¹ See Establishment of Diplomatic Relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Dept. of State, Eastern European Series, No. 1 (1933) for the various documents pertaining to recognition. [Printed also in this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 28 (1934), p. 1 el seq.]

² The three decrees on which the United States placed primary emphasis (apart from the one set forth in note 3, infra) were described in the findings of the referee in theMoscow case as follows:

“88. The decree of November 18, 1919 on the annulment of life insurance contracts abolished insurance of life in all its forms in the Republic and annulled all contracts with insurance companies and savings banks with respect to the insurance of life, capital and income.

“89. The decree of the Soviet of People’s Commissars dated March 4, 1919, on the liquidation of obligations of State enterprises, provided that stock certificates and shares of joint stock companies, whose enterprises ha,ve been either nationalized or sequestered, are annulled and also provided that such enterprises are free from the payment of all debts to private persons and enterprises which have arisen prior to the nationalization of these enterprises, including payments on bond loans with the exception only of wages due to workers and employees.

“90. The decree of the Soviet of People’s Commissars dated June 28, 1918 provides inArticle I that the commercial and industrial enterprises enumerated therein, which are located within the boundaries of the Soviet Republic, together with all their capital and property, regardless of what the latter may consist, are declared the property of the Republic.”

³ Relevant portions of the Insurance Decree dated November 28, 1918, translated in accordance with the findings of the referee in the Moscow case, are:

“603. On the organization of the insurance business in the Russian Republic.

“(1) Insurance in all its forms, such as: fire insurance, insurance on shipments, life insurance, accident insurance, hail insurance, livestock insurance, insurance against failure of crops, etc. is hereby proclaimed as a State monopoly.

“Note–Mutual insurance of movable goods and merchandise by the coöperative organizations is conducted on a special basis.

“(2) All private insurance companies and organizations (stock and share holding, also mutual) upon issuance of this decree are subject to liquidation; former rural * (People’s Soviet) and municipal mutual insurance organizations operating within the boundaries of the Russian Republic are hereby proclaimed the property of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

“(3) For the immediate organization of the insurance business and for the liquidation of parts of insurance institutions, which have become the property of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, a Commission is established under the Supreme Soviet of National Economy, consisting of representatives of the Supreme Soviet of National Economy, the People’s Commissariats of Commerce and Industry, Interior Affairs, the Commissarof Insurance and Fire Prevention, Finances, Labor, and State Control, and of Soviet Insurance Organizations (People’s Soviet and Municipal Mutual).

“Note.—The same Commission is charged with the liquidating of private insurance organizations, all property and assets of which, remaining on hand after their liquidation, shall become the property of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.

“(4) The above-mentioned reorganization and liquidation of existing insurance organizations and institutions shall be accomplished not later than the first day of April 1919.

“(8) The present decree comes into force on the day of its publication.

The referee in the Moscow case found that upon publication of this decree all Russian insurance companies were prohibited from engaging in the insurance business in Russia; that they became subject to liquidation and were dissolved; that all of their assets in Russia became the property of the State; that on publication of the decree, the directors of the companies lost all power to act as directors or conservators of the property or to represent the companies in any way; and that the Russian Government became the statutory successor and domiciliary liquidator of companies whose property was nationalized.

⁴ That section reads:

“A printed copy of a statute, or other written law, of another state, or of a territory, or of a foreign country, or a printed copy of a proclamation, edict, decree or ordinance, by the ex-ecutive power thereof, contained in a book or publication purporting or proved to have been published by the authority thereof, or proved to be commonly admitted as evidence of the existing law in the judicial tribunals thereof, ispresumptive evidence of the statute, law, proclamation, edict, decree or ordinance. The unwritten or common law of another state, or of a territory, or of a foreign country, may be proved as a fact by oral evidence. The books of reports of cases adjudged in the courts thereof must also be admitted as presumptive evidence of the unwritten or common law thereof. The law of such state or territory or foreign country is to be determined by the court or referee and included in the findings of the court or referee or charged to the jury, as the case may be. Such finding or charge is subject to review on appeal. In determining such law, neither the trial court norany appellate court shall be limited to the evidence produced on the trial by the parties, but may consult any of the written authorities above named in this section, with thesame force and effect as if the same had been admitted in evidence.”

⁵ Hence the denial of the motion of the United States to certify the official declaration as part of the record of the Moscow case in this court (281 N. Y. 818) would seem immaterial to our right to consult it.

⁶ See also note 7, infra.

⁷ A clarification of the Litvinov assignment was made in an exchange of letters between the American Charge1 d’Affairs and the People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs onJanuary 7, 1937. The letter of the former read:

“I have the honor to inform you that it is the understanding of the Government of the United States that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that by and upon the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the adoption of the Constitution of 1923 of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics acquired the right to dispose of the property, rights, or interests therein located abroad of all corporations and companies which had theretofore been nationalized by decrees of the constituent republics or their predecessors.

“The Government of the United States further understands that it was the purpose and intention of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to assign to the Government of the United States, among other amounts, all the amounts admitted to be due or that may be found to be due not only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but also the constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or their predecessors from American nationals, including corporations, companies, partnerships, or associations, and also the claim against the United States of the Russian Volunteer Fleet, in litigation in the United States Court of Claims, and that the Government of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics did release and assign all such amounts to the Government of theUnited States by virtue of the note addressed by you to the President of the United States on November 16, 1933.

“Will you be good enough to confirm the understanding which the Government of the United States has in this matter, concerning the law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, the Constitution and laws of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the intention and purpose of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the above-mentioned assignment? ”

The reply of the People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs was:

“In reply to your note of January 7, 1937, I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that by and upon theformation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the adoption of the Constitution of 1923 of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics acquired the right to dispose of the property, rights, or interests therein located abroad ofall corporations and companies which had theretofore been nationalized by decrees of the constituent republics or their predecessors.

“You are further informed that it was the purpose and intention of the Government ofthe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to assign to the Government of the United States, among other amounts, all the amounts admitted to be due or that may be found to be due not only the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but also the constituent republics of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or their predecessors from American nationals, including corporations, companies, partnerships, or associations, and also the claim against the United States of the Russian Volunteer Fleet, in litigation in the United States Court of Claims, and that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did release and assign all such amounts to the Government of the United States by virtue of the note addressed by me to the President of the United States on November 16, 1933.

“ I have the honor, therefore, to confirm the understanding, as expressed in your note of January 7,1937, which the Government of the United States has in this matter, concerning the law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, the Constitution and laws of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the intention and purpose of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the above-mentioned assignment.”

⁸ In view of the disposition which we make of this case, we express no view on whether these creditors would be barred from asserting their claims here by virtue of theruling in Canada Southern Ry. Co. v. Gebhard, 109 U. S. 527, 538, that “anything done at the legal home of the corporation, under the authority of such laws, which discharges it from liability there, discharges it everywhere.”

⁹ In this connection it should be noted that § 977 (b) of the New York Civil Practice Act provides for the appointment of a receiver to liquidate local assets of a foreign corporation where, inter alia, it has been dissolved, liquidated, or nationalized. Subdivision 19 of that section provides in part:

“ . . . such liquidation, dissolution, nationalization, expiration of its existence, or repeal, suspension, revocation or annulment of its charter or organic law in the country of its domicile, or any confiscatory law or decree thereof, shall not be deemed to have any extra-territorial effect or validity as to the property, tangible or intangible, debts, demands or choses in action of such corporation within the state or any debts or obligations owing to such corporation from persons, firms or corporations residing, sojourning or doing business in the state.”

¹⁰ Establishment of Diplomatic Relations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, supra, note 1, p. 20.

¹ By June 30, 1938, the sums collected by virtue of the Litvinov assignment amounted to $1,706,443. Report of the Attorney General for 19S8, p. 122. Other claims are apparently still in litigation. See the Report for 1939, p. 99; also H. Rep. No. 865, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2.