overseas as are involved in this vested property. We think, in the international interest of the United States, as well as the national interest, in principle and practice, the United States has no course but to return these properties. Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. Masaoka, what is that pin on your left lapel? Mr. MASAOKA. That happens to be the Legion of Merit. It often is described as the Colonel's Good Conduct Medal. I was not a colonel-just a sergeant-but that was given to me during the war due to the fact that one of the difficult jobs of our Government was to explain to Japan and the peoples of the Far East that this was not a racial war and, fortunately or otherwise, we were able to do it through the use of Japanese-American troops, by having them explain and refute the propaganda of the Nazi-Facists. As a consequence, the Government was good enough to give me this award. Senator JOHNSTON. Thank you very much. Mr. TAWNEY. May we go off the record a moment? (Discussion off the record.) Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Masaoka, did you have a claim before the Navy Department under the Japanese Evacuation Claims Act? Mr. MASAOKA. You mean personally? Mr. TAWNEY. You or your family. Mr. MASAOKA. Our family had claims against the U.S. Government under the Japanese Evacuation Claims Act; yes. Mr. TAWNEY. If my understanding is correct, the benefits of that act were payable to both Japanese of American citizenship and to noncitizens; is that correct? Mr. MASAOKA. That is correct. Mr. TAWNEY. And do you know approximately how many millions of dollars was paid to them? Mr. MASAOKA. There were approximately 27,000 claims paid by theU.S. Government in the amount of about $37 million. This particular program was completed by the Department of Justice last November 10. Mr. TAWNEY. Well, now, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, of course, any American citizen whose property was inadvertently vested was entitled to its return; is that not correct? Mr. MASAOKA. They should have had it returned, but we know of certain instances of American citizens whose properties were taken when they were still in the Army of the United States; that when the Government vested their property it was on the charge that they were keeping or cloaking it for someone in Japan. In some instances, these people still haven't gotten their property back, even though the party in Japan made no claim for the return of the property. In cases like this, where there is a question between an American citizen or foreign national, even though they be Japanese, we think the doubt should be resolved in favor of the American citizen. Mr. WOOOD. Along that line, the payment to those who have been evacuated doesn't in any way militate against your very fine statement that the United States should not confiscate the property of aliens. Mr. MASAOKA. Well, in fact, the very act of the Government compensating us indicates that though in a tragedy of war in a period of hatred and hysteria, when the Government caused us to lose our property, the Government felt that since we had been moved for the national convenience of the Government, we were entitled to compensation. We think this is a point. What the Government has done in the case of the Japanese-American evacuation claims has nothing to do with the position the chairman takes today, however. Mr. Wood. And there is no savings of one obligation transferred to another? Mr. MASAOKA. No. Senator JOHNSTON. We certainly thank you for coming before us today. Mr. MASAOKA. Thank you, sir. Senator JOHNSTON. Our next witness is Mr. Bartley C. Crum, attorney, from New York City. Mr. Crum, will you come forward, please. STATEMENT OF BARTLEY C. CRUM, ATTORNEY AT LAW, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. CRUM. Thank you, sir. Should I identify myself for the record? Senator JOHNSON. I would like for you to identify yourself; yes. Mr. CRUM. My name is Bartley C. Crum. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in all of the courts of New York and Čalifornia, and before the Supreme Court of the United States. I appear here on my own behalf. I have no client whom I represent. I am interested solely in this as a matter of principle. In late 1945, I was appointed by President Truman as a member of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine to investigate the condition of Jews who had been persecuted by the Germans. We were authorized by the executive branch of the Government and, in particular, by President Truman, to inform the German defacto leadership, in 1946, that it was the position of our Government that the properties of Germans which had been sequestrated would be returned at the end of hostilities, and it was with this in mind that we helped lay the foundation, I think, for the reparations which were later on paid by the West German Government to the Government of Israel. The executive branch of the Government at that time reaffirmed the historic position of our country that private property is inviolate and may not be seized. It may be sequestrated, it is true, and we may prevent its use, during war time, by enemies, but at all times, at least in the history of our country up to the present time, our policy has been one of sequestration rather than a policy of confiscation. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the committee's attention to some of the early treaties which were worked out by such men as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson between the United States, Great Britain, France, and Prussia-all of which affirmed the proposition that private property is inviolate. Senator JOHNSTON. Just to further identify you for the record, I think you have been working on this matter for many, many years, have you not? Mr. CRUM. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSTON. You are well learned in this particular field. Mr. CRUM. Yes. Senator JOHNSTON. Isn't it true that you got your master's degree in a study on this subject? Mr. CRUM. That is true, Mr. Chairman. I am a graduate of the University of California, at Berkley, and my master's degree was obtained through study of Trading With the Enemy Act and the history of that act, and actions taken by our country heretofore. Senator JOHNSTON. When was that? Mr. CRUM. That was in 1922. Senator JOHNSTON. At that time, our Government did give back. the properties they were holding. Mr. CRUM. That is right. Senator JOHNSTON. They did return them. Mr. CRUM. Yes; they did. It is my view that this position that we now have taken is doing a great deal of harm to our country abroad. Mr. Erhard, the Vice Chancellor of West Germany, who was here, I think, rather recently, had talks with the Vice President, Mr. Nixon, and with the State Department, and he made it perfectly plain, I think, that in any society which is based upon capital, and particularly one which exports capital, such a government must rely upon the rule of law that private property cannot be confiscated Senator JOHNSTON. You mentioned the fact that he talked with the Vice President. He did, and he came right from his office to my office and discussed the matter with me. He stressed how important it was for this property to be returned in order to keep a better feeling between the United States and West Germany. Mr. CRUM. Yes. And I think only yesterday there was an amendment passed to one of the foreign aid bills. Senator JOHNSTON. Yes. I was cosponsor of that amendment with the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Bridges. Mr. CRUM. I congratulate you upon it. That is all I have to say. Senator JOHNSTON. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. CRUM. No, sir; I do not. I have no statement. Mr. WOOD. Do you wish to submit one? Mr. CRUM. I would like to submit copies of the treaties between Prussia and the United States; between Britain and the United States; and France and the United States, right after the Revolutionary War, which lay down the proposition that private property is, in fact, inviolate, under international law. (The following letter was subsequently received by the chairman:) HAYS, PODELL, ALGASE, CRUM & FEUER, Senator OLIN D. JOHNSTON, July 21, 1959. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: At my testimony before your committee, I was asked to distinguish between confiscation and sequestration. Our policy has been, from the beginning of the Republic, a policy of sequestration. Under the Roman Empire, "fiscus" was the imperial treasury; and "to confiscate" meant simply to appropriate to take private property for the imperial treasury without compensation. To sequester on the other hand, meant and means merely to hold property until a dispute is settled, at which time the property is returned. This has always been the policy followed by the United States. I enclose herewith photostatic copy of treaties between United States, Prussia, France, and the Netherlands, in which the inviolability of private property is recognized as a matter of international law.' Sincerely, BARTLEY C. CRUM. Senator JOHNSTON. Isn't it true that other nations have kept to that law? Mr. CRUM. Yes, they have. Senator JOHNSTON. Following World War II, isn't it true that the United States is the only nation that is holding up on returning private property? Mr. CRUM. It is the only one that has, I think, done that, and it gives a certain ironic twist to the recent protest of the State Department to the Government of Cuba that Cuba is confiscating land there. Senator JOHNSTON. As I brought out in my discussion yesterday and last Thursday in my amendment to the Mutual Security Act in regard to a country's confiscating property, America ought to be aware of the fact that we have property in other countries to the tune of approximately $60 billion at the present time, scattered in every country of the world. Mr. CRUM. That is right. Senator JOHNSTON. And all any of those countries have to do is declare a little war and take our property. Mr. CRUM. That is right. Mr. Wood. The record will be open for 10 days, Mr. Crum, if you desire to submit anything. Mr. CRUM. Thank you. Senator JOHNSTON. We certainly thank you for coming before us today and I appreciate your being so brief, knowing that you are so familiar with the facts and information on this particular subject. Mr. CRUM. Thank you. Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Crum, you have mentioned the fact that in World War I we returned German vested assets. Mr. CRUM. Yes, we did, sir. Mr. TAWNEY. Did we return then 100 percent? Mr. CRUM. I don't believe we returned them immediately. As I recall there was passed the so-called Winslow Act under which German nationals could make application for a certain proportion of their property and the ultimate return, I think, was subject to satisfaction of war claims by American nationals for damages suffered to their property in Germany. That is my recollection, sir. Senator JOHNSTON. It is true, and we held out a certain percentage which I think was 20 percent to handle it. Mr. WOOD. And that return was blocked by the Harrison amendment in 1934 due to the default of the Hitler government in the savings of the adjustments made by the American War Damages Commission. Mr. CRUM. Yes, the only proposition I seek to advance here, Mr. Senator, is that it seems incredible to me that a system such as ours, 1 The copies of the treaties are on file in the office of the subcommittee. which is based on private enterprise, should at the present time embrace a theory of confiscation rather than a theory of sequestration which has been the historic policy of the American Government. Mr. TAWNEY. I happen to have adjudicated a number of those claims under the Winslow Act. Twenty percent of awards in excess of $10,000 was retained under the War Claims Act of 1928. Mr. CRUM. I probably appeared in some of those matters. Mr. CRUM. One involved Captain Akefield who had a citizenship both in Hawaii and the United States and another involved Johan Fleuker, both of which originated in the then Territory of Hawaii. Mr. TAWNEY. Do you feel, Mr. Crum, that the situation in connection with World War I is exactly analogous to the situation in World War II? Mr. CRUM. Not exactly but I think it is of paramount importance to our country that we reaffirm and reestablish the principle of sequestration as against the proposition of confiscation. Mr. TAWNEY. Those two words are confusing to a number of people. I wonder if you could give the committee a definition? Mr. CRUM. Confiscation, as I understand it, comes from the old Latin word confiscus whereby the Roman emperors took the property of Roman citizens without compensation for the seizure of such property. Sequestration means to sequester, to set aside property, to safeguard it, and indeed, the term custodian, custos, means guarding, in contemplation of, in international law, cessation of hostilities and it is appropriate for a government to sequestrate, to take hold of property that might be used against it, but it is improper to confiscate such property, in my opinion. Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Crum, isn't it true that in every case where assets have been returned after they were vested, that the return was made subject to certain conditions and concessions by the other country? Mr. CRUM. I think that is true, sir, yes. Mr. TAWNEY. Have any concessions been made by Germany so far that would lead to settlement. Mr. CRUM. I don't know what negotiations are going on between our own Government and the West German Government. I would assume that any conditions which the executive branch might attach would be discussed with the officials of the West German Government. But I think it is very improper for a capitalistic society to embrace the philosophy of confiscation. Mr. TAWNEY. Would you say we embraced the philosophy of confiscation in case of the Italian assets? Mr. CRUM. I don't think that we did. Mr. TAWNEY. Italy agreed to pay our claims against Italy. Mr. CRUM. Yes, it did. Mr. TAWNEY. Has there been any such agreement or promise of agreement by Germany to that effect? Mr. CRUM. I don't know. Mr. TAWNEY. Thank you. Mr. WOOD. Counsel for the minority asked you a question a moment ago in reference to whether the situation now or following World |