DENVER, COLO., June 15, 1959., Hon. J. GLENN BEALL, DEAR MR. BEALL: I wish to tell you first how very grateful we were that you would take time from a busy day to speak to us in the Senate with our friend, Frank O'Neill. I thank you very much for the interest you showed in the problem of the frozen German assets in this country. I consider this the one most serious hindrance to perfect understanding and relations between the German and United States peoples. In my opinion this is primarly a psychological problem in dealings between our two nations. I am an independent publisher, now traveling through your wonderful country, and I came here to see and to learn. My only concern in taking your time was to try to exchange ideas and opinions which would strengthen the bonds between Germany and the United States. Improving our good relations and those with all of Europe can only make the free world stronger. Now that the young men of Germany are serving in the army as a part of the NATO forces it is particularly important that we work together in complete harmony. Another factor is that American firms are increasingly investing capital in Europe. U.S. citizens are buying shares in German firms. Large U.S. investment firms buy on the European market including Germany. That is a good thing because it strengthens the cooperation between our two countries. On the other hand, it is difficult to sell American securities to the German public when the prospective German investor asks: “Will this new investment be secure in the future?" He cannot help wondering if it also will be taken away from him one day. One thing is certain: If the problems had been settled immediately after the war, the German people would have accepted it, regardless of how hard the decision was on them. But 14 years after the war and after two disastrous inflations in 1923 and 1948 there is a great nervousness in Germany regarding such financial matters. Because of that only a solution which is generous on your part can bring about a relaxation of their minds. Even the large German corporations whose assets were frozen belong in part to more than 100,000 small investors. There is a great danger that the adversaries of America can use this problem as an argument against our mutual cooperation and say, “That is a bad apple after all." The Germans feel themselves deeply indebted because of the help America gave them during the reconstruction period. This is a tremendously big factor in your favor. But there is the chance that an unacceptable solution or a continued postponement of that solution might lessen the confidence of the German people in the United States as a friend. I believe that until there is a solution of this problem there is an atmosphere of mistrust which creates an unfavorable business climate in Europe for your American investment firms. In Germany, unfortunately, our experience has sometimes been that bad politics has resulted in the ruin of our economy. I am not a politician. I am accustomed only to dealing with economics. For that reason, it is my hope, dear Senator, that you, with your experience, can provide a sound political solution. I am confident that you can provide us with good politics this time. Our visit in the Senate made a deep impression upon us, and we wish to thank you again for the opportunity. Sincerely yours, ROBERT PEUTZNER. SUNNYVALE, CALIF., June 11, 1959. Senator KENNETH B. KEATING, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR KEATING: A friend has brought to my attention some materials published by the Committee for Return of Confiscated German and Japanese prop, erty and also the statements in the Congressional Record recently made by Senators Johnston and Hruska. I am appalled to think that private property is still being held by the Govern ment of our Nation. It is certainly simple to justify the initial seizure in view of the fact that private assets held by enemy aliens at the outbreak of hostilities could have been used to aid enemy governments. But to keep hold of such funds almost 15 years after the end of the war cannot be in the American tradition. If it were Government funds that were held, I would be in complete agreement to their right of seizure and indeed complete liquidation to the benefit of the United States. Private funds, however, would seem to me to be respected by our Congress at all costs. Especially in light of the fact that people and organizations with funds in the United States at the beginning of war were undoubtedly those with the greatest faith in continuing peaceful relations between countries. Much of these seized properties have been spent paying war claims put forth by Americans. Such indemnity is right and proper-but it was the governments who made war and public funds of enemy nations should be made to pay such damages, certainly not the private property of those who believed in the United States. As an American businessman, I am ashamed that my country sets the world's example for seizure of invested private property. I sincerely hope you are in favor of voting for and promoting Senator Olin Johnston's bill for return of such property (S. 672) and that similar proposals will receive your support in the House. I would be grateful to have your views. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, MARTIN B. PRAY. MCLEAN, VA., July 2, 1959. Chairman, Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: My hearty congratulations on your splendid statement endorsing your bill, S. 672. I am especially glad to have the copy of your statement which you sent me and would appreciate it if you would please send me four more copies of it. Will you kindly also include in the record on S. 672 the statement I made in 1955 endorsing S. 995 which, in that session of Congress, provided for full return of the vested assets. My interest was first aroused by the injustice done my Japanese friend, Ryu Oyaizu of Tokyo, who has been denied the income from of the vested assets. My interest was first aroused by the injustice done my interest in the principles involved in this legislation. I agree with you that these principles are "enduring and fundamental." My testimony was given about November 30 or December 1, 1955, as a written statement, and applies equally today. I shall appreciate your including it as testimony in favor of S. 672. Again my congratulations and sincere appreciation of your eloquent discussion of the principles involved in this legislation. I wish millions of Americans could read it. Sincerely, MARGARET SCATTERGOOD. MILWAUKEE, WIS., June 16, 1959. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Trading With the Enemy Act, DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: I appreciate receiving the notice of public hearings on your subcommittee and the amended notice. I had, myself, prepared for an appearance on June 11, 1959. For very personal reasons I am unable to appear before the committee on June 18. I would appreciate it if you would incorporate my testimony by reference, which testimony was made in person before your committee on November 30, 1955, as is shown on page 223 of the 1955 and 1956 record, and I also wish to refer you to our statement, submitted to you for your consideration, and shown on page 559 of the 1957 hearings. As you might remember we represent both American citizens who suffered war damages for which they have not yet been compensated, and German nationals who seek the return of their property now vested by the Office of Alien Property. We are in favor of your bill S. 672, and S. 744, introduced by Senator Young. Being familiar with both phases, the war damages situation and the vested return situation, I hope that we are qualified to make certain remarks for your consideration on both problems. Of course, there is no honorable justification for not returning or a limited return, of the vested assets, which to a great extent are legacies and specific bequests from American testators to German nationals. In other words, the property was never enemy property but was accumulated by American citizens who, in reliance upon the American Constitution, disposed of their property for the benefit of German nationals, in their last wills and testaments. Any expropriation of such assets would interfere with the last wishes of American citizens and cannot be justified by any scheme or subterfuge to use such expropriated assets for any other purpose than originally intended by the American testator. As to the assets vested which formerly belonged to commercial enterprises owned by German interests, it should be stated that those persons invested their moneys in the American economy as our friends. They trusted the American people in investing in the American economy and provided numerous jobs with their investment for our economy. The Honorable Loftus Becker, the legal adviser to the State Department made an excellent speech on May 2, 1959, before the American Society of International Law in the Mayflower Hotel, which I had the privilege to hear as a member of such society. In this speech the Honorable Mr. Becker strongly stated the present position of the U.S. Government in recognizing the principle that there can be no expropriation without speedy, adequate, and just compensation. Our Government cannot proclaim principles and high ideals on one side and act differently in practice. Recent expropriations in Cuba and Guatamala should be a warning. If the vested property can be returned by small nations such as Pakistan, Spain, and numerous others, the United States cannot refuse to do the same, in view of the expressed principles and in view of our own national interestnamely, to protect our own substantial investments abroad from expropriation. As to the war claims situation, we have, of course, the rather sorry situation that most countries already have indemnified their citizens or are in the process of doing so, with the exception of our country, which has only granted special tax deductions for the big income producers and corporations. It is high time that our Government consider its own citizens in view of the generous provisions made for the support of foreign nations under the foreign aid provisions. Any limitation on the war claims program would discriminate between the small income producer who has a limited recovery and the big income producer who has satisfied his damages by the tax deductions granted to him by the tax laws, and has, therefore, taken advantage of all the American taxpayers. Therefore, we wholeheartedly support your principles as also expressed in your statement before the Senate of the United States on April 28, 1959, for which statement we want to congratulate you. From our experience we want to call to your attention certain problems which, in our opinion, have not been considered to the fullest extent possible. (1) Section 205 in S. 672. We have in mind first the difficulty to establish the exact date of loss, damage, or destruction, which will be impossible for most of the claimants, because they were not physically present at the place of destruction. Connected with this is the question of citizenship. Under section 205, S. 672, an American soldier, honorably discharged who became a citizen in June 1945 would be excluded, even though he served honorably and shed his blood for the United States and paid his taxes in this country. (2) We feel that the provision in S. 744, section 203 (b), takes care of this problem better than section 205 of S. 672, and we also want to call to your attention the fact that in section 304 of title 3 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, the following language was used for the Italian settlement: "The Commission shall determine the validity and amount of any claim under this section by any natural person who was a citizen of the United States on the date of enactment of this title." In other words, the principle that American citizenship should exist at the date of the loss and the date of the filing of the claim already has been abrogated by legislation and would only discriminate against present American citizens, who are as good citizens as any other citizen. We are particularly worried that no judicial review has been provided for in S. 672, with the exception of section 39 (f), for the return of the vested property. It does not seem to us to be fair to allow a certain judicial review for the bene fit of the claimant for return and deny the same possibility to the American war damage claimant. Any executive action should be subject to a judicial review in accordance with the principles of our Constitution as to the division of powers, and we feel that it is imperative that a judicial review be given. I had the opportunity to attend hearings of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission as a spectator without any interest, and I was particularly disturbed that the Commission was not able to determine the extent of the simple legal concept of "property" with which the court would have had no difficulty. It should also be borne in mind that you have on one side the claimant and on the other side the Claims Commission, which always takes a rather restrictive attitude, both immersed in their own particular problems; and if both parties know that their claims and actions are subject to a judicial review, the result of the claims program will be more satisfactory, and both parties, the claimant and the Commission, will act and conduct themselves in such manner that they do not have to fear a judicial review. Any objections to such judicial review only come from the side of the executive and are usually based on so-called expediency, which in most cases is an encroachment on the rights of the American citizens, as expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. We feel that the question of judicial review has been very well considered in section 209 of S. 744, and we would appreciate your consideration. Very respectfully yours, Hon. KENNETH B. KEATING, WENGERT & SPENNER. By HERBERT A. SPENNER. GENERAL ANILINE SUPERVISORY ASSOCIATION, DEAR SENATOR: As chairman of our association's special committee relating to the public sale of the corporation to private American interests, I am writing to you endorsing your bill, S. 1103. Your efforts have the wholehearted support of our group, which numbers approximately 130 members. The Supervisors' Association consists of a group of employees with an average of 15 to 20 years of employment with the company. Their working life has been devoted to the functions of the Dyestuff & Chemicals plant at Rensselaer, N.Y. Many have come up through the ranks. They have seen the number of employed at this plant gradually decrease from a high of 1,100 plus to the present payroll of 600 plus. It is the consensus of the members that a good share of the decrease in employment is due to the inability of the company to grow because of the shackles on it due to Government ownership. Continued Government control poses inflexibilities and a rigidity of procedures that serve as a deterrent to maximum exploitation of the company's potential. It is also an obstacle to effective long-distance planning, and to adequate and uncomplex meeting of competition. Our group and other supervisory groups throughout the plants in the corporation have been concerned with this problem for a number of years. This interest was indicated in the testimonies before Senate committees. In closing, may we say that we fully support your efforts and are anxiously awaiting: (1) The passage of your bill, S. 1103, through both Houses of Congress and the President's approval. (2) The fulfillment of the purpose of your bill, by public sale to private American interests. Respectfully yours, IRWIN STEWART, Chairman. Re return of German property to German owners. Essen-Süd, Wandastrasse 18, 29th June, 1959. Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, SIR: The daily papers in Germany have recently been reporting about the hearings which are now being held in Washington under your chairmanship, and I am hoping that a satisfactory settlement of the question of German property in the United States to be returned to their rightful owners will soon be made. The reason why I am in favor of this settlement is the following: (1) My property in the United States of America, formerly located in Houston, Tex., was vested by the custodian of alien property during the war in 1942 and I have had no access to such property (claim No. 35788) since that time. (2) My son Günther, age 20, born in Houston, Tex., is now studying at the Rice Institute of Houston since last year. This will prove to you that my relations to the United States of America, her institutions, and many progressive citizens are most friendly. (3) To support my son at the Rice Institute in Houston for me as an average parent, having three minor children to support, is not an easy job, if you realize that the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the German mark is about 4 to 1-that means that I have to work very much longer and harder to earn a dollar for my son than to earn a German mark for the rest of my family in Germany. This brings me to an important point I have to make in connection with your hearings: (a) I want to support my son out of my vested property in the United States of America to give him a better schooling in the field of electrical engineering or any other field that he chooses, but cannot do so at the present time since my property is still in the hands of the custodian. (b) My son has been getting, and will get again this year, a scholarship which I understand will be money of the American taxpayers. There is clearly a remarkable inconsistency in having on the one hand the American taxpayers help to support my son and on the other hand having the U.S. Government retain my property, thus preventing me from supporting my son entirely out of my own funds-which, you will agree, is the way it should be. Your assistance in clarifying this question of the return of German property to their rightful owners would certainly be appreciated by me. I should thank you for making this letter part of the record of the hearings of your committee. Respectfully yours, Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON, GERHARD STUBBE. Washington, D.C., June 17, 1959. Chairman, Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSTON: Reference is made to the notices of May 18, 1959, and June 3, 1959, of the Subcommittee on Trading With the Enemy Act of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary with respect to public hearings commencing June 18, 1959, for the purpose of receiving testimony on S. 105, S. 531, S. 664, S. 672, S. 744, S. 1103, S. 1963, S. 2005, S. 2012, and S. 2093. In accordance with the limitations expressed in these notices and with particular reference to the limitations set forth in the notice of May 18, 1959, I hereby request that my testimony on behalf of Dr. Walter H. Duisberg submitted on April 20, 1956 (pp. 483-490, hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee in the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 84th Cong., 1st and 2d sess., on S. 854, S. 995, S. 1405, S. 2227, S. 3507, S. 3114, and S. 3115, Nov. 29 and 30, 1955, and Apr. 20, 1956), and that my testimony on behalf of Dr. Duisberg submitted for the record March 29, 1957 (pp. 643–644, hearing before a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 85th Cong., 1st sess., on S. 411, S. 600, S. 727, and S. 1302, Apr. 4, 5, and 6, 1957), be incorporated by reference at the present hearings. On behalf of Dr. Walter H. Duisberg, an American citizen prior to and at all times since the vesting of his property, we reiterate our support of any bill which |