They just kept him as acting through the war years till the time of my
election. But a few months before I was elected the Governing Body decided
to call him Director-General so he could retire with that title. None
of them served that long. I think they made it ten years because the first
Director-General, Albert Thomas, served ten years before he died. The
staff regulations were for ten years, but they changed the regulations
when my ten years were finished because they wanted me to stay for another
term and I said, "All right, let's do it on the basis of five year
terms, hereafter." Which means you stay for five years,
then another five depending upon the will of the electorate, and that's
the way the changes were made. So, my first term was ten years and I got
three more terms of five years but during my last term, as I say, I resigned.
So I served 22 years total. Interestingly, all my elections were unanimous
except my first one. In the first one it was unanimous except for Poland
who voted against me. The Pole came to me privately afterwards, a man
named Hoffman; I'll never forget him, a nice old fellow. He said, "I'm
sorry but you know how it is. My Government was no way going to support
somebody from the United States at this date, but if you'll excuse me,
I had to vote that way."
I said, "Of course, that's all right."
Then there was a Communist worker from Mexico whose name was Toledino;
otherwise it would have been unanimous. Thereafter as I said, my elections
were all unanimous.
Interestingly enough, the last time I was elected I was not proposed as
a candidate of the United States but of Africa, which is just a little
So, that's the story and it was difficult because just the night before
my election in San Francisco the Secretary of Labor died and the next
day I had to stand for election while I was Acting Secretary of Labor.
At the same time Mr. Truman and his group were coming to San Francisco
as part of their campaign and they had agreed that they would accept an
invitation of Mrs. Morse and myself for a breakfast to meet the members
of the Governing Body of this international organization. So we arranged
a breakfast at the hotel; I forget the name of the hotel.
MRS. MORSE: St. Francis.
MORSE: St. Francis, it's up on the hill there in
San Francisco. In any event, we invited all these chaps to come to breakfast
and they didn't know it was to meet the President.
FUCHS: It wasn't the Mark Hopkins?
MORSE: Mark Hopkins. They thought these Americans were funny. Here he's
just been elected Director-General and the next day he's having us all
for breakfast; that's funny. So they all came at 8 o'clock in the morning
and my wife and I went up to see the President. While I was going up,
Clark Clifford was with me, and Clark said, "You know Dave, you're
my candidate for Secretary of Labor."
I said, "No, Clark, we've been all through that, the President and
myself, and my election has now taken place and I think this is it."
We went upstairs and sat in the President's suite. He received us and
he said to my wife, "Mildred, you seem a little nervous."
She said, "I am nervous, Mr. President. After all we're going to
go down to this room with all these people for breakfast; you being the
President of the United States, it's a long piece to walk with the President
and I just don't know how I'm going to do it."
He said, "Well, I'll tell you, Mildred, I'll give you some advice.
My mother always used to say to me, 'Just do the best you can and you'll
be all right."'
That made her feel better and we went down and, of course, those in the
breakfast room rose to their feet with great excitement when they saw
the President come in. He spoke to the group; it was a wonderful talk.
He said, "You know, it's Sunday," (it was a Sunday). "I
don't like to make speeches on Sunday so let's call this a prayer meeting."
He made a delightful speech.
FUCHS: Evidently the other Communist bloc nations voted for you, except
Poland. I guess they were all in the ILO then?
MORSE: No. At that time Poland was in, Czechoslovakia was in, and some
of the other Eastern European countries; Russia was not.
FUCHS: Russia was not in.
MORSE: No, Russia came in in 1954. But the other Eastern European countries
by and large were in. But the Governing Body does the electing and on
the Governing Body the Polish member was the representative of all the
Communist states. So he spoke on behalf of them. Although when my time
came around after '54 and I was reelected, Russia was then a member of
the Governing Body and they supported me.
A rather nice thing happened when we returned to Washington. I was then,
as I say,
Acting Secretary of Labor, which I continued to be until I left for Geneva
in September to take up my duties, but a nice thing happened when we came
back in June from San Francisco. Most of the members of the delegation
of the Governing Body came to Washington, especially Leon Jouhoux and
all those French personalities -- he was then the head of the French Force
Ouvrier -- CGT. All the Ministers and the Secretary of State, Marshall,
had talked to the President, and they had agreed that the Secretary should
give me a reception at the Blair House in honor of my election and invite
all these foreign people who were going home by way of Washington, as
well as members of the diplomatic corps in Washington; and they did that.
This was a very meaningful gesture which was greatly appreciated by the
delegates from all over the world and their governments. Then Mildred
and I left for Geneva in late August, 1948 to pick up our
duties in September there.
FUCHS: The ILO had moved from Montreal, when?
MORSE: Well, John Winant moved the ILO -- he was then Director-General
-- just as it appeared war was going to break out after the invasion of
Europe by Hitler. He moved the ILO from Geneva to Montreal and it stayed
there through the war years and I was the one that brought it back to
Geneva after my election, after consultation with our Government.
FUCHS: You never held forth in Montreal then yourself?
MORSE: Well, I did. I went there to Governing Body meetings when I was
representing our Government but I never sat there as Director-General.
I went there after I was elected but I took up my post in Geneva.
One thing I think I should add, because it reflects the atmosphere of
that period, is that you must remember during all this time the CIO was
always trying to get the place as delegate but it didn’t have it.
It was the AF of L that had the place. But I was really drafted into this
candidature by President Truman, by William Green and by the Chamber of
Commerce and David Zellerbach. So, with industry, labor and the President,
FUCHS: Mrs. Morse recalled, while you were talking just now on the phone,
Mr. Morse, that the night before your election, which I believe was a
Thursday night, that you had a call from President Truman informing you
that the Secretary of Labor had died. Do you recall that?
MORSE: Yes, I did have that call. We were to see each other the next
day or two before this breakfast that was part of the campaign and we
expressed our sorrow about the passing of Schwellenbach, and we agreed
at the time that I should stick to my plans.
FUCHS: He did at this time, however, propose the Secretary of Labor position
MORSE: He did. He said to me that, "You know it's going to be a
tough one Dave; you are Acting Secretary of Labor and it's for you to
decide." He was really decent about what I should do. I said, "Well,
Mr. President, it seems to me that having made these commitments to everyone
all over the world -- and we had worked out the arrangements with the
United Kingdom Government -- having been elected, actually, it would be
extremely difficult to go back on it." He said, "Well, I agree."
FUCHS: Did it also occur to you at the time, perhaps, that your tenure
as Secretary of Labor might have
been somewhat shortened by the election in '48?
MORSE: Well, not really, it didn't; it wasn't a big factor with me because,
well first of all, the thing that struck me as important was this particular
challenge. Because if I had been thinking about myself I would have accepted
the nomination to the United States Senate. Because, win, lose, or draw,
getting a candidacy like that without opposition by the Democratic party,
it meant that, at least, even if you lost you would easily be the leader
of your party in the state. I think if I had accepted that, of course,
my life would have been an extremely interesting one in my state and maybe
nationally. So, that was not really a factor because I had too many other
options at that time.
FUCHS: Did you ever regret your decision that evening?
MORSE: Sometimes I've regretted it and sometimes I've regretted not running
for the Senate. But now that I'm sitting here talking in this microphone,
upon reflection, I must say I don't think anything could have offered
me greater satisfaction than what I had in that particular position. But
you know that reminds me of something a little different and that is --
we were talking about Thacher Winslow earlier in one of our sessions,
and about Philip Kaiser -- just to complete the record. After I was elected
Director-General, and while was still Acting Secretary of Labor, I went
over to Geneva and one of the first things I did was to make Thacher Winslow
my representative in the United States, head of the ILO office in Washington.
Right after that, Phil Kaiser was appointed Assistant Secretary of Labor.
FUCHS: Do you remember Charles Straub?
MORSE: Charles Straub was in the Labor Department.
FUCHS: He was Special Assistant to the Secretary.
MORSE: He was there I remember, but nothing in particular.
FUCHS: There was also an executive assistant to Secretary Tobin in 1949,
MORSE: Yes, I remember but nothing stands out about him. The man who
stands out in my mind through the whole Labor Department's history of
post Second World War is this chap Millard Cass. The fellow that came
over to the Labor Department with me from my post as General Counsel of
the NLRB. Because when I left he stayed on. He served as the Assistant
to every Secretary of Labor after I left and finally finished his career
in the U.S. Government at the highest level a civil servant can hold in
the Labor Department. That is as Deputy
Under Secretary of Labor for Administration. He's now practicing law here
in Washington. No one has a better insight on the whole postwar history
of the ILO than Millard Cass.
FUCHS: I talked to him the other day after you recommended I do so and
we weren't able to work out a date now. He's quite busy, but he said he
would be interviewed when I got back in town the next time.
When you became Director-General, you've been quoted as saying, "The
ILO was the greatest living governmental vehicle for world peace."
How did you feel about that after you served your time there?
MORSE: If I said "governmental," I should have said "inter-governmental."
That's what I meant. Well, I felt that more when I left than when I came
in, and I suppose nothing would underscore that more than the fact that
the ILO got the
Nobel Peace Prize in 1969 and I went to Norway to receive it on behalf
of the organization and to give the Nobel Peace Prize lecture. So, it
isn't just me talking, it's the Nobel Peace Prize talking.
FUCHS: Around 1949 you proposed that technical assistance be an expanded
function of the ILO and I was wondering, with whom did you consult within
the United States about this, if you did?
MORSE: Well, that's a very good and interesting question, because up
to that point, 1949, the ILO had been an international standards setting
organization and advisory body. During the period, I believe, of the Point
IV program I'd been consulted by Willard Thorp, who was then I think Assistant
Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. He came over to talk to me in
Geneva to find out how I would feel about the Point IV program and how
it ought to work, get
my advice. I told him that I thought it was a tremendous thing and as
far as I was concerned he could be sure that I was going to remold the
entire program of the ILO so it would achieve a tradition of standard
setting and operational programs to implement the standards. You know,
vocational training, management training, occupational health, say, the
training of people and the training of officials and administrators for
social security systems; training, training, training in all areas that
had to do with the labor and social side. Starting from that point on
I began, and the ILO has become and, I think, is among the specialized
agencies of the United Nations a leader in that area. Now, I consulted
from the start with Willard Thorp, I consulted with the President when
I came back and had my usual meetings with him. I consulted with the labor
movement in this country, with William Green, and later with
George Meany. As for industry, I got the full agreement for our country
behind that as I did the full agreement of all other countries behind
it. They didn't want to sacrifice standards, but they understood standards
are no good unless they are implemented and implemented by trained people,
and so on.
Now, to get it started was a problem because we needed money and, interestingly
enough, the first money for a private project to implement this concept
came to me from the ECA [Economic Cooperation Administration]. The office
that was set up in Europe for the Marshall plan. They came to me and offered
me a million dollars to start a model project for implementing this concept
in the field of manpower training -- training people to become instructors
in vocational training centers and so on.
FUCHS: Did you work with Harriman and Milton Katz?
MORSE: Averell was there, Milton Katz was there. We got the million dollars.
I had a very difficult time getting agreement in my Governing Body that
I should take this million dollars. I remember Leon Jouhoux, particularly,
the French worker, who was afraid that if I took that million dollars
as a special grant from what was actually the United States, for training,
it would place the organization under the control of the United States.
He had my assurance that that wouldn't happen, plus the fact that it was
our Governing Body that would have to decide the program to implement
the use of that money. Later he became one of the supporters of this program.
Well, from that point it came in from various sources; our regular budget,
bilateral sources; the Swedes gave money, the Germans gave money, other
countries gave money, and then we began to get money from the United Nations
special fund. Paul Hoffman himself
later made a lot of money available for these purposes.
FUCHS: Of course, you as an international servant were neutral, I guess
you'd say, but did you find pressures brought at various times by some
of our nationals?
MORSE: Yes, I was under pressure all the time by the United States. I
was under pressure by a lot of people, a lot of countries, that's normal.
But there was pressure plenty from my own country, for staffing, for changing
of policy, for implementation of policies that would be more congenial
to the United States vis-a-vis Eastern Europe, etc. But I just took that
as the normal part of my job. I got it from Russians, I got it from everybody.
But I sure got it from the United States. But I was able to withstand
it; they were always decent about it. As a matter of fact, I had a
very happy experience with practically all the countries in absorbing
this kind of punishment and resisting these pressures. Because if you
didn't do that you were finished. Once you compromised with them on this,
you really were finished. So you had to take a stand. You had to be understood
by them just what it was and why you were doing it. If you were doing
it just for political purposes, you were finished, because you not only
lost your self-respect but they lost their respect of you. I couldn't
let that happen.
FUCHS: Were there ever any charges that you had shown favoritism?
MORSE: No, as I say, I was elected everytime unanimously. I guess that
would have been the time when they could have said, "Brother, we've
had enough of you."
FUCHS: In the series of lectures you gave at
Cornell, which was later published as a book* you noted that the OEEC
[Organization of European Economic Cooperation] had helped finance immigration
to Latin America in 1950. Now were these Marshall funds or was it paid
out of counterpart funds, or do you recall?
MORSE: That was U.S. money.
FUCHS: How did you provide technical training in the non-industrialized
countries, let's say Africa or Asia or Latin America or the Middle East?
MORSE: There were larger demands than I could fill. But there were demands
mainly for the development of skills. They were going into a beginning
period of change as a result of independence. Most of this occurred in
1960 on. That was the big wave because most of them became independent
about that time, particularly in
*David A. Morse, Origin and Evolution of the I.L.O. and Its Role
in the World Community, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, 1969.
Africa. Before that it would be people in normally developing countries
in South America, etc. But the big bulge was in the late fifties or the
early sixties and was mainly for training -- make a fellow a plumber or
a carpenter, or train people so they could train those kinds of people.
Training that would be relevant to the implementation of the nation's
industrialization plans, whatever they might be. Also skills in management
because these developing countries recognized that the genius of this
country and of other industrialized countries lay in the development of
skills and management and organization, techniques of production. These
were the things that we were transferring through experts to developing
FUCHS: When you began to redirect the ILO from setting standards into
technical cooperation did you meet resistance?
MORSE: I met resistance from many people in the labor movement to start
with and from employers. Not from the governments. The labor movement
was afraid at the start although a little later they became great supporters
of it. But you had to be educated to it. They'd been accustomed to the
ILO fixing world social policies, world standards, laws, legislation --
laws that could be adopted by different countries on the elimination of
diseases and certain other hazards -- in mines for example; or relative
health hazards or laws to set up social security systems.
Now the employers generally didn't want to go beyond legislation to start
with, because they felt that this might activate the labor movement too
much into getting into the picture nationally, because to make technical
cooperation work you've got to get workers and employers to cooperate
together with governments. They were rather resistant to that. It was
educational job that had to be done on them to get them to recognize the
need for change, and this was done. They became great supporters of it.
You've got to remember, to do this I had to train my own staff, had to
get new programs of my own, had to get a different kind of budget. I set
up an international center for labor study so that the world's leading
experts could be brought to a central place in Geneva to study the social
implications of change in developing countries. I got a big endowment
for that from Konrad Adenauer of Germany and from DeGaulle, who was President
of France, and from other countries. I used the interest on that endowment
fund to set up a permanent institute which is still going very strong
and is very important. This is so that the leadership in the world will
understand the social implications of change and bring their people to
this place for that purpose. This is an educational affair. I did the
same thing in training; I set up an international center for advanced
vocational training, for training instructors for skills and also for
management training. That’s going on now in a very big way in Turin,
Italy where people come from developing countries -- foremen, middle management
men, trade union leaders, industrial leaders, to take courses everywhere
from bookkeeping to mechanical skills, from auditing to how to manage
an operation, from accounting to techniques for production. So, these
new institutional dimensions were built autonomously into the structure
of the ILO as a result of the decision to move into the field of technical
cooperation and help developing countries. Without these dimensions for
education, for the training of people who train others, you could never
trigger any accomplishments. We wouldn’t have been very successful,
unless this had been carried out.
FUCHS: This is a slight regression but, as Assistant Secretary of Labor,
you acted in the capacity of an adviser to John Winant, I believe. Does
anything stand out in your memory about that, and also, did Winant have
something to do with your nomination?
MORSE: No, that was interesting. John Winant came back after serving
as Ambassador to the Court of St. James while I was still Under Secretary
of Labor and Acting Secretary of Labor. This was right after the war.
Ed Phelan was acting as Director-General. Ed Phelan was this Irish gentleman
I talked to you about. Winant was nominated by the President to be the
Ambassador -- Representative to the Economic and Social Council of the
U.N. Maybe I was Assistant Secretary of Labor then instead of Under Secretary,
but know that an interdepartmental group was put together to advise him
on social policies and economic policies, and I worked with John Winant
to help him complete them. I met with him on a number of occasions. I
it was very effective because it was difficult to have a dialogue. He
was a very inarticulate gentleman, although a very highly motivated one.
So most of my work with him was by memorandum.
FUCHS: The AF of L of course, as you indicated, was the representative
in the ILO, and the CIO, starting back in the forties, I believe, was
fighting to get delegate representation, which they didn’t get then.
Eventually, there was a renewal of their efforts. Is there anything that
stands out about George Meany and his efforts against the CIO and also
his efforts regarding the problem of Communists in the ILO?
MORSE: Nothing special. I think the merger naturally came along so that
the American labor movement came into the ILO with one voice and that
was sometime after I took over.
FUCHS: That was ’55, I guess, when they merged.
MORSE: I think it was something like that; I don't know the exact date.
Before that though there were some beginnings of cooperation. I remember
Mike Ross was the international representative of the CIO and he worked
very closely with the international representative of the AF of L. So
that when the AF of L came to the Governing Body or to the Conference,
they had his input and there is the point, I believe, that the CIO usually
sent some advisers over as part of the labor delegation of the AF of L
before the merger. What helped very much in that was this Interdepartmental
International Labor Advisory Committee, that I have talked about, that
was set up where the AFL and CIO could meet together to discuss problems.
Well, Meany's position, as you know, is always a very fixed one. He was
very concerned at the time he came into the ILO's activities as President
of the AFL-CIO about the Communist participation
in work in the ILO.
FUCHS: You think he was overly concerned about the Communist domination?
MORSE: Oh, I think he was very much overly concerned because he had the
feeling, I think, that the Secretariat of the ILO was being infiltrated
by staff from East European and that they would have too large a voice
in the creation of policy by the Director-General. Of course, that just
never happened. But he thought it was going to happen; he thought it was
happening, and that was one of his preoccupations. I often wondered what
his advisers were telling him or dreaming up to tell him. I always respected
George and he and I talked about this at great length on many occasions.
I think he certainly respected my position as Director-General and respected
what I'd said to him, but he always had that overriding concern. He still
this day. But I'm away from it now.
FUCHS: This is a bit beyond the Truman period, but in the late fifties
some of the employer representatives became quite concerned about the
fact that the Communist nations' employer delegates weren't true representatives.
MORSE: Well, that's right. The employers felt that way, from the United
States particularly, and the employers felt that way and the workers felt
that way. George Meany, at least, from the United States, felt that way.
The fact of the matter is that there are very few trade union or employer
organizations in the world that are free of their governments. Whether
they're from Eastern Europe, Communist countries, or other countries.
You could put in your two hands the true independent trade unions or employer
organizations. Nothing in the ILO constitution says that trade unions
through the ILO have to be free and independent of the government. Freedom
is an objective but not a condition, and also, if you’ll remember,
the ILO is not a trade union movement.
FUCHS: As I said, in the fifties -- I believe until around ‘56-’57
-- the employer delegate was always nominated by the NAM [National Association
of Manufacturers] and the Chamber of Commerce. Did something occur at
that time or did that just die out?
MORSE: You’ve really done your homework because what you say is
true and [William L.] McGrath was there. He ran a small company out here
in Ohio. He was a delegate of the NAM and the Chamber and I think as a
result of his efforts the NAM finally withdrew from the ILO and that left
the Chamber of Commerce as the representative. McGrath was a rather interesting
fellow. He was certainly one of the most isolationist
men I ever knew. I remember many times when we were in Geneva. He said,
"I want to see you, Dave, and to have a talk with you." (We
always had quite a dialogue, always very friendly.) He said, "You
know, what's happening back in the United States?"
I said, "What's happening?"
He said, "Something terrible is happening in New Yo