NEW YORK, Thursday—I was interested to see a report in the paper yesterday evening that the United States might be visited this fall by Princess Margaret, younger daughter of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. It calls to my mind a conversation I had with her in 1942. She and her sister had been brought up to London to meet me and I told her about some of my grandchildren who liked to do many of the things that she told me she enjoyed, particularly riding on horseback. I suggested that someday she come to this country and visit not just New York and Washington, but some of our wide-open spaces.

Our cities may be different from the cities in Great Britain or in Europe, but they are still cities. What we have to offer that is completely different is a sense of distance and space. I hope that if Princess Margaret comes she will go to Texas, to the Northwest, to some of our great national parks. I love all those that I have visited, and I have an especially soft spot in my heart for the Yosemite because that is the only one in which I have actually camped out and done a little climbing and riding. All of them, however, are beautiful, and I really think that they are among the best things that we have to offer in entertaining visitors who come to our shores.

Princess Margaret would have a good time in New York and in Washington. She could dance and hear good music and go to the theatre and meet nice young men, even though she can do all of those things in London or in any of the capitals of Europe.

We will welcome her, I am sure, for herself, for she is a charming young girl. We will welcome her, too, because many of us remember when her father and mother visited these shores before the war. Their interest and their dignified simplicity and charm created such a warm and friendly impression here that their visit undoubtedly helped to create the good feeling that existed during the ensuing war. For this reason their daughter will start with goodwill on her side, and her visit will be looked upon as a gesture of friendship to this country.

We decided yesterday in the Human Rights Commission to devote all of our time until June 16 to the articles of the Covenant, hoping to finish the substantive articles for circulation to the governments.

On implementation, we finally decided not to try to do more than send to the governments the proposals made by the delegates, with comparative documents, prepared by the secretariat, plus a questionnaire based on the secretariat's document to the governments. In this way their comments would give us some of the guidance that we really need in formulating these measures.

The attitude of the Soviet Union is that no measures of implementation can be considered because they would be contrary to the Charter, which does not permit interference with the internal affairs of states.

The Covenant, however, is a treaty and, in the drawing up of almost any treaty, states usually grant to the other parties to the treaty some of the things which ordinarily they retain under their own sovereignty. It would seem to me, therefore, that if states sign or ratify this Covenant whatever they have decided to grant through it will be binding.