German family in the United States-if the Supreme Court had not made this discovery, every German family in cities of large German population such as St. Louis, Cincinnati, Chicago, etc., would have faced confiscation of everything they owned at the mere whim of the Office of Alien Property. This is established beyond argument, and the APO has never disputed it after the proof appeared in the congressional hearings cited above. The absurd judicial situation that has developed since the Supreme Court opinion in 1952 is illustrated by the following: 1. When the case came back from the Supreme Court to the U.S. district judge the latter had the temerity to hold that Guessfeldt was a resident of Germany. This judge so stated in a four-sentence "memorandum”. But he would not permit it to be officially reported (Civil Action 5153-49 U.S. D.C.-D.C. April 7, 1953). 2. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld this district judge (213 F. 2d 24, May 13, 1954). 3. Apparently forgetful of what it had previously said on May 13, 1954, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in the Oehmichen case (243 F. 2d 637, decided February 28, 1957) had this to say: "We think (the Guessefeldt case) does not apply here. Guessefeldt was visiting in Germany and was physically restrained from leaving it. The Supreme Court held that, being under such restraint and seeking at all times to return to the United States, he was not resident within Germany." Now, either the District of Columbia Court of Appeals was careless or forgetful or worse; for its language certainly misleads the bar even though the impression is given in the last sentence quoted that it is "merely" referring to the Supreme Court opinion. But the Court of Appeals asserts for itself the emphasized sentence just quoted. Thus, 3 years after it held Guessefeldt to be a resident of Germany, it tells the bar that he was not a resident of Germany at all because he "was visiting" in Germany and "was physically restrained from leaving it." 4. But this is only the beginning of the difficulties before the courts. In the Willenbrock case (152 Fed. Supp. 351, decided May 28, 1957) a Pennsylvania district judge had no trouble at all in deciding in favor of returning seized property where a woman stayed in Germany during the war. This judge pointed to the Nagano case (a companion case with Guessefeldt). Mrs. Nagano had resided in Japan for a period of 29 years (including the war years) and made only two short visits to the United States during the entire period. Her American residence was in Chicago. After the Supreme Court Guessefeldt decision, judges in Chicago said her residence was there. Those judges had no difficulty with the Nagano case, but not so the district and appellate judges in the District of Columbia. In the Nagano proceedings in Chicago the same Alien Property lawyers (who also appeared in the Guessefeldt case) told the Federal court in Chicago that "Guessefeldt had never given up his Hawaiian home; that he was in Europe on a vacation trip only," etc.; and therefore was not an enemy. In other words, the APO lawyers told a Chicago judge one thing one day and deliberately came back the next day and told a District of Columbia judge exactly the opposite. Thus the very same APO lawyers, in their overweening and almost maniacal desire to keep Japanese property in Chicago, did not surmise that what they represented to the Chicago court would be discovered. 5. When the Willenbrock case went to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 255 F. 2d 236, decided April 22, 1958, that court really found itself in a tight spot. It said: "There is some trouble with Nagano v. McGrath (citing it). Perhaps it can be explained as the Government suggests by the allegation of Mrs. Nagano that she was compelled to stay with her children in Japan. Be that as it may, we think the Guessefeldt case *** gives us our mandate here." So the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did this: it told the court below that Miss Willenbrock could not get her property back which was vested in 1947, but as to her property seized in 1950, "it would appear" that she could recover it if in fact she no longer was a resident of Germany when the 1950 order became effective. In the light of the foregoing, it is not to be wondered at the protests and resentment in Congress against such injustices endured by American citizens. At last the Guessefeldt case has come full circle. Congress should enact S. 672. [Translation] Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, ASSOCIATION OF EXPELLEES, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Trading With the Enemy Act, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. SIR: With reference to the discussions in the American Congress about the solution of the so-called alien property problems, I take the liberty of advising you and your colleagues, in the name of 2,500,000 registered members, and therefore in the interests of more than 8 million Eastern German expellees in the German Federal Republic, that we attach a fundamental significance to the return of the confiscated German properties on the basis of the press release issued by President Eisenhower on July 31, 1957. We too believe, as does the Government of the United States, that the maintenance of the inviolability of private property is a fundamental aspect of the way of life in the free world. In this connection I take the liberty (in addition to attaching letters sent to President Eisenhower on June 6, 1956 and March 29, 1957) of underlining our point of view and our support of Public Law 285 of August 9, 1955 guaranteeing property rights of Bulgarians, Rumanians, and Hungarians on the basis of U.S. statute. Many widows and orphans, as well as other victims of Communist tyranny, have been assisted through this act. Now more than 8 million East German expellees who are living today in the German Federal Republic, as well as 4 million East German expellees in the Soviet Zone (Middle Germany) are expectantly awaiting the decision of the American Congress with regard to German properties. They are convinced of the fact, that the citizens of the German Federal Republic, who are one of the stanchest allies in the free world, will not be discriminated against in the coming congressional decision, in contrast to Europeans from states presently ruled by Communists, whose property was guaranteed through the decision of the American people in 1955. The younger generation in the eastern European countries who abhor communism in their hearts, will especially be strengthened in their love for freedom through this generous gesture of good will by the American Congress. I should like to recall to your mind that the Soviets proposed on January 10, 1959, that the United States should not return property of Germans from whatever section which was in its control. I am sure that the American Government knows how to meet such threats properly and will proceed in the spirit of the late Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who is highly revered by everyone. The fortification of belief in this fundamental right of the free world is more important than its material application throughout the whole world. I shall again request the German Federal Government and the German Bun destag in Bonn to take proper steps in Washington to bring this matter to the attention of American Government along these lines. I shall be grateful if you could inform the White House of my point of view. Respectfully submitted. HANS KRUEGER, President of the Bund der Vertriebenen, Member of the German Congress. Dr. GEORG BARON MANTEUFFEL-Szoege, Bonn, Germany. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEAR SIR: Your letter of March 29, 1957, to the President with regard to vested German assets has been referred to this Office for reply. The position of the administration with regard to the subject matter of your letter is reflected in a communication submitted to the two Houses of Congress by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States on April 8, 1957. I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your information. You will note that the administration is proposing the return of vested assets to former owners who are individuals, as distinguished from business enterprises, up to a maximum of $10,000 each. A draft bill embodying the administration's proposals was transmitted to the Congress under cover of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission's letter. That bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives but has not yet been introduced in the Senate. I trust that this information will be of service to you. DALLAS S. TOWNSEND, Assistant Attorney General, Director, Office of Alien Property. By SIDNEY GROSS, Your Excellency, Mr. President, for some time now, discussions have been in progress in your country concerning when and to what extent the private property of many German nationals, which was confiscated and expropriated in the last war by an Act of Congress, should be returned. It is known here that influential and outstanding members of Congress are pushing for a return of this private property and that influential organizations of American citizens, as well as individuals, among them Mr. John J. McCloy, have taken the same position. Mr. McCloy, through his activities in Germany, whereby he helped us through the most difficult days, was able to recognize with particular certainty just how great is not only the material but also fundamental interest of the German people in the attitude of the United States concerning the question of this private property. By the enactment of the Public Law 285 of August 9, 1955 the property rights of those Bulgarians, Rumanians, and Hungarians living in the Free World were guaranteed by your signature. Many widows and orphans and other victims of Communist tyranny were aided through this measure. Today, more than eight million expellees are living in the Federal Republic of Germany, and approximately another four million expellees are living in the Soviet Zone of Occupation. These people also have placed their hope in the understanding and generosity of the American people. I am aware of the legal and financial difficulties involved in a return of the confiscated private property in the United States. The Communist countries in East Europe will have to face similar problems, when, in the event of a return to the homeland, a settlement will have to be reached with regard to property. I believe, however, that the United States of America under your leadership as the voice of the Free World in whose policy we have complete trust, should set an example by actually putting into effect the Inviolability and Sanctity of Private Property, thereby restoring the normal state of affairs, which should be a Fundamental Principle of the Free Western Nations symbolising their ideals. With confidence in your wise decision and the decision of the American people, which would fully correspond to the thesis of your great president Abraham Lincoln, "Nothing is settled for ever unless it's settled justly", in the name of one and a half million members of the Verband der Landsmannschaften, I remain Respectfully Yours, GEZ. MANTEUFFEL, Dr. GEORGE BARON MANTEUFFEL-SZOEGE, President, Verband der Landsmannschaften, Member of the German Bundestag. 44467-5932 MONTGOMERY, ALA., June 8, 1959. Senator LISTER HILL, Washington, D.C. DEAR LISTER: I am writing to you about a German woman, Helene Junge, who worked for us here in Montgomery for 14 years taking care of our children when they were young. We were all quite fond of her. Before World War II, she went back to Germany. I am convinced that she was never a Nazi or sympathetic with their policies. In fact, she was, I am informed, employed by the U.S. High Commissioner in Germany after World War II. In March 1946, a friend of Miss Junge, Mr. Charles Kiesewetter, died leaving her two pieces of jewelry and a cash bequest of $5,000. Since Miss Junge was a German national, the bequest to her was vested by the Office of Alien Property. Miss Junge filed a claim (No. 56773) with the Office of Alien Property on January 3, 1950, which was disallowed on April 10, 1956. In a letter of April 10, 1956, advising Miss Junge that her claim had been disallowed, Paul V. Myron, Deputy Director, Office of Alien Property stated: "The dismissal of the claim will not be prejudicial to any rights which may be given you to receive a return of vested property under any future legislation." It has come to my attention that on May 20, 1959, Senator Bush, for himself, and Senator Saltonstall introduced a bill that would prevent the further vesting of property left by the will of a U.S. citizen (S. 2012). I further understand that S. 2012 together with a number of other bills relating to the return of vested property are coming on for hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee on or about June 11, 1959. It occurs to me that it may be possible to have Senator Bush's bill amended to authorize the divesting of gifts made by American citizens to German beneficiaries, particularly to such a worthy person as Miss Junge who has appealing credentials and ties to the United States. You may recall that I spoke to you, also to Mr. Charles Brewton about this matter sometime ago. There is enclosed a carbon copy of this letter in case you wish to refer it to Senator Bush or to the committee. If either you, Senator Bush, or the committee desire further information, I shall be happy to try to supply it to you. Kindest regards and best wishes. Sincerely yours, LUCIEN S. LOEB. MATSON NAVIGATION CO., Re S. 672, S. 2005, S. 664, S. 744 and S. 1103. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I am writing you concerning the above-pending bills to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, and the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended. The Matson Navigation Co. strongly believes that it should be afforded relief for the loss of a freighter, the SS Lahaina, which occurred in the early days of World War II. The facts surrounding the loss of the ship show that the claim is meritorious and the records of the War Damage Corporation indicate that there were only two other losses similar to the one suffered by the company. Briefly, the circumstances of the SS Lahaina's loss were these: The vessel left Hawaii on December 4, 1941, en route to San Francisco. The first knowledge it had of any possible danger from warlike operations was radio information of the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7. On December 11, while the ship was still only 700 miles from Hawaii, a Japanese submarine appeared and attacked the vessel with machinegun fire, compelling the crew to abandon the vessel. The submarine fired approximately 25 shells, as a result of which the vessel sank on the following day, December 12, 1941. The crew later reached the Hawaiian Islands after the loss of four lives, The company did not have any warning of even the possibility, to say nothing of the imminence, of hostilities in the area between Hawaii and the Pacific coast and the United States. Consequently, the ship was not covered by war risk insurance. At the time in question, shipowners generally were not carrying war risk insurance where their vessels were only heading as far west as Hawaii. The need for war risk insurance was felt only when their vessels were going to the Far East. Upon the outbreak of the war on December 7, 1941, Matson immediately applied to the U.S. Maritime Commission for war risk coverage upon all of its vessels in the Hawaiian trade. The Commission did not begin writing war risk insurance until December 30, 1941, although war risk insurance was not available from private sources at reasonable rates. At that time Matson secured full coverage from the Commission on all of its vessels but the SS Lahaina which had been lost. The loss of the SS Lahaina clearly falls within the scope of S. 2005. While it is believed, and the subcommittee staff has so advised, S. 672 intended to include claims similar to the loss of the SS Lahaina, there is a very serious question as to whether such claims are actually included in the language. The bill does not specifically include corporations as a class of claimants. It is sincerely hoped that any bill reported by your subcommittee will contain a provision covering such losses as suffered by the company due to the sinking of the SS Lahaina. Sincerely, Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, RANDOLPH SEVIER. NEW YORK, N.Y., June 9, 1959. Chairman, Subcommittee on Alien Property, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: Pursuant to the invitation extended in your "Notice of Hearings" (Cong. Rec., May 19, 1959, pp. 7539-7540), we are submitting herewith our statement of views in opposition to the proposed amendment to the Trading With the Enemy Act which would authorize or require the sale of vested property, especially General Aniline & Film Corp., as embodied in S. 1103. We shall endeavor to be brief, avoiding repetition of prior evidence already of record before the subcommittee, as requested by you. We represent the so-called Kaufman intervenors in the pending Interhandel case which, as you know, involves the ultimate disposition of General Aniline & Film Corp. In the spring of 1956 your subcommittee held hearings on a bill similar to S. 1103. (S. 1405, 84th Cong., 2d sess.) At the conclusion of the hearings, we submitted a full statement of our position in writing, addressed to you, dated April 26, 1956. We respectfully request that this statement, a copy of which is attached, be incorporated herewith and considered as part hereof. Since the spring of 1956 a number of significant events have occurred. The status of the matter in the spring of 1956 was as follows: 1. The action brought by Interhandel, the Swiss company, which was the prevesting owner of the stock of General Aniline & Film Corp., for the return of this vested stock on the ground that Interhandel was not an enemy, was pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, subject to the threat of dismissal for nonproduction by Interhandel of certain documents sought by the defendant. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court had held in 1952 that nonenemy stockholders of Interhandel, who we believe represent a majority of the outstanding stock, were entitled to the benefits of a derivative return of their proportionate share of the vested assets, irrespective of the success of Interhandel's own claim and whether or not Interhandel was to be deemed enemy (Kaufman v. Societe Internationale, 343 U.S. 156). 3. The interests of the nonenemy shareholders were being actively litigated in the district court proceedings. In opposing proposed legislation to permit the sale of vested property notwithstanding the pendency of claims for the return thereof, sale which was then and is still prohibited by section 9(a) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, we pointed out with respect to the rights of nonenemy shareholders: (1) The Government's possession of vested property proportionate to the interests of nonenemy shareholders was, under the Kaufman decision, no morę than a custodial possession since the right to return was established. (2) A sale of such property without the consent of the beneficial owners would be an unconstitutional taking of private property not justified (a) by the. war power which is limited to the retention of enemy property and (b) not justified by the power of eminent domain, since it would be a taking not for |