Is that Mr. KLEIN. Is that the usual procedure, after a war, for one of the participants to waive in the treaty such claims as these? usually done? Mr. WIENER. We have done so on many occasions. 1800 we did it. Mr. KLEIN. Did you want to say something, Mr. Clay? As early as Mr. CLAY. Some of the statements that Commissioner Wiener has made are rather controversial. I would very strenuously belabor him on the fact that the claims of American nationalists have been waived by the treaty. As a matter of fact, the claims of American nationalists have not been waived by the treaty at all. Is the question of waiver of rights related to the restitution or the compensation for losses or damages to real property situated in Japan proper. As a matter of fact, the treaty required that Japan by appropriate domestic legislation provide for restitution or the compensation for such losses and in fact this was done in Japan and they promulgated a statute on November 26, 1951, which required the filing of such claims with this Commission. There were some 303 awards actually made by this Commission amounting to some 42 billion yen, which amounts in American money to something in excess of $3,887,000. Mr. WIENER. Those were claims that arose in Japan proper. Mr. WIENER. I am not talking about that. Mr. CLAY. You must also recognize the fact that from this $200 million fund which Commissioner Wiener suggests, that this is coming solely from Germany. There is no provision in his bill which would also require or consider a pro rata or a limited return of Japanese assets to Japan which is something that should be considered. I would like to make an observation as to what the area of claims would involve if we consider the area which this bill would suggest. The real property owned by United States nationalists and legal entities controlled by United States nationalists would be covered in this area in Burma, China, Hong Kong, Indochina, Indonesia, and New Guinea, and that property amounts to $1,500 million, we estimate, of which the damage to that property by the Japanese we approximate at about $180 million. Another interesting fact here is that of the real property that was owned by American nationalists, there were less than 3,000 American nationalists affected and the 3,000 nationalists so affected, that 2,000 of the 3,000 suffered losses less than $10,000 per loss, and that actually the effect of this legislation would benefit the less than a thousand losses which exceeded the $10,000 limit. There are some other interesting facts which if the committee would like, I will submit to the committee in response to Mr. Wiener's suggestion, because I think the extensions of the bill which represents the administration's position go far and beyond some of the suggestions that Mr. Wiener makes in including this area of claims into the bill recommended and supported by the administration. Mr. KLEIN. I would suggest, Mr. Clay, that you take a copy of Mr. Wiener's statement and I will be glad to permit you to rebut and put your rebuttal in the record. I would like to leave this one thought with the committee and with those people who are here: In theory at least, it is my view, and I hope that the committee will go along with me, that I do not see why any distinction should be made between people who suffered losses as a result of German action or Japanese action. They were American citizens. The money, as was pointed out here, and I think in fact you confirmed that when I asked you earlier, the money is actually coming from the Treasury in any event; it is our money; these are all our citizens, and I cannot see why one should be in a different position because damage was sustained as a result of German action and the other by Japan. I hope that we can all get together. I would be happy to come down here to Washington during the recess and sit down, possibly with representatives of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, with Commissioner Wiener, and maybe some other people representing the other groups, and work out something that is satisfactory. Mr. BEAMER. I think Mr. Wiener has brought out an interesting point that we should pursue. The Japanese occupied China, but they also occupied many other countries. They were stopped at the Coral Sea. I can see that there would be an enormous amount of money required. I think we should pursue that point. Mr. WIENER. The bill only asks for $100 million for this purpose. Mr. BEAMER. Is that just a starter? Mr. WIENER. Well, if it is just a starting point, the $100 million is a starting point for the Germans, those having claims against Germany, then I would say this is a starting point. But in both cases the amount is limited to $100 million. Mr. Chairman, may I have permission to put in the statements of J. K. Davison, Dr. Dunlap, who is here, and who was the distinguished author of that book, Behind the Bamboo Curtain? Mr. KLEIN. I will permit you to select the ones you think are the most important. You can appreciate we do not want to clutter the record with too many statements. Those may go in. (The material referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF ALBERT W. Fox Mr. Chairman, my name is Albert W. Fox. I am a lawyer with offices in Washington, D. C. I appear in behalf of Charles James Fox, of La Jolla, Calif., in support of H. R. 10549. Charles Fox is an American citizen; he was born in Boston, Mass. In 1918 he founded and thereafter published and edited an American owned, English language newspaper in the French concession of Tientsin, China, which was widely known in the Orient under its name, the North China Star. This newspaper served American interests in the Far East and represented the American point of view. It was published daily, without interruption, until 2 days after Pearl Harbor Day, when it was seized and closed by the Japanese military forces, and its publisher and editor, Charles Fox, was arrested and held prisoner until he was sent to America as an exchange prisoner on the steamship Gripsholm. The seizure of this newspaper by the Japanese resulted in its ruination, the total loss being in the amount of approximately US$100,000. It is quite clear to us that the United States waived this type of claim-a claim arising outside of Japan proper-by article 14 (b) of the treaty of peace with Japan. The inclusion of the waiver provision came as a distinct shock to us. We had waited patiently from the end of the war to the ratification of the treaty in 1952, firm in the belief that our Government would, in due course, take appropriate steps to protect and safeguard the interests of its own citizens. Our apprehensions for speedy relief were only partially allayed when we read of Secretary Dulles' statement, made to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he was urging the ratification of the treaty, including the waiver clause, that ***United States nationals whose claims are not covered by the treaty provisions * * * must look for relief to the Congress of the United States." We had expected-quite naturally, we thought-that when the Government ratified the treaty including the waiver provision, there would at the same time be introduced legislation to provide for the compensation of those Americans whose claims had been waived. But such was not the case. Accordingly, we took this matter up with pertinent officials. We wrote first to Senator Sparkman who replied that he had forwarded our inquiry to the State Department, and in due course Senator Sparkman forwarded to us a copy of their letter of response, dated April 22, 1953, under the signature of Thruston B. Morton, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, who stated: "The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 4, 1953, enclosing a letter from Mr. Charles J. Fox of La Jolla, Calif. *** Mr. Fox inquires with regard to property losses which he has sustained in China during the war as a result of of acts of Japanese authorities and refers in that connection to the provisions of article 14 (b) of the treaty of peace between the Allied Powers and Japan. *** "Article 14 (b) of the Japanese treaty provides as follows: 'Except as otherwise provided in the present treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparation claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any action taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of operation.' "The foregoing provision does not, in the opinion of the Department, expunge claims of United States nationals against Japan, as such, but merely commits the United States not to support, prosecute, or assert any claim based upon injury done to American nationals which is not covered by the treaty, as an international claim of the United States." The receipt of this amazing letter did not destroy our faith that our Government either had or would take prompt steps to protect the interests of its citizens; for although here was the official opinion of the Department of State that the treaty does not "expunge claims of United States nationals against Japan," it was not only in direct conflict with the plain words of the treaty itself, but was in direct conflict with what Secretary Dulles had told the Foreign Relations Committee when he urged ratification of the treaty-namely, that these claims of United States nationals had been waived-and that United States nationals would have to look to the Congress for relief. However, the letter stated plainly that although the United States Government could not support, prosecute or assert any claim for its nationals, its nationals' claims had not been expunged, and apparently-if the letter has any meaning whatsoever-the door had been left open for us to submit our claims directly to the Japanese Government. Still of the belief that proper steps had been seasonably taken to safeguard the legitimate interests of our citizens, we thereupon wrote to Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida of Japan, under date of June 21, 1953. Yoshida had been Consul General for Japan in Tientsin, China, and the North China Star, our newspaper, was no double well known to him. We brought to his attention the matter of our claim, and received a reply from the Japanese Embassy in Washington, under date of August 12, 1953, as follows: "Under instructions from the Government of Japan, I am obligated to inform you in reply to your letter of June 21, addressed to Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida, that the Government of Japan considers your claim comes under the provisions of article 14 (b) of the peace treaty with Japan, and considers itself absolved from any obligation resulting from claims of the sort you have submitted. "I may add that the Government of Japan is not in a position to give exceptional consideration to your case or any other similar claim.” On August 31, 1955, we wrote the new Foreign Minister of Japan, and received a reply from Tokyo, dated October 1, 1955, as follows: "In reply to your letter of August 30, 1955, addressed to Foreign Minister Mr. Mamoru Shigemitsu, I am constrained to reiterate, under the instruction of the Foreign Minister, the same view of the Japanese Government as expressed in the letter *** dated August 12, 1953, that your claim for the North China Star is governed by the provisions of article 14 (b) of the peace treaty and that the Japanese Government has no intention to alter its position on any claim under this category. "I would advise you, however, that the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission in Washington, D. C., is in charge of certain claims arising out of detention during World War II and that your contact with the Commission would be of some help to clarify your status in this matter." Accordingly we wrote to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and received a reply dated September 22, 1955, as follows: "Please be advised that there is no statutory authority by which the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission may receive and settle claims of this nature arising in China. Additionally, the Commission is not presently apprised of the existence of such authority elsewhere in the United States Government. "With regard to your contention that the United States Government has no right to waive claims of its nationals against a foreign government, you may be advised that this is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department of State. It is, therefore, suggested that any further inquiry in this connection be directed to the Department of State, Washington 25, D. C. "ANDREW T. MCGUIRE, General Counsel." We have not again written the State Department, for having made the complete circle, we are being forced to the reluctant conclusion that we had been given the runaround. It seems clear to us that our original view was quite correct that these claims have been waived by our Government, and that for relief we can only look to the Congress of the United States. It is now 4 years since the Japanese Treaty was concluded; it is 11 years since the war ended, and it is more than 14 years since the property in question was taken by the Japanese. It seems to us that there has been ample time to have considered these claims and to have made provision for their payment. During the 11 years since the war ended, there has been ample time and ample United States funds to have given other countries the sum of more than $52 billion. The 2 principal aggressors, including the 1 who seized the North China Star, participated handsomely in these aid programs. Germany got about $4 billion and Japan between 2 and 3 billion dollars, by what is coming to be known as the American policy of the reverse payment of war claims. We do not, at this time, wish to raise the question of the wisdom or the propriety of aid to foreign nations, nor do we wish to question the wisdom of the waiver of the claims in the Japanese Treaty when done in the national interest. However, if it is the national interest-the Nation as a whole--which gained by reason of the waiver of the claims, it is the Nation as a whole which should bear the cost of the gain, and not the individuals whose claims were sacrificed. It is well established in the United States that in these cases the rule applies that when private property is taken for a public use, just compensation must be made by the Government. There is now before this subcommittee, H. R. 10549 which, if enacted, would provide the measure of relief to which claimants in our category are entitled. It concerns itself solely with providing compensation to Americans for losses and damage suffered at the hands of the two principal aggressors-Germany and Japan-to the extent that provision has not heretofore been made. It would call for no appropriation of new tax money, and we urge that this subcommittee give this bill its speedy, favorable consideration. STATEMENT OF J. K. DAVISON Mr. Chairman, my name is J. K. Davison. I live at 47 Dupont Place, Irvington, N. J. I was born in Flemington, N. J., on August 9, 1883. I am now 73 years of age. I was taken to Japan as an infant and as a result still speak Japanese fluently. I received my higher education in the United States and by profession I am an engineer. In 1920 I went to China and in those days of better fortune I became president and owner, as well as managing director of J. E. Hayes Engineering Corp., Federal Inc., United States of America, with head offices at Tientsin, China, which titles I still hold, but there is no longer life in the corporate body, and I do not receive any emolument from the fact of its technical existence. This corporation supplied civil engineering and design service and engaged, additionally, in the importation of American equipment of various types. We represented many well-known Amercan firms including Russell Irwin Hardware, Frigidaire, the Stanley Works, Ransome Concrete Machine Co., Detroit Steel Products Co., Selby Lead Co., Barrett Roofing Co., and others. Over the years, prior to Pearl Harbor Day, this business flourished in a modest fashion. However, all that we had created was lost when shortly after the outbreak of the war, the Japanese military authorities in January of 1942, came to my place of business and requisitioned, for their military purposes, all of our stocks, including steel of various types, tools, hardware, cement, paints, boilers, and equipment of various types. The Japanese military authorities, upon taking this property, gave me their receipts which state that they are "certificates of seizure," and that the listed articles are "taken over by the Japanese Army solely for military necessities. After restoration of peace, shall be returned to respective owners or disposed by appropriate means under prevailing circumstances." They are signed by the Japanese military garrison at Tientsin, China. I have here photostatic copies of those receipts, and I should like to display them to you. I regret that I cannot give them to you for your records-they are my last remaining copies. I wish particularly to stress that the articles were not destroyed by the usual hazards of war, such as bombing or shelling, but were requisitioned or seized by the Japanese Army for their military purposes, and under well-established principles of international law, compensation is justly due me. This is a lot of money to lose, particularly at my time of life, and it was not come by in any easy fashion; rather, it was acquired at the expense of what Mr. Churchill would have called blood, sweat, and tears, and many heartaches, besides. Not only did the Japanese take everything that we had, but they took me and my family prisoner along with the United States Marines who were stationed there. I acted as their interpreter with their Japanese captors. No doubt you are aware of the circumstances in which they kept those Americans whom they interned. The confinement in filthy camps, the abuse, and what amounted almost to a starvation nutriment would have been unendurable but for the firm confidence that release and restitution would come in time. Release came eventually, and a return to the United States for me and my family, with starved and diseased bodies; miserable, but buoyed by the thought that although our operations in China were a dead feature of the past, we could make out all right in the future, for the flag that had freed us would also insure the restoration of our property, and we could start life over again, even at our age, using our restored funds as capital. We are, of course, happy to have been freed, and that we are at home again, but no restoration of our property has been effected to date, although years have passed since the occurrence of these events. Meanwhile, in order to sustain ourselves, not only I, but also my wife, have been forced to find jobs. That we are alive and free is evidence that Uncle Sam won the war, but our unmerited poverty gives some evidence that we lost the peace. The treaty that the State Department contrived with the Japanese did not require of the Japanese that American citizens who had lost their valuables in China should be restored in possession of their properties. Moreover, the same treaty contains a waiver of claims that those American citizens might, but for such waiver, have held against the Japanese. The enemy stripped us naked, but it was our own Government that arbitrarily stripped us of any chance to recover by conventional legal processes. Our property has been taken from us, for public purposes, without compensation. If expediency dictated the action of our Government in drafting a treaty that imposed injustice and hardship upon American citizens, or if a present loss seemed to help assure a future gain—the aid of the Japanese in opposing the flow of the Communist tide-then that loss should be born by the society that realizes the gain, and not by anything less than the total society. My only hope for redress of grievances and amelioration of hardship lies with the Congress. Mr. Dulles wrote, "United States nationals whose claims are not covered by the treaty provisions or by the legislation of other Allied powers, must look for relief to the Congress of the United States." Thus the fact is that the Congress remains the sole hope for the correction of an error that hurts greatly. |