The Warsaw convention liability for nonwillful acts has been doubled by the new protocol signed by 26 nations.

(b) In the majority rule States which have no wrongful death limitation, courts are sustaining increasingly high verdicts taking into account rise in costs of medical care and the general cost of living.

I.e.: Summerville v. Smucker, 280 App. Div. 839, 113 N.Y.S. 2d 868 (2d Dept. 1952) $100,000, De Vito v. United Airlines, 98 Fed. Supp. 88 (E.D.N.Y. 1951) $160,000, Gall v. Union Ice Co., 108 Cal. App. 2d 303, 239 P 2d 48 (1st Dist. Ct. of App. 1951) $100,000, Buck v. Hill, 121 Cal. App. 413, 263 P 2d 643 (1st Dist. Ct. of App. 1953) $150,000, Kendall v. United Airlines, 200 F. 2d 269 (2d Cir. 1952) $150,000, New Haven & Hartford Co. v. Zeramani, 200 F. 2d 240 (1st Cir. 1952) $116,500, Neddo v. New York, 275 App. Div. 492, 90 N.Y.S. 2d 650 (3d Dept. 1949) $137,567.

ALLEN, op. cit.

Wherefore sentences containing limits in the Athenia clauses in bills before this committee should be stricken before any such bills are used or considered for use as the basis of legislation. Respectfully submitted.

DANIEL WILKES,

Athenia Survivor and Attorney at Law, New York, N.Y. STATEMENT OF DONALD D. CONNORS, JR., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. CONNORS. Senator, I have submitted a statement and I would like, of course, to have that incorporated and I think in the interest of orderly procedure, it might be well to have the statement of Mrs. Johnston of Reno, Nev., follow mine in the record.

Senator, I would like to say this. I support of course, Senator Bible's bill S. 531.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is the same as S. 411 of the 85th Congress?

Mr. CONNORS. Yes, it is the same bill, Senator.
Senator JOHNSTON. I remember it.

Mr. CONNORS. We have heard this morning, much talk about the Bonn convention and Paris Reparation Agreement by which Germany agreed to pay their nationals for any damage they might have suffered, but the people who would be benefited by S. 531 are no longer German nationals. They cannot turn to the German Government for redress. They are citizens of the United States; so they must turn to this Congress for redress of their grievances. As Mr. Magill said a few moments ago, it seems a shame to take and vest the money going to beneficiaries of American trusts; but I think it is even worse, Senator, when you seize and take money which goes to American beneficiaries of American trusts and that is exactly what is happening in a handful of cases. It is a small aspect of the whole, overall problem but nevertheless, the family which I represent, is one. There are perhaps some others. These people are citizens of the United States. Their property is U.S. property. They will not ever be given any money by any other government except this Government of the United States. That is why they turn to the Congress of this country for help.

Senator JOHNSTON. I believe, Senator Bible's bill would include anybody under those circumstances.

Mr. CONNORS. That is true. There are not very many of them, Senator. There are some.

Thank you very much.

Mr. TAWNEY. In other words, you are saying that these people were trapped and probably now will be considered dual citizens? Germany would not recognize them because they are now U.S. citizens?

Mr. CONNORS. I am saying they are trapped. They are not dual citizens. They are citizens of the United States.

Mr. TAWNEY. I know they are. It runs into that problem that Germany won't recognize them and pay them because they are citizens of the United States.

Mr. CONNORS. Yes. And moreover, the money is U.S. money. It is here in this country.

Senator JOHNSTON. We certainly thank you for testifying before this committee.

Mr. CONNORS. Thank you, Senator.

(The statements of Donald B. Connors and Mrs. William Johnston are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF DONALD D. CONNORS, JR., IN SUPPORT OF S. 531

Mr. Chairman, Senators, by name is Donald D. Connors, Jr., and I am a lawyer from San Francisco, Calif. As you know, from my prior appearances here, I represent a family of U.S. citizens named Strachwitz who reside in Reno, Nev., and I appear in support of Senator Bible's bill S. 531.

Much has already been said about the merits of this bill and I enthusiastically endorse what has been said by Senator Bible in all of his appearances here. I do not propose to waste time by repeating what he has said for I am sure you are all aware of the merits of this legislation as it applies to the Strachwitz family.

I should like, however, to point out to you that the real beneficiaries of this bill insofar as the Strachwitz family is concerned are the six children. I say this because both Mr. and Mrs. Strachwitz are nearing the twilight of their lifetimes. They may, and I indeed hope they may, live many years but in any event it is their children to whom their property will ultimately come. As Senator Bible has said, one of these children has just graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy. The other son is studying for his master's degree at the University of California, after having served 3 years in the Army of the United States. It is his ambition to teach in our public schools, and I can think of no one more qualified to do so.

Of the four daughters in the family, one works for the Atomic Energy Commission and one teaches school in Nevada. The other daughters, who are twins, are currently attending school in Reno.

Mr. Chairman, you may search your State or any State in the Union and I do not think you will find a family of children more representative of young America than this family. I do not think you will find a family of young Americans more deserving of your immediate attention than this family.

I do not know why this legislation has been confined within your subcommittee for so long, but I do know it is good legislation and it is just legislation. I respectfully and earnestly request that you report it favorably just as soon as you can possibly do so.

STATEMENT OF MRS. WILLIAM B. JOHNSTON, OF RENO, NEV., IN SUPPORT OF S. 531

Mr. Chairman, Senators, I appear before you today in support of S. 531, introduced by Senator Bible. My name is Mrs. William B. Johnston and I reside in Reno and in Chevy Chase.

I cannot believe that the Congress of the United States will suffer injustice to be done citizens of the United States. Because I have never for one moment doubted this, I confidently ask you to enact S. 531.

44467-59-13

As Senator Bible has said, this bill is a minor modification of the Trading With the Enemy Act. It benefits only citizens of the United States.1 The bill requires no appropriation. It is very difficult for me to see how the enactment of the bill could offend any person, or how anyone could in good faith seriously object to it.

I do appreciate the many complicated problems that confront this subcommittee, and I do appreciate the enormity of the job it has to do, but all I ask is that one little aspect of the problem be resolved, namely, the return of American property to American citizens.

The story of my own niece, Friederike Strachwitz, has been spread before this subcommittee many times, and I will not repeat it. Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that the faith of the Strachwitz family that their country and their Congress will return their property to them has never wavered. I am sure that the other U.S. citizens in the same situation as my niece have similar faith in you, and I urge you to justify that faith.

Mr. Chairman, I urge that S. 531 be given favorable consideration at your very early convenience.

Senator JOHNSTON. I notice that we have a Mr. McNulty here. (Statement of George A. McNulty, 5148 Westminster Place, St. Louis, Mo., Mrs. Clara Busch von Gontard Liengme and Mrs. Paul C. von Gontard is as follows:)

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF GEORGE A. MCNULTY, 5148 WESTMINSTER PLACE, ST. LOUIS, Mo., ON BEHALF OF MRS. CLARA BUSCH VON GONTARD LIENGME AND MRS. PAUL C. VON GONTARD

Evidence acquired since the original statement was filed in 1957 proves that the values of the properties of Mrs. Liengme were far in excess of $1 million. Likewise it can now be shown that the values of Mrs. von Gontard's properties were far in excess of $140,000.

Much additional evidence has been obtained as to the extent of the damages to, and the physical loss, and the destruction of both Mrs. Liengme's and Mrs. von Gontard's properties by bombing and other military operations of war.

As to the East German properties of Mrs. Liengme and of Mrs. von Gontard, it no longer is possible even to obtain information concerning them, except unofficially and at great risk to any person seeking to acquire it.

Prior to the formation of the so-called government of East Germany, the U.S. Military Government was furnished some such information by the Russian occupying forces. The Russians now take the position that the matter no longer is of concern to them, that there is a constituted and functioning government in East Germany with which negotiations may be had. The United States does not recognize the existence of any such government.

The point the claimants wish to make is that, from all available evidence, it now appears that the losses of these East German properties are irrevocable and complete. Their seizure, the looting of the dwelling houses, the razing of buildings, the destruction of livestock all were done, not by agents of any purported government or other purported authority in East Germany, but by the armed forces of Soviet Russia although notices were posted on the properties that their owners were citizens of the United States.

If, before their defeat, the Nazis had caused these losses, compensation for them would be provided for by S. 2005 or any of the similar pending bills. Claimants submit it is not fair to deny all compensation to these American citizens because the destruction was wrought by a power we then considered to be an ally.

It is respectfully submitted that the following language of S. 2005, "(2) special measures directed against property in such countries or territories, during the respective periods specified, because of the enemy or alleged enemy character of the owner, which property was owned, directly or indirectly, by a national of the United States at the time of such loss, damage or destruction;" should be clarified or, if necessary, broadened so as to include special measures directed

1 After all, in accepting them as citizens, we accepted them as friends, but we are treating them as enemy aliens.

against property during the periods specified by the Soviet Government. The socalled land reform law they enacted and what they did to these properties demonstrate that they considered any large landowner in the occupied territory an enemy regardless of nationality.

The damage to and seizure of these properties during the period specified in the bill was a war loss just as truly as if it had been done by the Germans. Furthermore, it was in violation of every concept of international law. If the United States compensated its citizens for these losses it would have a claim against the Soviet Government which could be processed through diplomatie channels or in the International Court of Justice.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROMAN L. HRUSKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM

NEBRASKA

Senator HRUSKA. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for letting me break into the regular order here to accommodate my convenience. It is not only my personal convenience, it is the convenience of others who are waiting on my presence in other quarters.

I have a prepared statement which I should like to file with the committee. As the chairman knows, on several occasions, I have risen on the Senate floor and spoken on this subject of vested assets and their proper disposition. My position is spelled out pretty much in those statements, and therefore the essence of those statements which cover a number of years now, is included in this statement of mine which I propose to file and which I do hereby file with the committee. Senator JOHNSTON. It will be included in full.

Senator HRUSKA. I would like to say, not by way of summary, but by way of comment, the return of these assets to the German and Japanese citizens from whom they were seized should be achieved with a well-balanced bill which will accommodate the rights of our American citizens as well as of the German and American citizens involved German and Japanese citizens involved, and I should like to cite these three reasons briefly.

First, that it is only right and just, under our concept of private property and our concept of the capitalistic form of enterprise, private capital; secondly, that such a return of the assets would be in keeping with our historic policy started a long time ago and this is the first time we have deviated from it, at least up until now; and thirdly, that such a return and such a disposition would subserve our national interest, our own self-interest, if we want to put it that way, by reason of enabling us to retain our moral position as a world power and as a world leader and that it would subserve our personal, or not personal, our self-interest as a nation because with the constant drive that is being exerted toward the investment of capital abroad, we will by this action which is described in my statement, firm up the safety of making investments abroad so that there will be greater incentive to do something.

Now, briefly, those are three reasons. I have elaborated upon them in greater detail in the statement, and I thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you.

Senator JOHNSTON. We are certainly glad to have you. Thank

you.

(The statement of Senator Hruska is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROMAN L. HRUSKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity of testifying before this committee today on the complex problems resulting from our wartime vesting of the properties of our former enemies, the Germans and Japanese. I urge the passage of a bill which will divest the United States of its ownership of the private properties of these former enemies and at the same time provide for payment of American war claims.

A brief résumé of our vestings may prove helpful. The picture presented requires careful study. At the outset of the war, property owned by enemy aliens and found in the United States was seized by our Government. This is standard procedure and has been for centuries. It is done with the idea of depriving such alien owners of the use of such property in a way harmful to our own country during hostilities. Such seizures continued until April 17, 1953, long after V-E Day. President Eisenhower in a public statement on April 17, 1953, terminated the vesting program.

Everything subject to ownership in which any German or Japanese had any interest whatever, whether legal or equitable, whether present and in being or remote as a contingent beneficiary, was seized and vested. Nothing seemed to escape the searching arm of the vesting program. Embraced within the properties seized were real estate, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, jewelry, works of art, household effects, livestock, business enterprises, patents, copyrights, trademarks, decedent estates, estates of minors, insurance policies, trust agreement proceeds, and so forth.

As of June 30, 1958, the Office of Alien Property estimates that at the time of vestings-recalling now that vestings began in 1942 and ended in April 1953-the properties were worth $391,120,000. To this figure must be added the interest on bank accounts, dividends on the stocks and bonds, rents and other accumulations, thereby increasing the values over the past 17 years to a total today of about $659,749,000. A breakdown of the nationalities of the owners of these properties is as follows: German, $565,659,000; Japanese, $55,102,000; Italian, $19,620,000; Bulgarian, $643,000; Hungarian, $3,973,000; Rumanian, $1,096,000; and properties in enemy occupied countries, $13,656,000. We have spent by way of administration of the Office of Alien Property considerably more than $57 million. Under the provisions of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, and section 39 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, $228 million has been spent in payment of prisoner-of-war claims, and war damages to religious organizations functioning in the Philippines. So that a little less than $300 million remains of the present values of vested properties.

Some original vesting orders were in error, so we have returned over $77 million of the total vestings; we have paid out as debt claims against vested properties the sum of $2,913,000. Other sums aggregating in excess of $16,877,000 have been paid out or allocated for payment for conservatory expenses, transfers to foreign governments under our intercustodial agreements, and so forth.

Here it is appropriate to refer to the argument that by returning the full amount of the assets according to their present values we are unjustly enriching the former owners by giving them back more than the values of the property when seized. My answer to this is that had they continued their ownership of these properties over the past 17 years, they would have been entitled to the normal appreciations in value in their own right. To deny them the use and also the natural accretions is to deny them valuable attributes of the right of ownership.

There are two controlling justifications for our return of all vested assets. One is based upon our American law, founded upon the highest moral consideration. The other finds its justification in economic reasons.

Anglo-Saxon law has its roots buried in the principle that property rights are inviolable. They originate with the Magna Carta. Blackstone recognized the principle and so asserted in his "Commentaries." In extending these principles under the "Articles of Confederation," we find them specifically contained in the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Territory of the Northwest of the Ohio River. From these sources and engrained in their everyday dealings, our