STATEMENT OF HON. LEO W. O'BRIEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I, too, am very glad to have this opportunity to appear here today and say a few words in behalf of my bill, H. R. 3608, which is identical to that I introduced in the 83d Congress (H. R. 5896) and pertaining to the same subject, the Trading With the Enemy Act.

This resolution is also identical with that of my distinguished colleague, also from New York, Congressman Cole.

Like him, I have the sincere hope that this legislation will be acted upon by this committee.

I believe that our Government should be relieved of the very heavy burden, and duty, of operating the industries seized as reparations from our former enemies, Germany and Japan, during World War II.

If there is litigation involved, then let his matter be settled by our courts. I trust and believe in, and I am sure you do, too, our system of jurisprudence.

My colleague, Congressman Cole, has in detail explained the ramifications of the vested-property subject. He has described the errors we made following World War I.

I say, let's not do that again.

In brief, I most sincerely subscribe to the remarks of Representative Cole for the good of this country.

I am more than generally acquainted with the subject before this committee. As you know, the most important and largest vested property or single seizure involved here is the General Aniline & Film Corp. One of its very main manufacturing operations, or plants— the oldest dye manufacturing plant in this country-is located in my district-the Albany, N. Y., area.

Our Government retains it as an I. G. Farben cartel holding—a former enemy possession located in the United States.

A Swiss corporation, known as I. G. Chemie, but more generally referred to as Interhandel, has sued this Government for its return. This they have the right to do.

But as I understand it they are close to losing this lawsuit in the American courts-after an 8-year fight. The suit was dismissed, and with prejudice, by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unanimously. This was for failure to produce required documents on the court's order. However, and in spite of 8 years of litigation, the court gave the Swiss corporation another 6 months' grace in which to produce these documents to prove ownership. An appeal was made to the United States Supreme Court, which refused (unanimously) to hear the case. May I say here that time continues to drag on and that the same documents, awaited for more than years now, are still awaited.

8

Now here is an interesting point which I would like to bring to the attention of this committee. The Swiss firm, I. G. Chemie or Interhandel, lays claim that under the laws of its country, Switzerland, it cannot obtain release of the necessary documents to conclusively establish ownership. Yet, on the other hand, they are the plaintiff seeking the protection of our courts.

Our Department of Justice will tell you, if you ask, that when its lawyers visited Switzerland under court order to inspect the documents claimed to be held by I. G. Chemie, or Interhandel, that the Swiss Government immediately seized these documents and has kept them under lock and key ever since.

Such an order was also given to the attorneys for I. G. Chemie or Interhandel here in the United States, and our Department of Justice opened its files to them.

I think this an important point for the consideration of this committee and one to bear in mind.

I also think that this incident tends to set the scene for what has been going on now for some time on this subject-the pressure for return of these properties—and as exemplified by Chancellor Adenauer's request for return of the properties just 2 years after he signed an agreement that the United States shall retain these vestings as our only reparations of World War II.

On another interesting point, the Swiss newspapers comparable to our own daily financial publications have reported expenditures by I. G. Chemie, or Interhandel, of over $400,000 in 1954 and around $350,000 in 1955 for the lawsuit and attorney fees in the United States. This, of course, is the action to gain return of the General Aniline & Film Corp. This is a little over $750,000 in only 2 years. This, mind you, is for only 2 years and the claimant, I. G. Chemie, or Interhandel, filed its suit against this Government around 8 years or so ago. I wonder how much their total bill is now, overall, in this particular case?

I cite these figures without any insinuations of wrongdoing in any way. They are large enough, however, to be given consideration by this committee.

I might add that the articles, appearing in the Swiss financial newspapers, were connected with complaints by stockholders of Interhandel. And complaints which inquired as to where these funds were spent. The articles I have read merely gave totals without a breakdown of expenditures.

May I leave these thoughts with you as I think they should be given consideration.

In conclusion, I believe that this problem should be disposed of as quickly as possible for economical reasons to this Government, and I sincerely believe there is every fairness in my bill and/or that of Congressman Cole's which will expedite this matter and still leave the door open to a legitimate and qualified claimant who is not a former enemy.

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing here today. I hope that you will consider my remarks as part of the record of this hearing. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. Next we shall hear from the Honorable Clarence E. Kilburn, in support of his bill, H. R. 5098, to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act.

(H. R. 5098 follows:)

[H. R. 5098, 84th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend section 32 (a) of the Trading With the Enemy Act

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 32 (a) of the Trading With

the Enemy Act, as amended (50 Appendix, U. S. C. 32), is amended by striking out "(2) that such owner, and legal representative or successor in interest, if any, are not-" and inserting in lieu thereof "(2) that the person who has filed a notice of claim for return, is not—”.

SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Act is effective as of December 1, 1954.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE E. KILBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. KILBURN. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the opportunity you have afforded me of submitting this statement in support of the bill H. R. 5098, to amend section 32 (a) of the Trading With the Enemy Act. The purpose of this bill is to correct an inequity resulting from the wording of the present law.

The Trading With the Enemy Act now provides that property vested in the Alien Property Custodian may not be returned if the owner of the property was a German citizen who was present in Germany during the period of the war unless he was deprived of full rights of German citizenship as a consequence of German laws discriminating against political, racial, and religious groups. Section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act precludes turning over the property by the Alien Property Custodian to American citizens who become the rightful owners of such property under the terms of a will. I know of a particular case where fine patriotic American citizens who are the legatees under the will of a German citizen are being deprived of property which is rightfully theirs in the possession of the Alien Property Custodian.

It seems to me that it could not have been the intent of the Congress to deprive American citizens of property to which they are otherwise legally entitled merely because the former owner was present in Germany during World War II. That does not seem to be a valid criterion of the authority of the Alien Property Custodian to withstand the claims of American citizens. There were of course many individuals in Germany during the war who-while they were not actually persecuted because of their race or religion-nevertheless were not Nazis or supporters of the Nazi regime. However, I am not concerned in the present bill with the problem of returning property to those owners. This bill is intended to authorize the Alien Property Custodian to turn over the property to American citizens who are rightfully entitled thereto. If an American citizen would be otherwise entitled to the property it is manifestly unfair to deprive him of the property merely because the former owner of it was present in Germany during the war.

This bill will clarify section 32 (a) of the Trading With the Enemy Act to the extent that the person otherwise entitled to the property may receive it from the Alien Property Custodian unless he was present in Germany during the war. This, I believe, is in keeping with the original intent of the Congress and is to my mind certainly more equitable and just than the situation brought about by the present language in the Trading With the Enemy Act.

It is a matter of great importance and the amendment will not interfere in the slightest with the philosophy of the present law.

I earnestly urge prompt and favorable action by your committee on the present bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kilburn. We are pleased to hear next from the Honorable August H. Andresen, of Minnesota, who will discuss his bill, H. R. 1756.

(H. R. 1756 follows:)

[H. R. 1756, 84th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the War Claims Act of 1948, so as to extend the benefits of such Act to persons captured or interned by, or in hiding from, the Japanese Government in China during World War II

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5 (a) of the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended (50 App. U. S. C., sec. 2004 (a)), is hereby amended by striking out "or while in transit to or from any such place, or who went into hiding at any such place in order to avoid capture or internment," and by inserting in lieu thereof "or in China, or while in transit to or from any such place (including China), or who went into hiding at or in any such place (including China) in order to avoid capture or internment."

SEC. 2. The last sentence of section 2 (c) of such Act (50 App. U. S. C., sec. 2001 (c)) is hereby amended to read as follows: "The limit of time within which claims may be filed with the Commission shall be not later than March 1, 1951, or, in the case of claims filed by or on behalf of persons held, captured, interned, or forced to remain in hiding in China, not later than March 1, 1952." STATEMENT OF HON. AUGUST H. ANDRESEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very grateful for this opportunity to appear. On January 10, 1955, I introduced H. R. 1756, a bill to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, so as to extend the benefits of such act to persons captured or interned by, or in hiding from, the Japanese Government in China during World War II.

A number of my constituents were interned by the Japanese Government in China during World War II. They were prisoners of the Japanese Government from the morning of December 8, 1941, at which time the Japanese captured the International Settlement of Shanghai, until August 15, 1945. During this period they suffered imprisonment, starvation, and financial loss equally as great as those Americans interned by the Japanese Government in other parts of the Far East during World War II. However, the War Claims Act of 1948 made no provision for these people, and the purpose of H. R. 1756 is to not exclude these so-called Chinese internees from participating in the benefits of this act. There is an inequity in the law, and H. R. 1756 would correct that inequity. I understand that there are a number of similar bills under consideration by your committee. I am not in conflict with the purposes of the other bills which are also under consideration. It may be that they are more to the point than the bill which I have introduced. My main desire is to see that justice is done, and I know that each member of your committee also has that desire. There is one more point that I want to emphasize to the committee before concluding, and that concerns the fact that funds to be utilized in the payment of the claims of persons qualified under H. R. 1756 were realized from the liquidation of confiscated Japanese assets in the United States after the declaration of war against Japan. The benefits will not be paid by American taxpayers.

81964-56- -7

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Andresen. We are pleased to hear next from our colleague, the Honorable Mendel Rivers, of South Carolina, in support of House Joint Resolutions 264, 265, 268, and 272. Since they are identical, we will insert only House Joint Resolution 268, introduced by Mr. Rivers.

(H. J. Res. 268 is as follows:)

[H. J. Res. 268, 84th Cong., 1st sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION To improve the relations of the United States with Western

Germany and Japan

Whereas the policy of the United States has been to admit into the family of nations its former enemies, primarily Italy, Germany, and Japan; and

Whereas this policy has been effectuated as to Italy and Japan by concluding peace treaties with them; and

Whereas there are now pending agreements to terminate the occupation regime in Western Germany, to restore its sovereignty, and to provide for its accession to the North Atlantic Treaty; and

Whereas Western Germany and Italy are being asked to contribute to the defense of the free world against the growing spread of communism by providing military forces for NATO in the defense of Western Europe; and

Whereas the United States has worked unceasingly since the last war to promulgate and insure democratic concepts and principles in the free countries of the world; and

Whereas the United States has encouraged and contributed to the economic recovery of Western Germany, Italy, and Japan, and the foreign policy of the United States is predicated on a continued and strengthened standard of living and economic development of these countries; and

Whereas it is the sense of Congress that diplomatic discussions should be carried on between the Governments of the United States and of Western Germany and of Japan looking toward a solution under which payment can be made by the United States for all property formerly belonging to Germany and Japan and nationals thereof, with appropriate adjustments respecting the interest of Americans: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in order to promote the foreign policy of the United States by reaffirming our friendship and desire for mutual cooperation with the free countries of Germany and Japan, furthering the economic rehabilitation of these countries, and reaffirming the position of the Congress of the United States in regard to the sanctity of private property in all international relations with the free countries of the world, the Secretary of State is hereby authorized as a matter of grace, in accordance with such procedures as he may prescribe, following as nearly as is feasible those used as a result of the Treaty of Peace with Italy, to pay amounts equal in value to all property and interest taken by the United States since December 18, 1941, from Germany or Japan, or any citizen or subject thereof, or any corporation or association organized under the laws thereof.

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, and some of such appropriations may be utilized in part from any funds derived from payments or prepayments that may be made under international agreements relating to the postwar economic aid obligations owing by Germany and Japan to the United States. Payments authorized hereunder shall not be made to East Germany or the residents thereof so long as it or the recipients thereof remain under Soviet domination or control.

STATEMENT OF HON. L. MENDEL RIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. RIVERS. I am Congressman L. Mendel Rivers from the First District of South Carolina and a member of the Armed Services Committee. Today, the role that Western Germany has in our common defense and in the preservation of peace and principles of the free world, is vital. Correspondingly, those issues which still stand