2. House Joint Resolution 130, page 2, line 18, the word "appointment" is substituted for the word "assignment," which appeared in House Joint Resolution 364 on page 2, line 17. The word "assignment" was an obvious misprint for "appointment."

3. House Joint Resolution 130, page 2, line 21, $100,000 has been inserted instead of $50,000 in House Joint Resolution 364. This was in response to a suggestion from the State Department that $50,000 would be inadequate for the work of the Commission.

4. House Joint Resolution 130, page 3, line 2, the words "The decision of the Commissioner shall be in writing, and shall be final and conclusive as to the merits of all cases decided" were inserted as the result of a suggestion by the Department of Justice.

5. House Joint Resolution 130, page 3, section 10 (c), lines 17 to 22, were substituted for somewhat similar provision in House Joint Resolution 364, section 10 (c), as the result of a suggestion from the Department of Justice.

6. House Joint Resolution 130, page 3, lines 23, et seq., section 10 (d) has been changed so as to make the expenses incurred by the United States a first charge against the fund to the extent of 3 percent thereof, which 3 percent is to be covered into the Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous receipts on the enactment of this resolution. This change was as the result of a suggestion from the State Department. House Joint Resolution 364 merely provided that an amount equal to 3 percent be paid as reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the United States. The only difference is that under the present resolution the 3 percent is made a first charge and is immediately paid into the United States Treasury, but the effect of the provision in both bills is to make the expenses payable out of the fund and eliminate their being a burden on the Treasury of the United States.

7. House Joint Resolution 130, page 4, lines 5, et seq., section 11 (a), contain changes made as the result of a suggestion from the State Department and are designed to insure that appropriate payments shall not be certified in excess of the amount of the judgment or attachment which had been procured by the claimant.

8. House Joint Resolution 130, page 5, lines 21 to 25 inclusive, “Provided, That, where such bonds were acquired by testamentary or other gift, or inheritance, any claims based thereon may be allowed by the Commissioner in an amount not in excess of the actual consideration last paid therefor" was not in House Joint Resolution 364 and was added as the result of a suggestion from the State Department. Though probably desirable as a precaution, it does not seem to be of too great importance.

9. House Joint Resolution 130, page 6, line 23, the words "who had a claim at the time of the Litvinov assignment" have been added as a result of a suggestion from the State Department.

10. House Joint Resolution 130, page 6, line 25, the definition of Russian national has been shortened and modified in accordance with the suggestion of the State Department.

11. House Joint Resolution 130, page 7, line 7, the definition of the Litvinov assignment has been shortened and modified in accordance with the suggestion of the State Department.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Selig, will you give your name and address to the clerk?

STATEMENT OF SAMSON SELIG, ATTORNEY FOR VARIOUS

CLAIMANTS, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. SELIG. My name is Samson Selig. I am attorney for some claimants. My address is 61 Broadway, New York.

Mr. FULTON. What is your professional background?

Mr. SELIG. I am an attorney-at-law, admitted to practice in all the courts of the State of New York and the United States Supreme Court. I am the attorney for a number of claimants.

Mr. FULTON. Bondholders or general claimants?

Mr. SELIG. Not bondholders. I have one client that may get some bonds as a result of a tax adjustment that was made. I represent no

bondholders who have purchased bonds. My claims arise as a result of litigation brought on contracts had by American citizens.

Mr. FULTON. Do you represent individual claimants as such, or do you represent a group of claimants or a committee?

Mr. SELIG. Only individual claimants.

Mr. FULTON. Please go ahead and explain your views.

Mr. SELIG. I want to express very much my appreciation to be given this opportunity to be heard. I have been laboring in the vineyard of this Russian litigation for a great many years. Some such resolution as this, in my judgment, sir, is imperative; otherwise, there would be no machinery or forum where Americans who have claims against Russia and against nationalized corporations, which are now viewed as agencies of the Russian Government, could be heard and have those claims determined.

When the Litvinov assignment was enacted or agreed upon we did not believe at that time that our Government would claim that the funds in the United States of Russian nationalized corporations would be claimed to be within the Litvinov assignment.

The Litvinov assignment assigns to the United States all sums that are due or may be found to be due to the Soviet Government as successor Government of Russia or otherwise from any American national. We thought that that contemplated only actual Russian governmental moneys that were here, and here in considerable volume, that is, money that had stood to the credit of the Imperial Government and the Kerensky government.

Mr. FULTON. What language in the Litvinov agreement gave you that inference?

Mr. SELIG. There were two things that gave that inference. One is that it assigned only such amounts as were due or might be found to be due to Soviet governments as successor to the former govern

ments.

Furthermore, in the last paragraph in the Litvinov assignment it was stated that the Soviet Government makes no claim, or there was language which led us to believe that the Soviet Government did not intend to include the funds of Russian nationalized corporations among the assets so assigned.

Mr. FULTON. Would you submit a short statement on that language for the record at this point to the staff outlining the language and pointing it out in detail? We have raised the point, and we can go along with other testimony from there.

Mr. SELIG. I will be glad to do so.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

LANGUAGE OF THE LITVINOV ASSIGNMENT

Mr. FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT,

President of the United States of America,

WASHINGTON, November 16, 1933.

The White House.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Following our conversations I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agrees that, preparatory to a final settlement of the claims and counterclaims between the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America and the claims of their nationals, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not take any steps to enforce any decisions of courts or initiate any new litigations for the amounts admitted to be due or that

may be found to be due it, as the successor of prior Governments of Russia, or otherwise, from American nationals, including corporations, companies, partnerships, or associations, and also the claim against the United States of the Russian Volunteer Fleet, now in litigation in the United States Court of Claims, and will not object to such amounts being assigned and does hereby release and assign all such amounts to the Government of the United States, the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to be duly notified in each case of any amount realized by the Government of the United States from such release and assignment.

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics further agrees, preparatory to the settlement referred to above not to make any claims with respect to:

(a) judgments rendered or that may be rendered by American courts insofar as they relate to property, or rights, or interests therein, in which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or its nationals may have had or may claim to have an interest; or,

(b) acts done or settlements made by or with the Government of the United States, or public officials in the United States, or its nationals, relating to prop-erty, credits, or obligations of any Government of Russia or nationals thereof. I am, my dear Mr. President, Very sincerely yours,

MAXIM M. LITVINOV.

People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The language in the second paragraph was relied on by American claimants: as authority for continuing their private lawsuits.

The Pink case, however, held that the United States Government should' marshal all these funds and then distribute them to American nationals proving claims thereto.

Mr. SELIG. Our Government, however, did make claim to those assets and was eventually sustained in its position by the United States Supreme Court in the so-called Pink decision. Up to that time the Government's position had not been sustained. The Pink decision left the door open as to the claims of American creditors. It did decide as to the claims of foreign creditors that the Government would have a priority position.

As to American creditors, as I say, the door was left open, but that was largely theoretical, because as to those of us who had levied attachments, obtained judgment before the Litvinov assignment, the funds were equally swept into the Treasury.

Now, we therefore believe that this resolution and the machinery provided by it will provide a forum by which we can proceed to establish our claims and collect on those which are valid.

Mr. FULTON. Could you comment shortly on the previous action of the United States Government in respect to vested claims that might have been vested prior to the putting of the money in the Treasury and in reference to Mr. Multer's comment of vested claims now in this fund?

Mr. SELIG. I agree with what Congressman Multer said. I think if I understand the chairman's question that the Government now believes and accedes to the principles that priorities should be accorded' to those claims on which attachments had been levied and judgments secured prior to the Litvinov assignment.

I don't believe there is any priority to be accorded on any claims: which had not secured a lien prior to the Litvinov assignment.

Mr. FULTON. The claims that hád liens, in your judgment, would have a vested interest in the fund and would then be given priority? Mr. SELIG. That is right.

Mr. FULTON. That is what I wanted to get your specific position

upon.

Mr. SELIG. Yes, sir. I was very much impressed with what was said as to the question of the quantum and character of proof for these claims. I think the chairman was entirely right in stating that the probabilities are that ordinary common-law proof cannot be supplied in most of these claims. When we think that they go back to transactions 40 years ago

Mr. FULTON. Would you then refer to the language on the bottom of page 2 of House Joint Resolution 130 and the top of page 3 as to the method of the Commissioner making his decision?

Mr. SELIG. I do not believe that the apprehension of the State Department over the inclusion of the words, "In accordance with his best judgment and justice and equity" is anything to be disturbed about. I think that those words should be left in there largely because there are unique and unusual questions of law involved here and unusually difficult situations for factual proof.

I would also say for the same reason I would leave in the phrase, "including international law" because my understanding is, although I am not an international law specialist, that under the practice of international law, procedurally, especially, proof is received which would not be competent proof under our common-law court system.. Mr. FULTON. So if the language was stricken, in order that the words, "And with justice and equity" were eliminated, then it might make too narrow a basis for the Commissioner to act so that many of these claims which are just, but not subject to proof by ordinary common law rules of law, would be wrongly eliminated? Mr. SELIG. That would be my fear.

Mr. FULTON. Do you think there would be an adequate basis for the Commissioner to act upon if we did broaden the language like that, so that these claimants whose claims are old and based in large part on old testimony, and secondary evidence and documents, nevertheless can be proved?

Mr. SELIG. Yes, sir. I think out of the provision as it stands, or under any equivalent of language, that that result would be accomplished. In other words, none of these things you see, sir, are binding the Commissioner. He doesn't have to confine himself to international law. He doesn't have to confine himself to anything else. These are merely, as I think Mr. Brown well stated, an additional weapon in his arsenal.

Mr. FULTON. On the question of the proof of damages, if the Commissioner is limited to the ordinary common law rules of proof, it would almost be hopeless for many claimants to try to make the proof, particularly on the question on the location of the property or the contract or the instrument that is in question, and secondly the exchange problems and many of those things that would have to be gone into at various periods of time?

Mr. SELIG. You are entirely right. When we consider that most of these original claimants are probably dead, that they had to leave Russia, leaving behind most of the indicia of their proof, that they haven't been able and it is impossible today to obtain evidence from Russia, we have a situation which is unprecedented in history. Research has shown no situation equivalent to this.

So, when you get a case where the heirs of a man who had a perfectly good claim on which he had secured an attachment is faced with the absence of proof in the common law sense, and a total deprivation of the means of getting that proof, not due to his fault, because I may say, sir, out of my experience in my own litigation that I know the State Department has often tried to get the cooperation of the Soviet Government in securing proof in litigation, and that it has never been forthcoming, there is a difficult situation.

Mr. MULTER. As a matter of fact, even when our Government itself was prosecuting its claims to collect this money, the Soviet Government would not make any documents available to our Government to support the very claims.

Mr. FULTON. Do you have anything more?

Mr. SELIG. No.

Mr. FULTON. I want to thank the various witnesses who have appeared and to thank the attending Members of Congress for their cooperation. I think the hearing has been an excellent aid to the subcommittee.

Mr. MULTER. You have been very patient and very thorough, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 2:07 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)