1 An Act to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, to provide compensation for certain World War I I losses, Pub. Law 87-846, 87th Cong., H.R. 7283, 76 Stat. 1107.

2 40 Stat. 411 (1917); 50 U.S.C. App. §$ 1-39 (1958).

3 H.R. 3672, 78th Cong. (1943). See Eeport of Special Committee on Custody and Management of Alien Property, American Bar Association, of March 29, 1943, 68 American Bar Association Eeport 450 (1943).

4 S. 2038, 78th Cong. (1944), H.E. 3371 and H.E. 5118, 79th Cong. (1945). See Eeport on War Claims by the Committee on Adjudication of War Claims, Section of International and Comparative Law, American Bar Association, adopted by the House of Delegates on Dee. 20, 1945, 1945 Proceedings 52.

5 91 Cong. Eec. App. 5031 (1945).

6 40 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117 (1946).

7 See Foreign War Damage Claims, Hearings before a Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary (67 pp., 1946); Enemy Property Commission, Hearings before the House Committee on Interstateand Foreign Commerce (493 pp. 1947).

8 War Claims Commission, Hearings before a Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary (256 pp., 1948).

9 62 Stat. 1240 (1948), 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 2001-2013 (1958). The Act, as amended by Public Law 744, 83d Cong., 68 Stat. 1033, is fully reprinted in 14 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission Semiannual Eeport 66 (1961).

10 For a description of the awards rendered by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, see H. Eep. No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960, p. 8.

11 Established by Sec. 2(a) of the Act, note 9 above, and abolished by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954, 68 Stat. 1279. Its functions were transferred to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, which was established in Sec. 1 of the Plan.

12 Sec. 8 of the Act, note 9 above, at 81.

13 H. Doc. No. 580, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., of May 3, 1950 (95 pp.), Supplementary Report, H. Doc. No. 67, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess., of Jan. 16, 1953 (247 pp.).

14 49 A.J.I.L. Supp. 69, 98 (1955), Ch. VI (Reparation), Art. 5: “The Federal Republic shall ensure that the former owners of property seized … shall be compensated.” On the constitutionality of the German ratifying legislation, see decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, Feb. 6, 1962, 57 A.J.I.L. 142 (1963).

15 Such an indemnification by a Reparationsschadengesetz (Damage for Reparations Act) is now being contemplated by the Federal Republic of Germany in a draft bill submitted to the Lander for comment, and to be presented to the German legislature. For a previous bill, of July 12, 1961, see Drucksache 2964, Deutscher Bundestag, 3. Wahlperiode. On the obligation of the German Government to compensate its nationals, see Mann, Zum Privatrecht der deutschen Reparationsleistung (1962); Seidl-Hohenveldern and Ipsen, Entschadigungspflicht der Bundesrepublik fiir Reparationsentzogenes Auslandsvermogen (1962); and Kaufmann, Reehtsgutachten fiber die Reparationsschaden (1962).

16 Howard, “ The Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany,” 14 Dept. of State Bulletin 1023 (1946); Report, note 10 above, p. 36.

17 Ch. V (Claims and Property), Art. 14(2). 46 A.J.I.L. Supp. 71, 77 (1952).

18 Metzger, “ T h e Liberal Japanese Peace Treaty,” 37 Cornell Law Q. 382, 387 (1952). No internal compensation appears to be planned in Japan.

19 H R. 6730, 84th Cong. (1954).

20 Letter of transmittal of June 6, 1955, reprinted in H. Eep. No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960, p. 34. See also Debt Claims and World War I Assets, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (71 pp., 1955).

21 Agreement of Feb. 27, 1953, Eeport, note 10 above, p. 38. This Agreement regarding the Settlement of the United States Claim for Post-War Economic Assistance to Germany, T.I.A.S., No. 2795, was implemented by the Agreements of March 20, 1959,and April 5, 1961, T.I.A.S., Nos. 4200 and 4737, 44 Dept. of State Bulletin 720 (1961).

22 85th Cong., 2nd Sess., S. 2227 and H.R. 10549.

23 Return of Confiscated Property, Hearings before a Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary (688 pp., 1956); and War Claims and Eeturn of Enemy Assets, Hearings before a House Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (489 pp., 1956).

24 Department of State Press Eelease, reprinted in H. Eep. No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960, p. 14. A similar solution with regard to Japan was also expected by the Administration.See Eeturn of Confiscated Property, Hearings before a Senate Subeommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary (702 pp., 1957); and Amendments to Trading with the Enemy Act, Hearings before a House Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (70 pp., 1958).

25 Letter from the Department of State, July 3, 1958, reprinted in Eeport, note 10 above, p. 39.

26 Cf.Jessup, “Enemy Property,” 49 A.J.I.L. 57 (1955); deVries, “ The International Eesponsibility of the United States for Vested German Assets,” 51 A.J.I.L. 18 (1957);

Axisand Hearings, Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, p. 352 (1957),also quoted in H. Eep. No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960, p. 5, and in 108 Cong. Bee. 18088 (Sept. 12, 1962).

See also Chemical Bank New York Trust Company v. Kennedy, 199 F. Supp. 256 (D. C, 1961), dealing with creditor rights of wartime seized Hungarian property in the United States, at p. 261: “ I t may be observed that the purpose of seizing enemy property is not confiscation. Even in an era of total war, confiscation of enemy property is not sanctioned either by international law or practice. The principal purpose of such seizures is to sequester the property in order to make it impossible for the enemy to use it against this country in time of war. A secondary objective is to secure payment of claims of the United States and its nationals arising against the foreign Government or against the original owners of seized property.”

27 War Claims and Enemy Property Legislation, Hearings before a House Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (742 pp., 1959); H. Rep.No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960; S. Eep. No. 1390, of May 18, 1960.

28 War Claims and Enemy Property Legislation, Hearings before a House Subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H.E. 7283 and H.E. 7479 (269 pp., 1961); S. 2618, S. Eep. No. 1112, of Sept. 11, 1961; H. Eep. No. 2035, of July 25, 1962. For an analysis of the bills, see also S. Eep. No. 1363, of April 27,1962, p. 2.

29 108 Cong. Eec. 15230 (Aug. 13, 1962).

30 Ibid. 18056 (Sept. 12, 1962). The Subcommittee on Trading with the Enemy Act of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has held no hearings since June and July,1959. Letter of Chairman Olin D. Johnston to this writer, March 9, 1962.

31 H. Rep. No. 2513, of Oct. 2, 1962; 108 Cong. Eec. 20596 (Oct. 2, 1962).

32 108 Cong. Eec. 21342 (Oct. 5, 1962).

33 For a survey, see Hearings, note 28 above, pp. 83-88 (1961).

34 Lastenausgleichsgesetz, Aug. 14, 1952, BGB1. 1952, I , 446.

35 Note 14 above.

36 Ch. X (Foreign Interests in Germany), Art. 3 (49 A.J.I.L. Supp. 102): “without prejudice to the terms of the final peace settlement with Germany.”

37 61 Stat. 1247, 1757, 1915, 2065; 42 A.J.I.L. Supp. 47, 179, 225, 252 (1948).

38 Treaty of Peace with Italy, Art. 79, pars. 1 and 3, 61 Stat. 1247 (1948); thesame provisions are contained in Arts. 27, 25 and 29 of the Peace Treaties with Eumania, Bulgaria and Hungary, cited above.

39 Domke,“ Settlement-of-Disputes Provisions in Axis Satellite Peace Treaties,” 41 A.J.I.L. 911 (1947); Kane, “Some Unsolved Problems Regarding War Damage Claims under Article 78 of the Treaty of Peace with Italy,” 45 ibid. 357 (1951).

40 Under Sec. 304 of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended,69 Stat. 560 (1955); cf. also the so-called Lombardo Agreement of Aug. 14, 1947, 42 A.J.I.L. Supp. 18, 146 (1948), and the Ninth Semiannual Report of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, p. 5 (1958).

41 Note 9 above.

42 Pub. Law 455, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950), 64 Stat. 12; 45 A.J.I.L. Supp. 58 (1951).

43 Note 89 below. By Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1954, note 11 above, both Commissions were abolished and their functions transferred to the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States.

44 Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, Tenth Semiannual Report 2 (1959).

45 54 A.J.I.L. 742 (1960); Christenson, “The United States-Rumanian Claims Settlement Agreement of March 30, 1960,” 55 ibid. 617 (1961).

46 Letter of the Commission, Aug. 7, 1962, to which a list of large potential claims was attached. 108 Cong. Rec. 14838 (Aug. 8, 1962).

47 For a survey, see Hearings, note 28 above, p. 80.

48 60 Stat. 128; on the legislative history, see S. Eep. No. 1882, of Aug. 16, 1962, p. 2.

49 H.E. 11721; Pub. Law 616, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962).

50 Philippine War Damage Claims, Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on S. 2380 and S. 3329, of June 12 and 21, 1962 (63 pp.).

51 62 Stat. 1231 (1948), 50 TJ.S.C. App. $$ 1981-1987.

52 See Adjudications of the Attorney General of the United States, Volume I,Precedent Decisions under the Japanese-American Evacuation Claims Act 1950-1956 (400 pp., 1956).

53 H. Rep. No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960, p. 10; H. Eep. No. 2254, of Aug. 20, 1962.

54 Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, the Free Territory of Danzig, Estonia, Germany,Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Yugoslavia.

55 Between that date (Dec. 1, 1937) and Sept. 15, 1947, when the Peace Treaties of Feb. 12, 1947, entered into force (note 37 above), Eumania and Hungary had lost territories to the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. War damage claims emanating from sectors which were lost to those other countries are now allowable. 106 Cong. Eec. 4052 (March 1, 1960).

56 “Including territory to which Japan has renounced all rights, title, and claim under article 2 of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied Powers and Japan ” (46 A.J.I.L.Supp. 72 (1952)), especially Korea and Formosa, but excluding the Island of Guam.

57 During the European war beginning Sept. 1, 1939, and ending May 8, 1945, as to Germany; and from July 1, 1937, to Sept. 2, 1945, as to Japan.

58 Sec. 202(a).

59 Note 33 above.

60 Decree concerning the Administration of Enemy Property, Jan. 15, 1940, and Executive Decrees mentioned in Domke, Trading with the Enemy in World War II, p. 1, note 8 (1943). On the application of that German legislation to the property of American nationals, see Court of Appeals of Coblenz (Germany), June 17, 1952, Rechtsprechung zum Wiedergutmachungsrecht 1952, p. 249; Court of Appeals of Bremen, of Feb. 4, 1955, ibid. 1956, p. 8; and Sonnenberg v. U. S., 174 P. Supp. 674, aff'd., 268 E. 2d 537 (2d Cir., 1959).

61 Law No. 99 of Dec. 22, 1941, regarding the control of enemy assets and the appointment of administrators of enemy property, and implementing decrees, mentioned in Domke, The Control of Alien Property 6 (1947). On decisions of the United States- Japanese Property Commission, established under Art. 15a of the Peace Treaty with Japan, 46 A.J.I.L. Supp. 79 (1952), see 5 Japanese Annual of International Law 45-110 (1961), and Summers and Fraleigh, “The United States-Japanese Property Commission,” 56 A.J.I.L. 407 (1962).

62 Domke, note 60 above, p. 5, notes 26-31.

63 H. Rep. No. 2035, of July 25, 1962, p. 10.

64 During the period beginning Sept. 1, 1939, and ending Sept. 2, 1945. Sec. 202(b).

65 Note 63 above, p. 11.

66 See. 201(e).

67 Sec. 101(a) (22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163 (1952).

68 Persons who lost their American citizenship solely by reason of marriage to foreigners and reacquired citizenship before the date of enactment of the War Claims Act of 1962, will qualify as claimants if the sole bar to their rights arises out of their loss of citizenship due to their marriage. Sec. 204.

69 See memorandum of the State Department, dated Feb. 6, 1959, entitled “The Matter of Nationality with respect to International Claims,” in The International Claims Settlement Act, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations of May 29, 1959, p. 58, 53 A.J.I.L. 909 (1959); and van Panhuys, The Role of Nationality in International Law 86 (1959). Lillich, International Claims: Their Adjudication by National Commissions 76 (1962), and Lillich and Christenson, International Claims: Their Preparation and Presentation 8 (1962), offer abundant source material on the rule of continuity of nationality.

70 See memorandum of this writer in The International Claims Settlement Act, note 69 above, p. 31; War Claims and Enemy Property Legislation, Hearings (note 28 above) of Aug. 2 and 3, 1961, pp. 67, 136, 182; and 108 Cong. Rec. 14894 (Aug. 8, 1962): “The disposition of these assets is a matter of U. S. domestic policy, not an international question. ’ ‘

71 H.R. 3178, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., introduced Jan. 21, 1961; 108 Cong. Rec. App. 6184 (Aug. 14, 1962).

72 Note 31 above, p. 4.

73 108 Cong. Ree. 18124 (Sept. 12, 1962).

74 Senator Javits declared that legislation will be introduced in 1963 “to give these claimants at least a measure of justice.” 108 Cong. Rec. 21342 (Oct. 5, 1962). Representative Ryan introduced such a bill, H.R. 2687, 109 Cong. Rec. 898 (Jan. 24, 1963), and Senator Javits a similar bill, S. 987, 109 Cong. Rec. 3260 (March 4, 1963).

75 Sec. 204.

76 Sec.203.

77 Sec. 205(a).

78 For such participation of nationals, see note 66 above, and Domke, “On the Nationalization of Foreign Shareholders' Interests,” 4 New York Law Forum 46 (1958).

79 Sec. 205(b).

80 Sec. 205(c).

81 Sec. 205(d).

82 Sec. 206(b).

83 No. 2035, p. 13. The limitation to awards in excess of $10,000 eliminates the administrative burden that would otherwise be involved in numerous smaller claims.

84 Sec. 206(b). Such provision was necessary in view of the fact that the Internal Revenue Service endeavored to collect taxes on awards paid under the Japanese Evacuation Claims Act of 1948, note 51 above; see 108 Cong. Rec. 14835 (Aug. 8, 1962).

85 Sec. 209.

86 Among them a reserve of the book value of 100 million dollars of the vested shares of General Aniline & Film Corporation, the sale of which has meanwhile been authorized, note 113 below.

87 H. Rep. No. 2035, of July 25, 1962, p. 8; 108 Cong. Rec. 18089 (Sept. 12, 1962),

88 Sec. 208.

89 69 Stat. 562, Pub. Law 285, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955).

90 With the exception of claims against the Hungarian Government, against which no claims may be filed but, if previously awarded, may be re-certified by the Secretary of the Treasury, Sec. 209(b). Such payment will be confined to 40 percent of the awards, Sec. 213(a)(3). This compares somewhat with payments of 40 percent on awards against Rumania and 53 percent against Bulgaria. See H. Rep. No. 1279, of Feb. 18, 1960, p. 9.

91 Sec. 213(a)(1). There will be less than five million dollars involved in the small business claims. 108 Cong. Rec. 18115 (Sept. 12, 1962).

92 Sec. 213(a) (2 and 3), 213(b and c).

93 Sec. 215.

94 64 Stat. 12.

95 See Coerper, “The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and Judicial Review,” 50 A.J.I.L. 868 (1956).

96 DeVegvar v. Gillilland, 228 F.2d 640 (D.C. Cir., 1955), cert, den., 350 U. S. 994 (1956); Dayton v. Gillilland, 242 F.2d 227 (D.C. Cir., 1957), cert, den., 355 U. S. 813 (1957); Haas v. Humphrey, 246 F.2d 682 (D.C. Cir., 1957), cert, den., 355 IT. S. 854 (1957); American and European Agencies, Ine. v. Gillilland, 247 F.2d 95 (D.C. Cir.,1957) , cert, den., 355 U. S. 884 (1957); Zutich v. Gillilland, 254 F.2d 464 (6th Cir.,1958) ;First National City Bank of New York v. Gillilland, 257 F.2d 223 (D.C. Cir., 1958), cert, den., 358 U. S. 837 (1958).

97 Re, ‘ ‘ The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Its Function and Jurisdiction, ’ ’ 60 Michigan Law Rev. 1079, 1093 (1962).

98 See. 213(e).

99 Note 45 above.

100 55 A.J.I.L. 540 (1961); Rode, “The American-Polish Claims Agreement of 1960,” ibid. 452.

101 See editorial, ‘‘ Executive Agreements and Emanations from the Fifth Amendment, ” 49 A.J.I.L. 362 (1955), and § 218 of the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, American Law Institute, Proposed Official Draft (May 3, 1962), p. 729 (1962).

102 “(or such lesser per centum as may be fixed by the Commission with respect to any class of claims) ’ ’. Sec. 214.

103 By Sec. 2 of Pub. Law 322, of March 8, 1946, 60 Stat. 54.

104 See. 210.

105 The Commission recommended ‘ ‘ that all persons and organizations having a claim under the Act assemble the evidence necessary to support their claims.” Release of Nov. 2, 1962.

106 Sec. 211.

107 Sec. 204(a) of Title II of the War Claims Act, as now amending Sec. 32(h) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A. App. 32.

108 By Pub. Law 671, 79th Cong., 60 Stat. 50 (1946), amending Sec.32(h)of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

109 On the interpretation of this statutory provision by administrative decisions of the Office of Alien Property, see Schilling v. Bogers, 363 U. S. 666 (1960).

110 By Exec. Order No. 10587, of Jan. 13, 1955, pursuant to Pub. Law 626 of Aug.23, 1954, 68 Stat. 767.

111 H. Bep. No. 1233, of Feb. 1, 1960, p. 2. Disposition of heirless property in Swiss banks, mostly in numbered accounts and originating likewise from victims of Nazi persecution, had been contemplated by the Swiss legislature. 8 Aussenwirtsehaftsdienst 299 (1962).

112 Cf. Art. 8 of the Paris Eeparation Agreement of Jan. 10, 1946 (note 6 above): “allocation of a reparation share to nonpatriable victims of German action,” and Art. 5(2) of the London Agreement on German External Debts, of Feb. 27, 1953, T.I.A.S., No. 2792.

113 Sec. 203 of Title II of the War Claims Act of 1962.

114 Ibid.

115 Under Sec.1346, Title 28, U. S. Code.

116 “Vesting Order No. 4, 7 Fed. Eeg. 2922 (1943).

117 For a summary of litigation, see H. Eep. No. 2046, of July 26, 1962, p. 4; 108 Cong. Eec. 14972 (Aug. 9, 1962); see also Mason, “The General Aniline and Film Co. Case,” 1958 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 114.

118 The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the case, Sociét#x00E9; Internationale etc. v.Eogers, 357 U. S. 197 (1958), 53 A.J.I.L. 177 (1959), and remanded it to the U. S.District Court, Dist. Col., for further proceedings. See Annual Report, Office of Alien Property, Department of Justice, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1961, p. 8.

119 [1959] I.C.J. Bep. 6; 53 A.J.I.L. 671 (1959). See Briggs, “Interhandel: The Court's Judgment of March 21, 1959, on the Preliminary Objections of the United States,” 53 A.J.I.L. 547 (1959); Jacoby, “Towards the Eule of Law?” 52 ibid. 107 (1958). The case has meanwhile been settled. Associated Press release of March 4, 1963.

120 Amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 2171, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 107-118 (1953).

121 War Claims and Enemy Property Legislation, Hearings before a House Sub committee of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 571-581 (1959).

122 See note 30 above.

123 108 Cong. Eec. 15289 (Aug. 13, 1962).

124 ibid. 14973 (Aug. 9, 1962), and 18095 (Sept. 12, 1962).

125 Sec. 205 of Title II of the War Claims Act of 1962.

126 iS. 291 and S. 495, 87th Cong., 1st Sess.; S. Rep. No. 1062, of Sept. 15, 1961, p. 8.

127 “Murder, ill treatment, or deportation for slave labor of prisoners of war, political opponents, hostages, or civilian population in occupied territories, or of murder or ill treatment of military or naval persons, or of plunder or wanton destruction without justified military necessity.” Sec. 40(b) of the (new) Sec. 40 of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

128 This provision concerning German and Japanese nationals is somewhat different from Sec. 208 on the exclusion of certain American claimants.

129 108 Cong. Rec. 18122 (Sept. 12, 1962).

130 “including any increase thereof,” S. 291 and S. 495, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961).

131 The cut-off date (of Dec. 31, 1961) for the collection of income from estates and trusts was justified in that “with the passing years, the expense of collecting income and preserving remainder interest will become disproportionally large in relation to the volume of the property to be taken in.” Letter of the Department of Justice, note 129 above.

132 Domke, American-German Private Law Relations, Cases 1945-1955, p. 11 (1956).

133 St. Louis Trust Company v. Herf, 235 S.W.2d 241 (Mo., 1950); Estate of Stagnaro, 107 Cal. App. 2d 98 (1951); Harvard Trust Company v. Attorney General of the United States, 329 Mass. 79 (1952); National Savings and Trust Company v. Brownell, 222 F.2d 395 (D.C. Cir., 1955), cert, den., 349 U. S. 955 (1955); Brownell v. Union & New Haven Trust Company, 143 Conn. 662 (1956) ; Orme v. Northern Trust Company, 410 I11. 354, cert. den. sub nomine Hardenberg v. McGrath, 343 U. S. 921 (1952), 25 I11.2d 151, 183 N.E.2d 505 (1962), cert, den., 371 U. S. 935 (Dec. 10, 1962).

134 Another bill, H.E. 1185, introduced on Jan. 3, 1961, provided that property to be received prior to December 7, 1941, from a trust fund established by Americans, should be returned to the “grantor of such trusts or his legal representative or successor in interest by inheritance, devise, bequest or operation of law.” All government departments commented unfavorably on this bill, as conflicting with any rights which former owners or other beneficiaries may have. Said the Department of Justice: “In some instances the provision for payment to successors in interest to a deceased grantor may mean conferring a benefit on heirs of the grantor who were, by the latter's express wish, exeluded from participating in the trust.” Letter of Aug. 21, 1961, in War Claims and Enemy Property Legislation, Hearings, note 28 above, p. 18 (1961).

135 “ ‘Payable’ means that the debt is payable at once, as opposed to ‘owing’.” Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1285 (4th ed., 1951).

136 Sec. 40(c) of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

137 Eeport, note 126 above, p. 9.

138 Sec. 41(a) provides for proceedings before the Court of Claims on certain claims arising out of the vesting of shares of General Dyestuff Corporation, whose American owners were considered to be cloaks for German nationals. S. Eep. No. 1062, of Sept. 15, 1961, p. 8; H. Eep. No. 2513, of Oct. 2, 1962, p. 5. See Duisberg v. U. S., 89 P. Supp. 1019 (Ct. of Claims, 1950), and Halbach v. Markham, 106 P. Supp. 475 (N.J., 1952), aff'd., 207 F.2d 503 (3rd Cir., 1953), cert, den., 347 U. S. 933 (1954).

139 Report, note 126 above, p. 15.

140 Firms in the Eastern Zone of Germany are not excluded from the divestment of copyrights, other than that of trademarks, note 143 below, but most of the former owners of such copyrights are now residing in West Germany.

141 An Act to amend the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, Pub. Law 87-861, of Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1139.

142 Ibid.

143 Sec. 42 (d) of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

144 Ibid. Cf. Eogers v. Ercona Camera Corporation, 246 F.2d 675 (D.C. Cir., 1960), and the Zeiss judgments of the West German Federal Supreme Court of July 25, 1957, 53 A.J.I.L. 687 (1959); Feb. 6, 1959, Sammlung der deutschen Entscheidungen zum interzonalen Privatrecht 1958-1959, No. 140, pp. 400-413 (1962); and June 30, 1961, 17 Juristenzeitung 412 (1962).

145 Eeport, note 126 above, p. 15.

146 Re, “The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and International Claims,” IS Syracuse Law Rev. 516 (1962); “The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission: Its Function and Jurisdiction,” 60 Michigan Law Rev. 1079 (1962); “The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and the Adjudication of International Claims,” 56 A.J.I.L. 728 (1962).

147 Semiannual Reports have been submitted to Congress, the tenth (1959) and the fourteenth (1961) covering not less than 280 and 209 pages respectively, with detailed indices to the questions dealt with in Proposed Decisions, Panel Opinions and Pilot Decisions on various claims.

148 Settlement of Claims by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States and Its Predecessors, from September 14, 1949 to March 31, 1955 (696 pp., 1955).