Thank you for your telegram of 24th December advising me about my
participation in the work of the Drafting Committee of I.T.O. It
can be managed without inconvenience. Although drafting involves
the tedium of self-restraint, I am looking forward to it. The
discussions on trade policy of the past three or four years have
been rather exciting. I would have very much liked to have stayed
on in London.

During the past week I have been going through a process of
'familiarisation' as the Americans would call it, and after
several readings begin to see the draft Charter as a whole. There
is a certain dreamlike quality about it which I imagine Coleridge
would envy. But the fantasia also contains an ominous list of
invitations to members to litigate over the actions of others.

They are, I suppose, part of the paraphernalia of the rule of law.

It is a disadvantage that the Charter will not always carry with
it the explanations and guiding philosophy, which are pretty good,
which clothe the accompanying report. In fact, as a matter of
drafting, I should think that eventually some of the useful
declarations, and statements of intention or philosophy, which are
now embodied in Charter articles (for example, the first sentence
of para.1 of Article 3 on employment and some others in the
commodity section) would probably have to go into a preamble with
consequent weakening of their effect. In that event I should hope
that a preamble could be placed in each separate chapter in close
juxtaposition with the relevant articles which would confer the
precise rights or impose the obligations.

To take a not too gloomy view I feel that some of the articles of
the constitution may be a dead letter before they are born-which
leads to the reflection that the continuing protection of
Australia's interests in organisations like the I.T.O. and the
Fund [1] will depend on the skilful use in future by our
delegations of the rights afforded them by the Constitutions, as
well as in our efforts in the constitution-making process itself.

I suspect we are not so adept at the first as at the second.

If the organisation gets going twelve months hence it would be a
rather ridiculous affair in the light of world economic conditions
as they will then be-like a father's suit idly waiting for the
spindly child to grow into it. I should be surprised if the
European members were not sceptical, but of course no one east of
the Rhine was in the Committee. I suppose the fact is that you
can't have tariff cuts without quid pro quo in the form of an
agreed Charter and since the next 18 months are the most
propitious likely to be found for tariff cuts the organisation
must start then too, complete with 'transition period' provisos.

You have undoubtedly had a remarkable success. You seem to have
got most of what was required on industrial development. What you
got in relation to employment and demand, the right of protection
against deflation, and protection of the balance of payments is
far in advance of what seemed possible a year or two ago. I am
attaching some comments on details which I am sending the
Department in case they should interest you. Jock Phillips is
arriving in a day or two and will no doubt clear some of the fog
for me. [2]