Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. POFF. What you are saying is that we must reach a midpoint and I agree.

Mr. DEAN. Yes.

Mr. POFF. I have other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I notice the bells have rung. I wonder what you wanted to do.

Mr. Chairman, in order to accommodate my colleagues, I will be just as brief and concise as possible.

I appreciate your proposal and understand at least partially the problems which prompted it. But I am concerned not to get into that never-never land of interpretation and subjective understanding of statutory terms which sometimes is pretty dangerous, particularly in a criminal statute.

What is political and what is not political?
What is commercial and what is not commercial?

For instance, today is it commercial only or commercial and political for an agent of a foreign government to represent that government before the Department of Commerce in connection with an application for an export license of a particular commodity that may be prohibited under the Battle Act?

Mr. DEAN. If the Department of Commerce, as I assume they have, has rules and regulations and procedures for formal hearings and he complies with those rules and regulations and does what only an attorney normally does in such a hearing, I think he should be exempted. If on the other hand, he tries to engage in lobbying activities by going to Congressmen or other people, by trying to bring pressure to bear upon the Department of Commerce or the agency involved, in my own personal belief he should not have the exemption.

Mr. POFF. Under the act, prior to Rabinowitz, would such activity have required registration ?

Mr. DEAN. If he is appearing before the Department of Commerce in connection with the hearings, rather than as I say trying to lobby under the present act, he would not be required to register.

Mr. POFF. Would he have been required to register after Rabinowitz?

Mr. DEAN. After Rabinowitz, after the amendment, you cannot carry on private activities. I should say under Rabinowitz he would be required to register.

Mr. POFF. He would be required to register under the bill as it passed the Senate?

Mr. DEAN. No. If he were engaged in formal proceedings before the Department of Commerce, no. There are some questions about it if they are merely ex parte proceedings.

Mr. POFF. This is terribly interesting. I would like to pursue it, but I shall not. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. WILLIS. May I ask two short questions my colleague's question brought to my mind.

Considering the facts, circumstances, and the holding in Rabinowitz, would you want it reversed?

Mr. DEAN. On the peculiar facts in that case which always make hard law

Mr. WILLIS. Maybe I should not have asked the question.

Mr. DEAN. I would say that in most of your cases here, since the people in that case were probably doing something more than repre

i

[blocks in formation]

a

a

senting even commercial activities, even under the things that I propose they might have to register. If they are only engaged in perfectly open aboveboard formal, legal proceedings or only doing what most attorneys do in everyday work representing the case of foreign clients or a foreign government which comes to them, doing legal work, it seems to me it would be an imposition both on the Government and the lawyers to require them to register as a foreign agent.

This might also, you know, he used against us. When I went to Spain a number of years ago to try to correct the taking over by one of General Franco's benefactors of the Barcelona Traction Co. in which a large amount of American capital was involved, about $250 million, the Spanish Government brought great pressure to bear against some of the leading Spanish lawyers not to cooperate with me. I had a number of lawyers refuse to cooperate with me because there was pressure brought to bear by the Spanish Government directly or indirectly.

I think that we have got to be a little careful here in drafting these things that you do not also make it more difficult for American corporations abroad to get representation by lawyers in the countries where they have their investments.

Mr. Willis. This is an even tougher question but it has to be on the record, I think. I gather from your testimony on the Senate side that your firm has not had to register?

Mr. DEAN. No, sir. I have declined matters many times where we would have to be registered and we have never registered except in one instance.

Mr. WILLIS. I am not implying you ought to have.
Mr. DEAN. No, I have declined.

Mr. WILLIS. This is part of the legislative history we are talking about.

Mr. DEAN. About 2 weeks after the Rabinowitz case came down we were engaged as legal counsel by the Philippine Government for filing a registration statement under the Securities Act. In view of the Rabinowitz decision we registered but we canceled registration as soon as the public offering was completed. Other than that we have not registered. I have declined many times to represent people because this act was originally passed against advertising agencies who would purport to represent railroads and then carry on Nazi activities, Nazi propaganda. I still think that there is a sort of a connotation of subversive activities because of the history of the act.

Mr. WILLIS. One final question.

Have you ever thought that there might be special registration in doubtful cases on the part of an honorable law firm? I do not know whether it is a pertinent question but that may be subject to consideration in the light of what you just said.

Mr. DEAN. Yes.
Mr. WILLIS. Would you want to think about that ?

Mr. DEAN. Yes, I would be very glad to think about that and talk to you about that.

Mr. TENZER. Mr. Chairman, I would waive my questions except that I would like to say to my distinguished colleague of the New York bar that I think he has made a wonderful contribution to the com

a

mittee. My other questions will be reserved for other witnesses because they relate to specific suggested instances in which attorneys may be required to register. If there is any doubt I will communicate by letter with the distinguished witness.

Mr. DEAN. Fine.

Mr. TENZER. Following up on Mr. Poff's question, I refer to page 6 of your appendix where the reasonable time question is involved; would you have any objection if the Attorney General were given the authority at any time after the filing of a notice of retainer by an attorney in behalf of a foreign company to raise a question or require additional information?

Mr. DEAN. No.
Mr. TENZER. No objection?
Mr. DEAN. I would have no objection.
Mr. WILLIS. We will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock, gentlemen.

(Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to 2 p.m, of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. Willis. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are glad to have with us Mr. Franklin Mooney, of the Department of Economics and Development of the Province of Ontario, Canada. We are indeed happy to have you with us, sir.

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN E. R. MOONEY, INDUSTRIAL COMMIS

SIONER, GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, CANADA Mr. MOONEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my role today is purely a supporting one to the Province of Alberta who will be presenting the brief. I have a one-page letter, if I may just read it, and then the rest will be taken over by Mr. Frawley.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, Canada, I wish to thank you for the opportunity of presenting our views on bill H.R. 290 to this committee.

The government of Ontario, Canada, wishes to record its support for the sentiments expressed in the statements on bills S. 693 and H.R. 290 submitted this day by the government of Alberta, Canada.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WILLIS. The statement will be inserted in the record at this point. (Mr. Mooney's statement follows:)

GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, CANADA,
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND DEVELOPMENT,

TRADE AND INDUSTRY BRANCH,

New York, N.Y., July 29, 1965. In the matter of S. 693 and H.R. 290, bills to amend the Foreign Agents Regis

tration Act of 1938, as amended. COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN : On behalf of the government of Ontario, Canada, I wish to thank you for the opportunity of presenting our views on bills S. 693 and H.R. 290 to this committee.

The government of Ontario, Canada, wishes to record its support for the sentiments expressed in the statements on bills S. 693 and H.R. 290 submitted this day by the government of Alberta, Canada. Yours sincerely,

FRANKLIN E. R. MOONEY,

Industrial Commissioner.

Mr. Willis. Thank you ever so much, Mr. Mooney. Mr. MOONEY. Thank you. Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Frawley, from the Province of Alberta, Canada. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Frawley.

a

STATEMENT OF JAMES JOSEPH FRAWLEY, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, CANADA

Mr. FRAWLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, perhaps I should tell you who I am. My name is James Joseph Frawley, and I live in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. I am the special counsel for the government of the Province of Alberta. The Province of Alberta has an office in Ottawa. I am here today to present a statement to you with respect to the office that we have established in Los Angeles, Calif., and where we have found that we are subject to the provisions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Mr. WILLIS. Will you describe the office and what it does?

Mr. FRAWLEY. I can best do that, Mr. Chairman, by reading the very first paragraph of my statement because I set out to do just that.

Mr. WILLIS. Very well.

Mr. FRAWLEY. The statement is divided into two parts, sir. The first part is a review of the facts and correspondence between the Los Angeles office and the Department of Justice, Registration Section, and the second part is some observations in support of the amendment we are requesting:

1. On October 23, 1962, the government of the Province of Alberta located at 550 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, an office

(a) To encourage industrial development and tourism in Alberta;

(b) To assist U.S. manufacturers in finding markets for their products in western Canada and in manufacturing in Canada under license. Perhaps I should add "or other arrangements”;

(c) Generally to assist U.S. citizens or businesses on matters pertaining to Alberta. I am conscious, first of all, of the privilege of coming from Canada to appear before this subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Being conscious of that privilege, I certainly do not intend to take too much of your time, and I am also conscious of the fact other people are waiting to make statements. So I will not read the entire statement because I understand the statement will go into the record in any event.

Mr. WILLIS. And it will be critically read and analyzed. (Mr. Frawley's statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, CANADA,

SUBMITTED BY J. J. FRAWLEY, OF COUNSEL FOR THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA

PART I. REVIEW OF FACTS AND CORRESPONDENCE

1. On October 23, 1962, the government of the Province of Alberta located at 550 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif., an office

(a) To encourage industrial development and tourism in Alberta ;

(b) to assist U.S. manufacturers in finding markets for their products in western Canada and in manufacturing in Canada under license;

(C) generally to assist U.S. citizens or businesses on matters pertaining to Alberta. 2. On March 24, 1964, the Internal Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice informed the manager of our Los Angeles office that

"Representing a branch of a foreign government within the United States constitutes your office an agent of a foreign principal within the meaning of the Foreign Agents Registration Act and requires its registration with the Attorney General."

3. A registration statement having been completed and forwarded to the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. Nathan B. Lenvin, Chief of the Registration Section of the Internal Security Division, wrote to our Los Angeles office on May 19, 1964, calling attention to section 4 of the act and rule 400 thereunder and said :

"In substance this section provides that dissemination through interstate facilities or media of any material containing political propaganda as defined in section 1(j) of the act creates an obligation on the registrant to file a copy of such material with this Department and two copies with the Librarian of Congress, as well as to label such material and to submit dissemination reports thereof to this office."

4. On May 25, 1964, the manager of our Los Angeles office replied to the letter of May 19 pointing out that none of the pamphlets forwarded had reference to political propaganda as outlined in rule 400. Our letter added : “The information in all cases refers only to literature outlining the tourist attractions of the Province of Alberta and/or market and trade information of that Province.” Clarification was requested.

5. On September 15, 1964, Mr. Lenvin wrote as follows:

"A review of the material submitted by you indicates that it contains “political propaganda’ as that term is specifically defined by section 1(j) of the act; that is, the material is reasonably adapted to influence a recipient within the United States with reference to the public interests of the government of Alberta."

Our attention was called, accordingly, to the filing and labeling requirements of section 4 of the act. A sample label was enclosed reading as follows:

“A copy of this material is filed with the Department of Justice, where the required registration statement of (your name and address) as an agent of (the name and address of your foreign principal) under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, is available for public inspection. Registration does not indicate approval of this material by the U.S. Government.”.

6. On October 6, 1964, the Registration Section again wrote sending forms for use in filing a supplemental statement and directing attention to the requirement that “all receipts from your foreign principal" must be reflected in the supplemental registration statement.

7. On November 24, 1964, the Los Angeles office wrote forwarding supplemental registration statements. In his covering letter the manager protested the “political propaganda" ruling contained in Mr. Lenvin's letters of September 15, 1964, and said :

"It (the ruling) certainly appears to be at variance with the accepted courtesies that have always been extended between the United States and Canada. The tourist literature that we distribute and the information on our industrial life in the Province of Alberta is either identical or similar to information available through the travel bureau or the trade commissioner offices of the Canadian

« PreviousContinue »