sioners would be necessary or any special rules of evidence, this could be provided by a very short bill giving the United States Court of Claims jurisdiction. Technical matters could be referred to a commissioner for hearing and determination. It should be remembered that all of the disputes will be between American citizens. Since the face amount of the claims already largely exceeds the $17,000,000 in the fund, each claimant will have an interest not only in presenting his own claim but in resisting other claims which he may feel are excessive, but which, if allowed, would reduce the amount he might receive himself. This is familiar practice in any American court where a fund is to be distributed equitably between claimants. No provision for this is made in the pending bill. The Attorney General and the Department of State would be properly represented before the Court of Claims in this matter, and no doubt the court would Cooperate in using the information which the State Department may have respecting these claims. As it is well known to lawyers, the great difference between having this matter submitted to a court and having it finally disposed of by a departmental agency is that in the first case it is important to know the law; in the second case it is important to know someone in the department involved. THE PRESIDENT'S FOURTH POINT There is general agreement as to the importance of encouraging private investment in foreign lands as a postwar policy. In the ECA law steps were taken toward encouraging such investment by requir ing protection of United States investors. In section 115b (10) each participating country must agree to submit for the decision of an international tribunal mutually agreed upon cases- involving compensation of a national of the United States for governmental measures affecting his property rights, including contracts with or concessions from such country. This bill heads in the opposite direction; instead of our Government's insisting upon impartial arbitration of claims for seizure and nationalization of American property, our Government is to make a practice of wholesale diplomatic "settlements" of such claims, with the proceeds to be parceled out to American claimants by a State Department agency without giving the claimant a chance to be heard in court either in the foreign country or here at home. This may encourage nationalization in foreign countries; it will certainly not encourage American investment abroad. Respectfully submitted. JOHN M. VORYS. almost an invitation to other nations to nationalize United States property and settle up on a cheap, wholesale basis with the United States Government, confident that no individual United States citizen need be heard from in their courts, or will ever be heard from in our courts. There is probably nothing that Congress can do to set aside the settlement made with Yugoslavia. A claims commission is not necessary, however, to make equitable division of the $17,000,000 available for this one set of claims. There is no reason for setting up an expensive new agency of government when we already have a United States Court of Claims for just such purposes. Congress certainly should not encourage and approve in advance other similar future "settlements" by setting up a new agency to take care of them. This bill should be defeated. THE "COMMISSION”. -A NEW AGENCY While this is to be known as "the International Claims Commission of the United States" (see sec. 3), it is merely a new agency inside the Department of State. The Secretary of State appoints the three Commissioners, fixes their term, may remove them, may terminate the whole Commission any time, appoints "the executive director, officers, attorneys, investigators, and other employees," (sec. 3b). The three Commissioners get $15,000 each per annum. No estimate was made of the total cost of the new agency. The authorization in the bill is unlimited. Three percent of each payment from the fund goes to expenses. (See sec. 6b.) Creation of this Commission is not recommended by the Hoover Commission. Its action is final, and not subject to review by anyone in Government "or by any court by mandamus or otherwise.' (See sec. 4b.) A claimant cannot even challenge this act, for any person who makes application for any such payment shall be held to have consented to all the provisions of this Act (sec. 6e). A number of novel provisions with reference to evidence (see sec. 4b) and payments (see sec. 7) are set up in this bill. It was drafted entirely by departmental lawyers. The committees of the American. Bar Association on international law and administrative procedure were not consulted, and have not been given an opportunity to express their views since they were informed of this bill. Its draftsmanship shows throughout that it is an inside job, drawn for the convenience and protection of the departments concerned. It is not the type of bill that can be amended intelligently on the floor. This expensive. Commission is not needed to divide up equitably the proceeds of the Yugoslav settlement. This matter should be turned over to the Court of Claims. THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is probably broad enough now to take over the distribution of this fund by way of interpleader, without congressional action. If it is not, or if additional commis sioners would be necessary or any special rules of evidence, this could be provided by a very short bill giving the United States Court of Claims jurisdiction. Technical matters could be referred to a commissioner for hearing and determination. It should be remembered that all of the disputes will be between American citizens. Since the face amount of the claims already largely exceeds the $17,000,000 in the fund, each claimant will have an interest not only in presenting his own claim but in resisting other claims which he may feel are excessive, but which, if allowed, would reduce the amount he might receive himself. This is familiar practice in any American court where a fund is to be distributed equitably between claimants. No provision for this is made in the pending bill. The Attorney General and the Department of State would be properly represented before the Court of Claims in this matter, and no doubt the court would cooperate in using the information which the State Department may have respecting these claims. As it is well known to lawyers, the great difference between having this matter submitted to a court and having it finally disposed of by a departmental agency is that in the first case it is important to know the law; in the second case it is important to know someone in the department involved. THE PRESIDENT'S FOURTH POINT There is general agreement as to the importance of encouraging private investment in foreign lands as a postwar policy. In the ECA law steps were taken toward encouraging such investment by requiring protection of United States investors. In section 115b (10) each participating country must agree to submit for the decision of an international tribunal mutually agreed upon cases involving compensation of a national of the United States for governmental measures affecting his property rights, including contracts with or concessions from such country. This bill heads in the opposite direction; instead of our Government's insisting upon impartial arbitration of claims for seizure and nationalization of American property, our Government is to make a practice of wholesale diplomatic "settlements" of such claims, with the proceeds to be parceled out to American claimants by a State Department agency without giving the claimant a chance to be heard in court either in the foreign country or here at home. encourage nationalization in foreign countries; it will certainly not encourage American investment abroad. Respectfully submitted. This may JOHN M. VORYS. BANKERS AND SHIPPERS INSURANCE CO. JUNE 9, 1949.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. JENNINGS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 571] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 571) for the relief of Bankers and Shippers Insurance Co., having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $2,905.78 to the Bankers and Shipper Insurance Co., of San Francisco, Calif., in full settlement of all claims against the United States for property damages sustained to the residence of Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith at 67 Alexandria Avenue, Daly City, Calif., as the result of an accident involving a United States Army pursuit plane on December 5, 1943. STATEMENT OF FACTS On December 5, 1943, at about 8:25 a. m., an Army airplane engaged in an authorized training flight crashed while flying over Daly City, Calif. The ensuing explosion and the scattering of parts of the plane caused varying amounts of damage to several homes in the vicinity. Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith claimed to have sustained damages to their real and personal property located at 67 Alexander Avenue, Daly City, Calif., in an amount estimated by them at $3,229.38. Joseph J. Smith and Cecil A. Smith carried insurance on both the furniture and the house. The Bankers and Shippers Insurance Co. paid them $2,905.78 for damages to the house. This bill would reimburse the company for payment made by it to the Smiths. |