suggested. This seems to be as far as the negotiations progressed, as the intervention of the war stopped all further consideration of the subject. Later, after conference with State Department representatives in behalf of Mrs. Broy, I submitted to the State Department a full résumé of the claim with a pertinent statement of facts upon which it was based, with the suggestion that at the end of the war negotiations with Germany might be renewed so that Mrs. Broy would receive the compensation for the death of her husband to which she is entitled, and which money she will need to support herself and her three children. The gross negligence of the servants, agents, and employees operating the train, coupled with the further gross negligence of the persons in charge of the military trucks, who were soldiers in the army of the German Government, together with the further fact that no proper protective measures were taken to safeguard a very dangerous crossing, has deprived Mrs. Rroy and her children of the support of a husband and father, who was drawing a salary of $5,900, to which was added living allowances, making a total salary of approximately $7,660 per annum. Had his health not been impaired by this terrible accident he would have been advanced to a salary of $3,000 per annum, with the possibility of even more, as he advanced in his employment with the State Department. His death occurred while in the performance of his duties as an American consul, and as a result of the war operations then in progress. The automobile trip which he and Consul General Sussdorff were making at the time was made necessary to attend a conference incident to the war conditions then existing. Military trucks operated by German soldiers obscured the cross signals and directly contributed to the injury. Had the German Government survived the war, we do not believe that it would have been difficult to establish this claim against such German Government for the negligent acts of their agents at the time in question. However, there is now no responsible German Government, but there are in existence valuable assets belonging to the defunct German Government. Under these circumstances. we feel that it is just and proper for those assets to be subjected to the payment for this liability. In order to provide for the payment of this claim on behalf of the German Government, a provision should be written into the act which would include such claims as to time, and also as to the circumstances under which the liability was created. We therefore request the committee to rewrite section 32 to include the following, after the word "respectively" in line 6 of page 2 of the bill, as follows: "of all persons, wheresoever domiciled, who owe permanent allegiance to the United States of America, and who, under international law, the common law as administered in the courts of the United States, or the common law of the country against which the claim is made, who have suffered injury or damage to person or property, through negligence, want of care, misconduct of officers, servants, agents, or employees of said governments, or subordinate agencies of said governments, or who have suffered through the acts of said governments, or its agents since September 1, 1939. loss, damage, or injury to their person or property, or in consequence of hostilities or other operations of war. In case of personal injury resulting in death the next of kin, personal representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, or the widow and children, in case the deceased person left widow and child or children, shall be entitled to recover for such death and the claim may be prosecuted in the name of the widow for the benefit of herself and children." Section 34 of said bill should be rewritten to include the following: "SEC. 34. (a) The following shall be deemed claimants and entitled to compensation for loss, damage, or injury to their persons or property: (1) Any citizen of the United States who suffered damages growing out of acts committed by the Governments of Germany, Japan, and Italy, or by any of their authorities or agencies, or the servants, agents, and employees of such governments or agencies, since September 1, 1939, resulting in the deprivation of their liberty, or in cruelty, violence, maltreatment or impairment of health or earning capacity as a consequence of his or her capture, imprisonment or internment, wherever arising; and all persons who suffered injury and damage to person or property as a result of the fault, wrong, or negligence of any of the officers, agents, servants, or employees of said German, Japanese, or Italian Governments, or any of their agencies operating public transportation, railways, electric facilities, or other public utilities, and who according to the principles of inter national law, the common law as administered in the courts of the United States, or the law as administered in the country against which the claim is asserted would be liable in a civil action because of such wrong; or (2), a person who has a surviving wdow or dependent of such American citizen so injured, or because of such personal injury resulting in death; in which instance the elaim may be prosecuted in the name of the widow, if any, for the benefit of herself and children, if any, or in the absence of widow and children in the name of the personal representative." I assume that there are many other claims of a civil nature against the Governments of Germany, Japan, and Italy, arising out of their operation of railroads, public utilities, and other facilities of a public character, arising out of negligence or want of care, or from other causes, which the claimants should be permitted to prosecute against the assets belonging to these governments. The people who have suffered injury damage, such as Mrs. Broy and her children have suffered in this respect, should not be deprived of their opportunity to recover because of the political deaths of the governments whose representatives were negligent, and which resulted in injury of so grievous a character. American Consul Charles C. Broy was in reality a casualty of this war, as much as a soldier on the battlefield. He was in the immediate field of war operations, and was representing the Government of the United States in the international situation created by the war. We respectfully request that the bill be rewritten so as to include claims of the character of that of Mrs. Cecil N. Broy for adjudication before the Commission created to dispose of these claims. Respectfully submitted, JOHN H. CONNAUGHTON, Mr. HINSHAW. Is Mr. Hoyt Haddock present? STATEMENT OF HOYT HADDOCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CIO MARITIME COMMITTEE, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, sir. Mr. HINSHAW. Do you have a statement you desire to present to the committee? Mr. HADDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which I have furnished your committee. I had wanted to highlight some of the questions which we raised. They all deal with merchant seamen. If you will grant us the privilege, however, we will simply file that statement and stand ready at the call of your committee at any time to discuss the details of those questions which we raise with regard to any legislation. Mr. HINSHAW. I understand that you also are in Washington and can be called upon by the committee at any time. Is that correct? Mr. HADDOCK. That is correct. Mr. HINSHAW. Your statement will be accepted for the record, if you present it in that way. Mr. HADDOCK. I think that would be the most appropriate way, and save the most time of the committee. There are many special problems which require amendment to the legislation which is presently before the committee. Mr. HINSHAW. If the committee can find another day in its schedule in the not too distant future to reopen the hearings we will be glad to hear you in person at that time, otherwise we will accept your statement now for the record, for the study of the committee. Mr. HADDOCK. Thank you. Mr. HINSHAW. We regret it has not been possible, with all the witnesses from out of town, to have put you on earlier today. We understand that earlier in the day you were busy elsewhere. Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, sir; I have a meeting which has been waiting for me since 2 o'clock. Mr. HINSHAW. I am sorry, I thought you were going to leave anyway, so I had not called upon you. Mr. HADDOCK. Thank you, Mr. Hinshaw. We will stand ready at any time. Mr. HINSHAW. I regret that you had to spend the afternoon waiting. I did not know you were still here. Mr. HADDOCK. I have been here and listened to the problems. I am quite sympathetic with them, and I certainly want everybody to be heard. Mr. HINSHAW. Your statement will be made a part of the record. (The statement is as follows:) STATEMENT OF THE CIO MARITIME COMMITTEE ON H. R. 1000 AND H. R. 2823, BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, APRIL 21, 1947 The CIO Maritime Committee appears today on behalf of 200,000 seamen, licensed officers, and allied maritime workers to urge prompt and favorable action on legislation to establish an Enemy Property Commission and to facilitate the payment of claims arising out of damage inflicted by enemy action. We find that the provisions of the two measures, H. R. 1000 and H. R. 2823, being considered today, and the two measures, H. R. 873 and H. R. 1823, on which hearings have been held earlier, are not sufficiently flexible and comprehensive to afford protection to the group of men we represent. All four bills now before the committee are unduly circumscribed. They either deal with claims against only one enemy state (one even limits the claims against a particular enemy state to damages sustained in certain areas), or limit the type of claimants as to military or civilian status or as to citizenship and noncitizenship, or limit the types of damages for which claims will be considered. We urge that this committee redraft the proposed legislation to provide a bill which will cover the total problem, a bill under which each claim can be considered on its merits. In order to afford the maximum protection to our members we have, in addition to reviewing the bills now before the committee, studied the regulations and decisions of the Mixed Claims Commission which was created in 1922 in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin. Based upon this study we urge this committee to provide the following safeguards in legislation which it drafts: 1. Scope of claim.-Merchant seamen who were injured, lost their lives, captured, suffered property damage, or sustained loss of income by reason of enemy action, should be entitled to indemnity from the enemy belligerent, whether German, Italian, or Japanese Governments. 2. One-year period to file claim.-At least 1 year should be allowed in which a claimant may file his claim with the Commission after the enactment of legislation. 3. Right of subpena.-The Commission should be given the right of subpena. The failure to do this last time resulted in the dismissal of many otherwise provable claims because of inability to produce available corroborative proof of claim. The Commission and its agents should have access to the official records of our Government and the enemy beligerents in order to substantiate, if possible, the individual claims of damage. 4. Representation by counsel.-Claimant should be entitled to representation by counsel before the Commission. Thousands of claims arising out of World War I were dismissed by the Commission because they were improperly prepared and private legal advice was discouraged. The procedure adopted by the Claims Commission after the last war was as follows: An American agent represented all American claims and investigated and prepared all claims. While the claimant might retain counsel, such counsel had no standing before the Commission and was not permitted to participate in any of the proceedings. Since thousands of seamen will undoubtedly file claims involving many technical questions of maritime law, it will be of the utmost importance that the Commission have before it the special experience of maritime lawyers representing seamen. Safeguards should be provided limiting the fees of attorneys representing claimants. 5. Alien seamen.-American nationals only were permitted to file claims with the Commission after World War I. This resulted in the dismissal of claims by many aliens who were injured or suffered property losses while employed on American vessels. None of the bills before the committee would permit compensation to alien seamen in the American merchant marine. The legislation should be so drawn as to permit merchant seamen to recover damages without regard to nationality, if, in fact, they were employed on vessels either (a) owned by the United States Government (b) owned by American shipping companies, or (c) operated for the account or under the control of the American Government or American shipping companies. It would be unjust to deny the claims of alien seamen who were injured in the war after thousands of them had been recruited during the shipping emergency and had made equal sacrifice with American seamen for the American cause. Mili 6. Civilians.-Reparations after the last war were limited to civilians. tary personnel were excluded. Unless specific provision is made, seamen who were employed in the Army Transport Service may be excluded as military personnel from claiming indemnity. A broad definition should be adopted which would classify all merchant seamen as civilians, unless they were members of the Navy or the Coast Guard. 7. Military operations.-After the last war many claimants were denied damages on the ground that they were involved in military operations or were employed in pseudo military units. To avoid any ambiguity, the term "military operations" should be so defined as to exclude the activity of merchant vessels and merchant seamen. Unless the term "military operations" is carefully drawn, it is to be expected that merchant seamen will be denied indemnity on the ground that they were injured during task-force operations, military convoys, beachhead support, etc. 8. Set-off of other compensation. This committee will undoubtedly wish to consider the relationship between compensation provided by our Government for damage from enemy action and eligibility for indemnification under legislation now being considered. It is our belief that prior receipt of war-risk insurance by seamen, the private insurance, should not bar independent and additional claims for indemnity. We believe that this position is supported by good logic. First, it must be recognized that the war-risk insurance coverage for seamen resulted from collective-bargaining agreements between shipowners and maritime unions. After Pearl Harbor, conferences between shipowners and the maritime unions culminated on December 19, 1941, in the execution of an agreement known as the statement of principles. On the same date, President Roosevelt, in accordance with the terms of the statement of principles, appointed a three-man board to administer a uniform system of war-risk bonus and war-risk insurance. Subsequeutly, legislation provided for the payment of war-risk insurance for vessels owned by or controlled by the War Shipping Administration, but the basis for the system lay in the agreement between shipowners and maritime unions. Second, we know of no reason why a compensation scheme established by agreement or law in this country should absolve enemy states of the responsibilty for adequate compensation for war damages. Third, the compensation under the war-risk insurance program was totally inadequate to compensate for the damages suffered. Certainly the receipt of war risk compensation should constitute no barrier to consideration of claims for damages from enemy states. The committee may wish to consider the advisability of a set-off, but the existing inadequate scheme of compensation should not represent the maximum amount of protection received by merchant seamen. 9. Loss of income-We urge that the committee in laying down principles for compensation for war damages stress the concept of loss of income. The Division of Insurance of the United States Maritime Commission has records of 582 merchant seamen who received detention benefits under the war-risk insurance powers of the Maritime Commission. In addition, there were probably between 60002-47-27 20 and 50 seamen captured by the enemy who received no benefits, because at the time of capture they were not attached to any vessel. This group includes seamen ashore because of illness or other reasons in any of the countries overrun by the enemy. Seamen who were eligible for detention benefits were able to recover only their basic wage during internment. As increases in take-home pay for seamen during the war took the form of war bonuses, receipt of basic wages alone constituted a minimum loss of 50 percent of earning power. There are cases of much greater hardship and loss of earning power. The barber on the President Harrison, which was captured by the Japanese just after Pearl Harbor, while on a mission to rescue a detachment of United States Marines in China, is a good example. The barber was signed on articles at 25 cents a month and was compensated by his fees and tips. Despite the obvious justice of the case, all during interment the barber received only 25 cents a month. In addition to his loss of earning power of approximately $250 a month for 4 years, the barber lost approximately $5,000 in equipment in his combined barbering and souvenir shop. Basic wages for the great majority of seamen in internment camps ranged from $32.50 to $100 a month, while the actual earning power gas approximately double these amounts. In case of death, of which 5,808 compensable cases are reported by the Insurance Division of the United States Maritime Commission, $5,000 in a lump sum was paid to dependents or $7,500 in monthly payments of $150 per month. At this rate the dependents of the seamen lost in the earlier years are now without portection and those of seamen lost in the later years of the war are rapidly exhausting their benefit rights. The great majority of the seamen lost in the war were in the lower-age brackets and war risk insurance represents but a small fraction of their potential earning capacity. In adidtion, there are 342 war risk cases still being processed and well over 600 cases of death in the merchant marine which have been ruled noncompensable under the war risk program. The total number of war risk injury cases on record is 2,017-1,480 have been settled, 168 are still receiving compensation, 118 are under investigation, and 251 have been ruled noncompensable. Benefits under the war-risk insurance program for injury are $150, until exhaustion of the $7,500. Public Law 449 of the Seventy-ninth Congress provides for a continuation of benefits on a reduced scale for permanent injuries compensable under the war risk policy after war risk benefits are exhausted. In addition, thousands of torpedoed seamen lost their clothing, tools, and other personal effects. Compensation for the loss of personal effects was limited to $300 for unlicensed seamen and $500 for officers, and in many cases did not cover the actual loss. In summary we urge that the committee prepare a comprehensive measure which will allow each individual case to be considered on its merits, that no exclusive rights be given to any one group of claimants, that human claims be placed ahead of property claims, that noncitizens serving in our merchant marine be given the right to have their claims judged on equal basis with citizens, and that all efforts be bent to effecting speedy settlement of claims. We would appreciate an oppertunity to appear further or file a brief on any substantative changes in the proposed legislation and stand ready to supply the committee with any other information it may request. Mr. HINSHAW. We have another witness, John Ward Cutler, Acting General Counsel, Office of Alien Property, whom we can call upon later. I believe a statement has been prepared by the Department of Justice, by the Attorney General. Does that include the statement you have in mind making, Mr. Cutler? STATEMENT OF JOHN WARD CUTLER, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF ALIEN PROPERTY, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I think the Department's position is very fully set forth in the letter that was filed, and signed by the Attorney General. I should like to hold myself in readiness for questioning, if you so desire, for any assistance that we can render. But I think I |