to the White House and not to Congress as the improviser of all the difficulties. Bills authorizing only partial return of seized assets or diverting the proceeds thereof to purposes other than making a full restitution to rightful owners violate the principle of the sanctity of private property the same as complete confiscation. All of the confiscated property must be returned to the rightful owners, or full indemnity made therefor. There are no degrees of confiscation. Of course, a reasonable custodian or administration charge would be legitimate. As your committee's Report 120 says: "The plain conclusion is obvious that, to the extent S. 2227 does not return all seized property, it approves confiscation of private property by the Government of the United States" (p. 13). Certainly, no one would rationally attempt to justify on moral grounds the confiscation of a person's property by making a partial restitution as a matter of grace or by using the confiscated property for a charitable or educational purpose, or, in fact, for any purpose whatsoever without the owner's consent. Your subcommittee in its report, dated March 1, 1957, has so correctly and forthrightly said: "The primary question which must be answered in dealing with alien property is whether or not the United States is prepared to abandon the principle of inviolability of private property, and in such abandonment to have the Government of the United States become a confiscator along with Communist or imperialistic nations. Abandonment, if there is to be an abandonment of the principle of the sanctity of private property, should be openly undertaken and with a full understanding of its implications. It should be clearly recognized that such abandonment violates principles and traditions of the United States which heretofore have been considered basic. This violation, moreover, cannot be avoided by the ingenuous use of language which gives lipservice to basic principles, but which in fact denies to the private property owner that which he owns and which does not give him prompt and adequate compensation for the property so taken." The U.S. Government cannot afford to leave itself open to the accusation that it seeks to profit by confiscation under its domestic law while at the same time denouncing the policy of confiscation if practiced by any other nation. Quoting further from your committee's report: "Confiscation must not be the practice of a nation which encourages morality in others. Confiscation is the practice of a people who deny that morality exists." Consistency, as well as moral rectitude, requires that if we disavow confiscation of private property, as a matter of government policy for itself or any other government, the U.S. Government must restore any private property confiscated by it under the White amendment. Our domestic law, the Trading With the Enemy Act in the present situation, must be made to conform with our professed principles and policy-certainly with the international morality we preach to others. Under date of April 27, 1959, your Senate Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act issued its report to the Senate Judiciary Committee (Rept. 228) commenting on Under Secretary of State Dillon's statement that the expansion and protection of American private investments abroad was of the "utmost concern to the Department of State in the conduct of our foreign relations," especially with a "hostile Communist bloc actively pressing a massive offensive against the Western system of free enterprise." The report said: "The subcommittee believes the security of foreign investments must be based upon a governmental policy which practices the principles of maintaining the sanctity of private property and which refrains from confiscation of the private property of foreign nationals, even in wartime. Only by coordinating our foreign policy and by being consistent in our pronouncements and actions can we present an example of the merits of the free enterprise system to the entire world. It is not consistent policy or action to return some private properties to some of our former enemies-namely, those in Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Hungary-and deny such returns to perhaps our most dependable present-day allies, Germany and Japan. "We have exhibited friendship with the Governments of Germany and Japan, while at the same time denying certain nationals of those Governments the use of their property seized by this country as a wartime precautionary measure. The subcommittee believes such inconsistencies are detrimental and without foundation in moral or international law." The above quotation of your committee, in my opinion, devastatingly condemns the procrastination and vacillation of the executive branch of our Government, particularly the State Department, in the matter of the return of seized assets. The late Secretary Dulles also made reference to "the burdensomeness. to the American taxpayer" of any return. This is pure sophistry. If the property was illegally and immorally seized and confiscated it should be returned or indemnity paid, no matter how "burdensome to the American taxpayer." But the fact is such return or compensation therefor would not be "burdensome" to the American taxpayer. Your bill, S. 672, now before your subcommittee, authorizes payment of such claims out of funds received or to be received by the U.S. Government from Japan or any country in repayment for postWorld War II economic aid or assistance from the United States and earmarks such funds for such purpose. No special appropriation for payment is necessary if S. 672 becomes the law with the above provision in it. The GARIOA claims which the United States asserts against Japan should be settled by negotiation and the proceeds (to the extent necessary) made available to the payment of American war damage claims and for Japanese seized assets. This would make any special appropriations unnecessary as GARIOA is more than adequate to fully discharge these obligations. The passage of S. 672 will bring our statutory law in conformity with our professed standards of justice and morality and would restore our historic pattern of national conduct and international policy in respect of the sanctity of private property without any burden to the American taxpayer. I would appreciate your submitting this letter formally to your subcommittee on its hearings on June 18, 1959, and having the same incorporated in the record, thereby reincorporating my previous testimony. Respectfully submitted. RAOUL E. DESVERNINE (On behalf of the Association for the Return THE UNITED CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY, Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I understand hearings are being held once again on the question of the return of confiscated German and Japanese property. I am enclosing a statement on this subject passed by the assembly of the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) at St. Louis, Mo., in October 1958. The delegates who met and discussed this issue in St. Louis favor the return of such property on moral grounds and would like to convey this information to the Members of Congress who are considering this issue. Cordially, ROBERT A. FANGMEIER, National Director, Christian Citizenship. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF RETURN OF CONFISCATED JAPANESE AND GERMAN PROPERTY (No. 42) AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES (DISCIPLES OF CHRIST), ST. LOUIS, Mo., OCTOBER 17-22, 1958 Whereas the private property of individual Japanese and German citizens .confiscated during World War II has still not been returned and is causing individual hardship, international frictions, and undermining faith in our system of property rights and in observance of American international legal practices; and Whereas the practice of the United States from the Revolutionary War through World War I has been to return private property confiscated during war; and Whereas fellow Christians in Japan and Germany have expressed concern that justice be accorded to their private citizens whose property was confis.cated; and Whereas the President of the United States has urged upon Congress as a first step a plan to "provide for the payment in full of all legitimate war 44467-59-31 claims of Americans against Germany and would permit, as an act of grace, an equitable monetary return to former owners of vested assets"; and Whereas the President of the United States has declared that it is his hope "that it will also be possible to work out a final solution of the Japanese vested assets (confiscated property) for presentation to the next session of Congress": Therefore be it Resolved by the International Convention of Christian Churches assembled at St. Louis, Mo., October 17-22, 1958, That we commend the President and members of both political parties who are working to maintain the traditional position of the United States from the Revolutionary War through World War I regarding full restoration of private property seized during wartime; be it further Resolved, That individual Christians and our churches give serious study to the problem of the confiscated Japanese and German property and make their wishes known to governmental leaders; be it further Resolved, That the executive secretary of the international convention be requested to send copies of this resolution to the Judiciary Committees of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and the President of the United States; and that the Department of Social Welfare, UCMS, be asked to inform the churches of this action and implement a program of study and action in the spirit of this resolution. (Signed) THE DISCIPLES PEACE FELLOWSHIP. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, DEUTSCHER INDUSTRIE- UND HANDELSTAG, Chairman, Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On general reasons of fairness and equity as well as considering the problem of foreign investments in general, you have been, as we have learned, advocating the protection of private property. You are consequently opposing any discrimination against the Federal Republic of Germany and advocating the return of the German prewar property to its owners. We, therefore, feel we should draw your attention to the following facts: The German Federal Minister for Economics, Professor Erhard, during his recent visit to the United States particularly pointed out the importance of a satisfactory solution of this problem. The German Federal Parliament on June 12 of this year unanimously adopted the following resolution: "The Federal Goverment is being requested to contact again the U.S. Government in order to reach at last a just solution concerning the question of German property in the United States." The desire for the return of German property is common to the Federal Government as well as to all political parties and the entire field of business and industry. The Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag in its capacity as the central organization of all Federal German chambers of commerce and industry had already expressed this opinion in a letter to the President of the United States of March 29, 1957. We take the liberty to attach-referring to our previous correspondence—a photostat of that letter and should like to affirm that the then expressed opinion is still valid. We should be very grateful if you could possibly quote this letter during the coming hearings. Sincerely yours, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, Dr. GERHARD FRENTZEL, Secretary General. DEUTSCHER INDUSTRIE- UND HANDELSTAG, Bonn, March 29, 1959. President of the United States of America, SIR: In view of your often-manifested decision to put into reality a better stable world for free men and free nations to live in, the Deutscher Industrieund Handelstag-Association of German Chamber of Commerce and Industrytakes the liberty of drawing your special attention to one matter deserving your attention and apparently being of common interest to Americans, Germans, and all free nations. We are aware of the multitude and magnitude of problems confronting you the world over as well as at home. Nevertheless, we deem it necessary to approach you personally, being the responsible speaker of 1,480,000 Western German firms of all sizes; we ask you to consider the following fundamental issue for a moment. Recent international events, including the development in the Middle Eastwhich absorbed so much of your valuable time-have again proven the necessity of close international teamwork, based on mutual international confidence. One essential way of producing common interest, understanding, and long-range unity between men, companies, governments, and whole nations are reciprocal international investments. These investments can only be made if the individual, the company, the government, and the nation within a given geographical area feel really secure. They must know that these investments of theirs abroad will not be confiscated someday. This essential belief, Mr. President, that investments abroad will not be confiscated, is greatly menaced in the minds of 30,000 Western German investors (both firms and individuals) and, gradually, in the minds of the free German people as a whole. Their sentiments are shared by their compatriots and relatives in Soviet-occupied Eastern Germany. Above-mentioned German individuals and companies, relying on U.S. legality and business honor, invested about $400,000,000 in the United States before the Second World War. Today the U.S. Government seemingly accuses these 30,000 investors (out of a country which then had a population of 80,000,000) of being responsible for the last war. Your Government is now punishing these 30,000 for this alleged responsibility by refusing to give them back their $400,000,000 investments in the United States. We appeal to your statesmanship, seeking to strengthen international unity through reciprocal international investments. We believe that by turning back to the prewar investors what legally belongs to them you will make a remarkable contribution to international unity and good will. Such decision will pay dividends for U.S. policy, for American investors abroad, and for international relations in the crucial years of world history ahead of all of us. The return of confiscated German property will also be an incentive for German industry to participate in the historical plan to invest money and brains in the developable so-called underdeveloped territories, thereby relieving the American taxpayer of much foreign aid and aiding the long-range objectives of your policy of international prosperity and peace. A further liquidation of German and Japanese assets should be prevented under all circumstances in the interest of American-German friendship, unless it is endorsed by the U.S. Congress. A letter with the same wording we take the liberty to direct to His Excellency the Honorable Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. We also deemed it appropriate to send one copy of this letter to each of the Honorable Senators Lyndon B. Johnson, Styles Bridges, James O. Eastland, and Olin D. Johnston, with whom we have corresponded several month ago about the same topic while they headed the conference of the majority, the conference of the minority, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Subcommittee To Examine and Review the Administration of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Assuring you of our highest respect, I remain, Truly yours, Re S. 2012 Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, SG. VORWERK., President. THE HANOVER BANK, New York, N.Y., June 15, 1959.. Chairman, Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act, Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: On behalf of the beneficiaries of the trusts hereinafter referred to, which we are administering as trustee, I wish to express the earnest hope that your committee will render a favorable report on the above bill. It has seemed to us for a long time that the continued confiscation, 14 years after the cessation of hostilities, of currently accruing income from trusts established by American citizens for the benefit of persons who happen to be German nationals was a gross injustice to the individuals concerned. If such trusts were to be established today, the income and principal accruing to German citizens would not be seized by the Alien Property Custodian. The distinction based upon the time when the trust was created does not seem to justify the difference in treatment. You will note that it is on behalf of the beneficiaries, not ourselves that we speak. We are trustee in 16 separate trusts where the income or principal is subject to seizure under the Trading With the Enemy Act. These 16 accounts have a total value of approximately $2,100,000 and range in size from approximately $5,000 to approximately $600,000. They produce a total income of about $73,000, ranging from $125 to $24,000 per annum. Respectfully submitted. W. S. GRAY. [Translation of a Japanese letter to Hon. Olin D. Johnston from Hayashi Tetsuya, Miyakonojyo City, Miyazaki-Kene, Japan] JANUARY 4, 1959. DEAR MR. OLIN D. JOHNSTON: I have heard through the Japanese Foreign Office that you have concerned yourself over a long period of time with the problems relating to the return of Japanese property confiscated in the United States, and I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude for your efforts. For 30 years, from the time that he was about 20 years of age, my father, lived in America engaging chiefly in the cleaning business for his living. Just before the outbreak of the Pacific war, because of failing health, he returned to Japan, making the voyage on the last ship to leave the United States before the eruption of the war. During those 30 years, in order to provide for his wife and children in case he should die, my father subscribed for an insurance policy naming his wife, Tsuge Hayashi, as his beneficiary. My father died suddenly in November 1945. Because he left no property whatsover, those of us who survived him were faced with dire poverty. In the midst of our difficulties, about 1953, we submitted a claim to the insurance company for the insurance mentioned above. This claim was recognized and our family rejoiced at the good news. We immediately presented a claim to the Office of Alien Property, Department of Justice, but the answer that we received stated that unless we could present evidence that we had put up resistance against the Japanese military forces or that we had suffered mistreatment at their hands, our property would be confiscated by law. Under the circumstances of war, no matter how any Japanese may have secretly opposed the war, in order to live he would have had to cooperate with the war effort. You must be aware of this fact through the many reports and instances of such cases. Because our family could not offer any evidence of such resistance or mistreatment we had to give up making further petitions for the insurance money to which we had looked forward with such anticipation and rejoicing. Subsequently, we received an official notice dated October 31, 1957, rejecting our petition. The rejection notice however, contained an appended note to the effect that the rejection in no wise placed our claim in jeopardy in the event of any change of decision in the future. Senator Johnston, our father was a good and a sincere man. While in the United States, he must have contributed greatly to the society of which he was a part. I am sure that his friends who still live there will testify to this. The reason for his return to Japan was ill health. I know nothing about problems of international law or politics. But I do find it difficult to understand why a small estate accumulated at the cost of many years of effort by a good citizen should be confiscated without regard for his wishes. The Government of Japan may also be responsible for the fact that there has been no satisfactory solution to this problem. I do not understand the details involved, but whatever they may be, I think that the rights of individuals should be given greater consideration. Nor can I understand why the term "alien property control" should still be in use to this day. Japan and America are supposed to be peacefully and freely allied in a common cause. Even those charged with war crimes have all been released. After 10 long years we managed by borrowing money to erect a headstone on our father's grave. Last year was the 13th anniversary of his death, |