Page images
PDF
EPUB

and it is the custom to hold a memorial service in the 13th year after death but that was not possible because we had no money.

We barely manage to exist from one day to another, but each one in our family has his or her little dream. It is our plea to you, Senator Johnston, that this question of Japanese property in America will be divorced completely from all political considerations and that it will be resolved purely from the standpoint of respect for the rights of individuals. Furthermore, we ask that it will be made possible to bring comfort to our father's spirit and to realize our dreams be they ever so small. We beg that you continue your efforts in our behalf in the coming session of the 86th Congress.

The claim number of Tsuge Hayashi (my mother) in the Office of Alien Property Control is 62174 and the address of a friend of my parents with whom we correspond is: Mrs. Shigeyo Satow, 2119 North Clark Street, Chicago, Ill., United States of America.

If you will be so kind as to reply to us regarding this matter, we would consider ourselves most fortunate.

In closing, we pray for your health and your work.
Very truly yours,

TETSUYA HAYASHI.

(Translated by: K. L. Takeshita, Orientalia Division, Library of Congress, Jan. 16, 1959.)

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., IN SUPPORT OF S. 1963

Mr. Chairman, the bills presently being considered by this subcommittee deal with a long-standing controversial issue the disposition of vested interests in property in the United States formerly owned or controlled by the Government and nationals of Germany and Japan. Many of the bills propose that these assets be returned to their former enemy owners. Because I believe such proposals are infinitely wrong, I would like to recall the past legal history and the present-day facts surrounding the problem which fortify my conclusion.

After the hostilities of World War II ceased, the United States and 17 Allies joined in an even further unprecedented spirit of cooperation is reaching a solution on the reparation problem. Germany had in monetary figures alone inflicted about $300 billion worth of war damage on the Allies. The Allies realized that Germany would never respond in full reparation for the ravages she had inflicted and were eager to avoid an impractical reparation program such as the one which had failed so miserably, through German default, after World War I. The Allies jointly concentrated on marshalling what was available in physical and intangible enemy assets for ultimate distribution in lieu of German reparations; simultaneously they imposed limitations upon themselves as to any other immediate reparation claims directly from Germany. Eighteen wartime Allies agreed to this method of solving the reparations problem of World War II, and it was crystallized and formalized as the Paris Agreement on Reparation. The Allied plan embodied one feature that should not be forgotten-no German assets were to be returned to German control or German ownership. The 18 participating countries obligated themselves to this principle not in a spirit of vengeance against Germany but to assure that they would retain what was available in assets for joint reparation accounts. Under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act, the United States legally seized and vested enemy property worth about $390 million which through appreciation has risen in value to over $650 million while held in American hands. The Congress of the United States incorporated into our legislation the obligation of the Paris Agreement not to return this vested property by specific language in the War Claims Act of 1948. It devoted these assets to the relief of certain American military and civilian personnel who had suffered at the hands of the enemy in prisoner-of-war camps.

This Allied policy of retaining vested assets moved forward two more steps in 1951 and 1952. An Allied high commission law recognized and gave binding effect to these transfers of German property to the Allies, and the new German Federal Republic in the Bonn Convention not only agreed to this law, but further pledged that it would compensate its own nationals for the property they had lost through the vesting action of the Allied Powers. These positions were again affirmed in the Paris Protocol of 1954 which was approved by the U.S. Senate.

Here I think it is important to note that every signatory has adhered to the agreed policy on retention of enemy assets in lieu of reparation, but that Germany has never implemented its agreement to compensate the former owners of the property involved. The wartime Allies have in good faith relied on the irrevocability of the reparation agreement and policy: Germany already having faltered in her obligation next asked the return of these vested properties.

In February of 1959, I asked the State Department for a report on the position of the other signatories to the Paris Agreement as to the proposals being advanced in the United States for a unilatral return of the vested assets we hold. Mr. William B. Macomber, Assistant Secretary of State, advised me on March 6, 1959, that not all the signatories had expressed themselves but did relate the following information.

"In November 1954 the British and French Governments expressed their concern about S. 3423 (submitted in the 83d Cong.) on the ground that a return of German assets would constitute a breach of obligation under the Paris Reparation Agreement and would create difficulties for the other signatories. Subsequently, the Netherlands and Norwegian Governments advised the U.S. Government of their concurrence with the British and French views. The Government of the Netherlands also, in a separate and later message, expressed similar concern with respect to the administration bill (S. 2227) submitted to the 84th Congress. On July 31, 1957, the White House announced the U.S. Government's intention to seek a solution of the vested assets and American war damage claims problems which would permit the payment of American war damage claims against Germany and an equitable monetary return to the former owners of vested assets. In December 1957 the British and French Governments, in referring to this White House statement, drew the attention of the U.S. Government to the concern which such a proposal would cause to the signatories of the Paris Reparation Agreement. Both Governments, however, reserved their position on this matter pending the receipt of fuller information as to the actual content of any legislative proposal which might be put forward by the U.S. Government. Also in 1957 the Dutch Government expressed its interest in the U.S. proposal and requested particularly that publicity be given to the U.S. view that such a return should not be regarded as a precedent with respect to other allied countries."

There is still another signatory nation that has challenged us from behind the Iron Curtain. Mr. Macomber goes on to say: "In 1958 the Czech Government expressed the view that a release of vested assets 'in favor of the German Federal Republic' and 'irrespective of the circumstance that it omits the German Democratic Republic, would be contrary to the obligation assumed by the Government of the United States of America that German enemy assets shall not be returned to German ownership or shall not again come under German control.'"

Mr. Macomber's communication also stated that certain other of the signatories such as Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand, had informally approached the Department of State more as a request for information on the status of the subject than a statement of position as to any return proposals. I think we should recognize from all of this that the integrity of our agreements is of concern to many nations.

In February, I also asked the State Department what further action had been taken by the Federal Republic of Germany in furtherance of its promise under the Bonn Settlement Convention to compensate for the German losses caused by the Allied seizure in lieu of reparations.

When this subcommittee held hearings on April 4, 5, and 6, 1957, the State Department by letter of the previous month reported that a draft law for the final settlement of losses caused by the war was then being dealt with by the legislative bodies of the Republic.

The

The Department's letter to me in March of 1959 reported little progress. draft legislation had been promulgated on November 5, 1957, and entered into force on January 1, 1958. Its English title is the "General War Sequel Law." But a study of that long awaited enactment will simply reveal that German losses and claims accruing because of a seizure for reparation, restitution, or similar purposes were reserved for some later separate regulation by law. I was advised by letter of May 26, 1959, from the State Department that there had been no implementation of this particular section. It then seems apparent that the Federal German Republic has still done nothing to fulfill its obligations under the Bonn government.

Under the label of "protecting private investments," "maintaining the sanctity of private property," and "consistency of policy," this committee in its annual report recently recommended legislation which would unilaterally and without the support, consent, or approval of 17 other signatories return vested enemy property back into the control of our former enemies in contravention of all our agreements. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that such unilateral action on the part

of the United States is wrong.

It is for that reason that I must now oppose the return of vested assets as provided in title II of S. 672 and in the amendment to S. 672 in the nature of a substitute. I also must express disagreement with references made to the merits of return set forth in the bill's "Declaration of Policy." For the same reason, I oppose S. 531, S. 664, S. 744, and S. 2012.

Believing that these assets should not be returned, I urge the committee to consider proposals whereby the United States would utilize the assets vested under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act. In my own bill, S. 1963, a plan is set forth for using a portion of the funds derived from the liquidation of these assets. Though my bill makes no provision for payment of American war damage claims, I believe that this committee should devise a plan whereby the claims of U.S. citizens who suffered damage at the hands of our former enemy should be paid from the liquidated assets. My major objection to H.R. 2785 and S. 2005, the administration's proposal, is that though it provides for the payment of war claims, it still leaves unresolved the most controversial issue, i.e., the question of ultimate return of remaining German assets. I was happy to see the administration abandon its former position favoring partial return, but I think the ultimate disposition issue should now be resolved. If there are funds remaining after payment of war claims, and, of course, the extent of these funds will depend upon the width and breadth of the classes of claims that will be honored, I think their utilization should be prescribed.

For many years, I have been searching for a way to aid the older persons of this country, especially parents of veterans who were disabled or died during World War II. Those who have been deprived of their sons might also be said to have a claim against the enemy who caused this deprivation. I think my plan, which would make available to the States on a matching basis a portion of enemy asset funds to assist in providing facilities and housing for those who have been denied this aid and comfort from their children, deserves serious consideration. In summary then, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to returning any portion of these assets which we vested and agreed with 17 other nations to retain in lieu of reparations. I favor the utilization of funds from liquidated assets for the payment of war damage claims with surpluses committed to practical use in behalf of our people. This disposition of property formerly held by the Government and nationals of Germany and Japan is right and just under the law and the facts.

JEWISH RESTITUTION SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION,

New York, N.Y., June 17, 1959.

Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act, Senate Judiciary
Committee, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: Reference is made to the hearings before your subcommittee scheduled for June 18, 1959, on a series of bills, among which is S. 672, as amended and introduced by you on May 28, 1959. I refer in particular to section 12 of the amendment.

This section would authorize a bulk settlement of the heirless property claims which have been filed with the Office of Alien Property pursuant to section 32 (h) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended.

As you know, support for the substance of this proposal has been widespread and has been previously stated. The problem arises out of the fact that the Congress, in enacting section 32 (h) made clear the intention of the United States that the property here of persecuted persons who had died without heirs should be used, in the United States, for the relief of needy and surviving persecutees; but the Congress, the executive branch and the interested charitable organizations all failed to foresee a situation in which thousands of indivdual claims would be filed, in which the administrative burden of proving each such claim would be endless, and in which the type of evidence available to the usual claimant before the OAP would simply not be available either to prove or to negate claims-in situations in which the property was "heirless."

Therefore, a bulk settlement of these presently valid claims is in the interest of all concerned-the Government, the interested charitable organizations, and, most of all, the needy intended beneficiaries. Recognition of the merit of such a settlement is universal. In the 85th Congress, Senator Dirksen introduced a bill calling for such a settlement in the amount of $1 million (S. 1981). A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Dollinger (H.R. 7830, and H.R. 12294). Hearings were held on H.R. 7830 on March 13, 1958, before the Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. At that time, the record shows the inclusion of a letter written to your good self on June 10, 1957, in support of S. 1981, by Senators Javits and Hennings. Support was also expressed on behalf of the Catholic Relief Services; the American Jewish Committee; Church World Services; the American Jewish Congress; and by the administration. Assistant Attorney General Townsend, Director of the Office of Alien Property, stated his support of the principle of the bill, while reserving his judgment as to the appropriate amount of a bulk settlement. The Department of State also filed a favorable statement.

In the present Congress, two proposals for bulk settlement of these claims are pending one is section 12 of S. 672; the other is H.R. 6462. There are procedural differences between the two proposals; but either of them would be acceptable to the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization, the "successor organization" designated by President Eisenhower under section 32 (h) of the

act.

The main difference is that the House bill deals solely with the question of a means of settling these valid and long-outstanding claims filed pursuant to section 32 (h); the Senate version incorporates the solution to this problem into a bill which, in the main, deals with problems of policy under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

It is not the province of the JRSO to take any position with respect to any portion of S. 672 other than section 12. The JRSO is a charitable organization, which exists for one purpose, and that alone; to receive heirless property, or the proceeds thereof, and to utilize this property or proceeds in behalf of surviving victims of Nazi persecution. It therefore can express no opinion on any aspect of S. 672 other than section 12.

In so stating, the JRSO must also reiterate the position it has many times expressed that the bulk settlement of these claims involves no question whatsoever of principle or policy. The claims which have been filed by the JRSO are authorized under present law-section 32(h) of the act. The JRSO could at the present time go before the OAP and begin the process of proving these claims. The only question, therefore, is whether such a process, or proving thousands of individual and small claims, would not in fact defeat the intention of the Congress as expressed in present law-to make this property available for relief; and whether it would not impose an enormous and useless administrative burden on both the Department of Justice and the claimant agencythe JRSO. In essence, all that is being suggested by all the parties involved is that the usual ability of a Government department and a claimant with a concededly valid claim to make a settlement be, in this specific case, written into the act. This is a matter of procedure-however important; and differs from the remainder of the bill-S. 672-in involving no point whatsoever of policy. In a letter dated April 10, 1959, the Director of the Office of Alien Property informed the JRSO that "I favor the proposed bulk settlement of heirless property claims in the amount of $500,000. Thus, the expert view of the official of the U.S. Government charged with responsibility for the return of heirless property, under section 32 (h) of the act, is that (as previously stated) a bulk settlement is desirable and (as now stated) that $500,000, the amount indicated in both section 12 of S. 672 and in H.R. 6462, is a fair settlement of these claims. The JRSO believes that the claims which are on file under the act are worth far more than $500,000. Section 32(h), in fact, states $3 million as the amount which the OAP is authorized to return. Nevertheless, in view of the necessity for immediate action, in view of the fact that section 32(h) prohibits charging these assets with administrative and legal costs, the JRSO now favors immediate legislative action to authorize and direct the bulk settlement of these valid and outstanding claims in the amount not less than $500,000.

It is hoped that action can be taken by the subcommittee which will result in prompt enactment of legislation which will achieve the purposes of section 12. In view of the subcommittee's expressed desire to receive statements for the

record, where possible, this statement is being submitted in written form, with the request that it be incorporated into the record to be made on June 18. Respectfully submitted.

MONROE GOLDWATER, President.

STATEMENT BY BERNARD WEITZER, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Once again, I welcome the opportunity to express appreciation on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, for your willingness to hear our views on S. 105, S. 531, S. 664, S. 1103, and S. 2005 which are among the bills your committee is considering to determine the disposition of the German and Japanese property or the proceeds thereof, originally held by the Alien Property Custodian and now under the direction of the Department of Justice. As your committee may recall, I testified at similar hearings on similar bills, April 4, 1957. As I understand from your Chairman's notice of the hearings, you wish to avoid unnecessary repetition of testimony given at the 1957 hearings and that reference to pages in the previous hearings' record will serve to bring to the attention of your committee and staff, the presentation made in the 1957 hearings. My testimony is printed on pages 503-508 in the printed hearings' record.

The stand of our organization has not changed since I last appeared before you. We are unalterably opposed to any legislation such as is included in S. 672 which provides for the return of the vested German or Japanese assets to any of their nationals or their corporate organizations including any of their national organizations of any type. In the purport of the resolutions passed by our national executive committee and by our national convention, such vested assets and their proceeds should be held for the purpose of meeting the claims of American citizens who were citizens or had declared their intention of becoming citizens prior to December 7, 1941 or who became citizens in due course during World War II and immediately thereafter.

This is to preclude claims for war damage by any aliens or former enemy nationals who acquire citizenship in later years. Such later citizens may have been actuated by the hope that thereby their wartime damage claims would be validated and paid for from the proceeds of the vested property.

We must always bear in mind that such property and proceeds thereof were, by agreement with our allies and treaties with Germany, to be used by our Government to indemnify those who were already American citizens at the time when the first agreements were signed. One of the important reasons why our Government was willing to forego reparations from Germany and Japan is that Germany and Japan agreed to indemnify their own nationals for the vested property on terms which those Governments deemed just. To revoke the arrangements thus concluded would be a breach of faith in relationship to our allies and shift, to American citizens, the burden of the losses inflicted upon them by our wartime enemies. The full presentation of this situation is covered in my previous testimony.

It would be a farce on justice to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to wartime enemy nationals or their successors in the face of the facts that the nationals of our allies in Western Europe yielded to their governments, the American securities and properties which such nationals owned, in order to help fight off our enemies. At no time, have we considered returning to such owners, the assets which their government took to use in a war which saved us from Hitler, nor are we likely to consider it.

Other than the comments made above, we taken no position on S. 531, S. 664, S. 744, and S. 2005. However, we do favor the use of the proceeds of the vested property to pay just claims of bona fide American citizens and organizations with the understanding that up to $10,000 shall be paid on such claims but any claims above $10,000 shall be paid proportionately to the total of the overage to the extent that the overall proceeds are available.

We favor S. 1103 which authorizes the Department of Justice to sell vested property even though such property may be the subject of litigation.

We are enthusiastically in favor of S. 105. The encouragement of college education, particularly in the field of the sciences, is even more essential today than when I appeared before your committee in 1957. The President has just expressed his approval of the Killian report which stated that the college age popu

« PreviousContinue »