The thorough investigations of each of the four congressional committees had brought out and identified the facts that there had been no sales; that the Fleet Corporation still withheld $384,256.26 of the companies' funds. The executive disapprovals of the former relief measures, it is now clearly established and discernible as a result of misapprehensions under which the Attorney General was laboring who no doubt advised the President, were grounded upon the belief that the Government had been damaged by breach of contracts of sale of the vessels. The Court of Claims has now found and determined this belief to be invalid. The evidence proves the misinformation hereto furnished to the President as a suggested reason for the veto of former relief bills. The auxiliary "Report of details of evidence supporting the facts and analysis thereof" on file with the committee, includes a factual analysis of the nonexistence of "res adjudicata," in this case. 5 It is pertinent to take note that there appears mong the court's statements an expression that: We are of the opinion that plaintiffs (the companies) breached no contracts. A contract cannot be erected out of mere negotiations. Contracts must represent a meeting of minds. The aforesaid is, of course, self-evident. The above quotation was pronounced by the court in reference to these alleged sales-contracts. However, the last phrase thereof is applicable to the "operating contract" of the companies. That assuredly represented a complete "meeting of the minds." The Court of Claims' reference to a "framework of accounts," to verbatimly quote the court, is analyzed in the auxiliary report of details of evidence on file with the committee. By disregard of all evidence and by denial of the operating contract, this framework would be now retroactively created in order to attempt a confiscation of the unreturned balance of $384,256.26 of the residue of the companies. Now that the Government's former alleged defenses have been proven as invalid and never existable, to concoct a new method to attempt to frustrate the return of the cash property to the companies, is contrary to every sense of justice and honest dealing by the Government with its citizens. It is ignoble, and not worthy of attention. The companies appealed to the Court of Claims by filing a lawsuit against the Government in its capacity as the successor to the Fleet Corporation, pursuant to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The court, notwithstanding that it had found as a fact that the companies breached no contract and had not damaged the Government to the extent of $384,256.26 or any part thereof, and notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court hereinbefore quoted, denied this appeal without hearing. The contentions that the Court has or had no jurisdiction, or that the companies and their owner were barred from prosecuting their rights because the companies became inactive companies and may not prosecute their rights, is contrary to statutes of New Jersey governing these companies. Such contentions are unworthy of consideration. An attempt to object to the present bill, S. 1691, because in the past, executive disapproval frustrated the actions for relief by previous The late President Roosevelt. Congresses, is an unwarranted contention; it has now been thoroughly proven that veto of previous relief measures was based on misinfornation and misapprehensions. The attempt to construe the payment of $250,000 as a contention hat its effect made this case a "res adjudicata," is wholly unwarranted as a justifiable reason for confiscating the companies' remaining anreturned funds of $384,256.26. The attempt by adverse expression of opinions, by negation of the acts, by complete disregard for the evidence in this case, to evolve a framework of accounts" by retroactive bookkeeping, contrary o all evidenced accounts and their status, to thereby just exactly nake claim for the confiscation of the $384,256.26 now that the eretofore alleged contention and reasons have been proven as horoughly invalid, appears unworthy of consideration; it would be he opposite of fair dealing, justice and equity. The companies appealed to the Court for a hearing or new trial, iting that part of the evidence which proved the theory of "res djudicata" and the "framework of accounts" was based on complete isregard for the factors in evidence. The court denied this appeal ithout a hearing. 6 The aforesaid attempts would require an assumption that the evience now gathered in the record is to be disregarded, that the Presient's statement as to the origin of the case is false; that the former fficials of the Shipping Board-Fleet Corporation who informed under ath the Attorney General and who informed Congress, and who formed the Internal Revenue Bureau, who also testified in court, hose testimony to date is unrebutted, all committed perjury, knowgly or by ignorance; and that the ascertainment of facts by the ternal Revenue Bureau is in error and to be set aside as untrustorthy and against the true interests of the Government, and that the axes found by this dependable governmental Bureau are based on lse premises; and that the "inding of facts" by four congressional ommittees is condemned as "found in error" and be set aside; that e Board-Fleet Corporation's official reports to Congress in 1920-21 s to their heavy cash losses as a result of excess of operating costs of eir vessels over income are wrong; that the Board's official reports O Congress as to the maritime conditions existing in 1920-21 were Ise; that the suggestions of former Attorney General Cummings and rmer Attorney General Jackson to leave the matter to the judgment and discretion of the Congress, were not well grounded. That such aforesaid assumptions are beyond serious consideration eds no comment. This emphasizes the significance of the suggestion of the Attorneys eneral herein before quoted, who declared that this matter is for the scretion and judgment of the Congress. The findings of the four ngressional committees and the declaration of Senator Gibson on half of his subcommittee, as herein before referred to, have been ndicated. Congress only can provide and order the return of such funds and uitable compensation for withholding same for so many years. The Senate bill, S. 1691, will correct the injustice inflicted on the mpanies for so many years. President Roosevelt. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY; Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice as to the merits of the bill (S. 1691) for the relief of the First, Second, and Third National Steamship Cos. This bill would provide for the payment of the sum of $384,256.26, with interest thereon at 6 percent from January 5, 1921, to date, and interest at 6 percent on $250,000 from January 5, 1921, to October 7, 1935, which would aggregate approximately $1,100,000 to the First. Second, and Third National Steamship Cos. The First, Second, and Third National Steamship Co., were organized by Mr. Hans Otto Schundler in 1919 and 1920 under New Jersey laws, all the charters of which were forfeited by the State in 1923 and 1924. Previous thereto the companies had executed an assignment of their claims to Mr. Schundler. These claims, growing out of certain transactions with the Government involving a number of ships, have been the subject of a series of suits in the Court of Claims and of repeated legislative consideration. They were first litigated in three actions filed in 1924, which, on October 7, 1935, were compromised and settled for $250,000, with Mr. Schundler and each of his companies furnishing full releases "from any and all claims, demands, and causes of action, at law or in equity, pertaining to or arising out of any or all of the transactions, the subject of suits now pending in the Court of Claims." The suits were dismissed. Subsequently Mr. Schundler attempted a series of efforts to secure further relief by special legislation. The first measure (S. 4684, 74th Cong.) received a pocket veto (Congressional Record, vol. 80, p. 10558). On June 7, 1937, the Senate referred the claims to the Court of Claims for a report, the petition under such reference being filed on June 29, 1937, but subsequently withdrawn on June 3, 1940. A second bill for private relief (H. R. 10141, 76th Cong.) was passed and vetoed on August 28, 1940 (Congressional Record, vol. 86, p. 11158). A third bill for relief (H R. 10440. 76th Cong.) was vetoed on October 28, 1940 (Congressional Record, vol. 86, p. 13601). Within 22 days thereafter the Senate adopted a resolution (S. Res. 327, 76th Cong.) again referring the claims to the Court of Claims for study and report to the Senate. The bill here under consideration is objectionable from a number of viewpoints. These claims have received repeated executive disapproval, and the merits of the claims have been determined adversely by the rulings of the Court of Claims under the Senate reference. As stated by the veto messages on previous measures, there should be finality with respect to the settlement by the Government of claims asserted against it, the issues in which have been thoroughly litigated for 10 years prior to such settlement. Since such settlement, the interested parties have submitted their claims to the Court of Claims under the Senate reference with adverse rulings. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Department of Justice recommends against enactment of this measure. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, PEYTON FORD, Acting The Assistant to the Attorney General. O 80TH CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE {{ No. 1718 REPORT HERMAN A. BENNINK JUNE 16 (legislative day JUNE 15), 1948.-Ordered to be printed Mr. WILEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1982] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1982) for the relief of Herman A. Bennink, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill (S. 1982) as amended, do pass. AMENDMENT On page 1 in line 10, before the period, insert a comma and the Following: and any period of residence of the said Herman A. Bennink outside the United States which is occasioned principally by his specialized study in Holland of the growing of American corn shall be deemed to bring the said Herman A. Bennink within the provisions of section 406 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of the bill is to preserve the United States citizenship f Herman A. Bennink. STATEMENT OF FACTS The pertinent facts in this case are set forth in the letter of the Assistant to the Attorney General to the chairman of the Committee n the Judiciary of the United States Senate, dated May 10, 1948. which letter reads as follows: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. ALEXANDER WILEY, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR. This is in response to your request for the views of this Department relative to the bill (S. 1982) for the relief of Herman A. Bennink. The bill would provide that notwithstanding the provisions of section 404 of the Nationality Act of 1940, relating to the loss of nationality by naturalized citizens, Herman A. Bennink, who resides at Apeldoorn, Holland, shall not be considered to have lost his United States citizenship by reason of any period of residence outside of the United States prior to the date of its enactment. The records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of this Department disclose that Mr. Bennink was born in Holland on April 17, 1896, and that he was admitted to the United States for permanent residence in 1920. He filed a peti tion for naturalization in the Supreme Court of Ulster County, N. Y., on March 8, 1927, at which time he was residing with his wife and daughter at Saugerties, N. Y. The records show that he was naturalized on June 7, 1927. It appears that Mr. Bennink has lost his United States citizenship through the operation of section 404 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (8 U. S. Č. 804 (b)), which provides that a person who has become a national by naturalization shall lose his nationality by residing continuously for 3 years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, unless such person comes within one of the exceptions set forth in section 406 of that act. The files of this Department do not disclose the reason for which Mr. Bennink returned to Holland or what circumstances prevented his departure from that country before he became expatriated. There have not been any facts adduced to justify granting the extraordinary relief proposed. Accordingly, this Department is unable to recommend the enactment of the bill. Yours sincerely, '1 PEYTON FORD, The below-quoted letter from Mr. Bennink, dated March 8, 1948, addressed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, discloses the type of work Mr. Bennink is engaged in and the reasons for his absence from the United States: Bill S. 1982 (Bennink). SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, 'T AMERIKAANSCHE MAISHUIS, Apeldoorn, Holland, March 8, 1948. Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, United States Senate, Washington, D. C., United States of America HONORABLE SIRS: Via Senator Brien McMahon I have been advised that abovementioned bill, designed to seek restoration of my status as member of the American Nation, will sooner or later come upon your desk for hearings. There is nothing special I wish to bring to the fore in your committee with the exception that if there is anything I could be of assistance to you, in the way of additional information or otherwise, please will know that I will do my utmost to aid you in your task. I appreciate so sincerely the aid I have received in my plight from Senators and friends, that it is the very least I can do from afar to help you to the utmost to understand this peculiar case. Several Americans, residing at home, do know my work here and can give you information should you desire them. Mr. Quinton Reynolds, general manager of Eastern States Farmer's Exchange, West Springfield, Mass., has personally seen my work in Holland. Prof. N. P. Neal, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., Prof. R. M. Bailey, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, and Prof. William Wiidakas, agronomist, North Dakota Agricultural College, Fargo, N. Dak., are the three Americans who know at present exactly just how important a work I am doing in this season of 1948, for they have supplied me with hybrid foundation stock which I aim to multiply here this year for thousands of farmers looking desperate for seed corn. Prof. R. G. Wiggans, professor of plant breeding, |