Mr. ROBISON. You are asking me to decide the pending litigation and I have my own personal feeling about who is right and who is wrong in that litigation, and I would rather not get into that unless you wish me to. I have no great feeling of sympathy for the socalled Swiss claim in this lawsuit.

Senator JOHNSTON. As to this action there is a legal question involved as to the title.

Mr. ROBISON. Yes sir.

Senator JOHNSTON. Did you ever try to sell any property at public auction when the title to the property was in dispute? Did you ever try to sell such property?

Mr. ROBISON. No I haven't personally, but I think it can be done by court order.

Senator JOHNSTON. What is that?

Mr. ROBISON. I think it can be done by court order.

Senator JOHNSTON. Doesn't that throw a cloud upon the title and the people purchasing it usually do not give anything like the amount they would give if there was not any cloud?

Mr. ROBISON. Depending on the background of the case and the conditions under which it could be sold, my opinion would be that the sale proceeds would not differ.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you know anyone that is anxious to buy GAF at the present time and have offered a big price for it? Mr. ROBISON. Only what I read in the newspapers.

Senator JOHNSTON. They must think that it is a pretty good thing then?

Mr. ROBISON. I think so too.

Senator JOHNSTON. I think so too. Somebody is trying to get hold of it.

Mr. ROBISON. May I say this, Senator?

Senator JOHNSTON. I am speaking frankly.

Mr. ROBISON. May I speak frankly to you, sir? I am not interested in who buys this, but in the fact that there are 8,000 American citizens who are interested in this and this industry who have been working and have been hampered by having to work under a trustee and I want to see these people free from that so that they can go on in an American free competitive way, in the only competitive way we understand.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you think the people who are running it now are not competent?

Mr. ROBISON. No, I think they are extremely competent but the situation is that the Government must consider its directorship control of this corporation as something of a trusteeship, and in the type of competition like we have nowadays in the camera and film field, that has a very hampering effect on the growth potential of this business.

Senator JOHNSTON. Are there any questions?

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Robison, we have certain assets, principally the General Aniline Corp., which are subject to litigation. As I understand your bill, H.R. 1345, and its companion measures, you would authorize the disposal of that property and similar vested assets by sale, with the proceeds of any such sale to be held in trust so that the

present litigants would not be deprived of a possible recovery if they are able to prove their ownership of the original asset.

Mr. ROBISON. That is the intention of this portion of the bill. Mr. TAWNEY. You are simply proposing to transfer the existing asset into another form of an asset; isn't that correct?

Mr. ROBISON. That is correct, sir, and it seems to me, and again this is a matter of opinion and judgment, that this is a very good time to have this sale so that the litigants would have now perhaps the best chance of having a good amount set aside in trust for their eventual, that eventually would be turned over to them should the entry and final judgment in the suit indicate that that is the course of action.

Mr. TAWNEY. So that actually the enactment of the bill would not deprive the present claimants of any rights as long as they can establish their ownership of the property.

Mr. ROBISON. No, it would not.

Mr. TAWNEY. It would only alter the form of recovery rather than the recovery itself, isn't that about a correct analysis of it?

Mr. ROBISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOOD. Do you know of any litigant that would pay as much for a piece of property, whether it is a business, real estate, or personal property where the title to it was in litigation and unsettled as he would pay for it if the seller could assure him a perfect title? Do you know of anyone?

Mr. ROBISON. This raises an interesting question. I would have to agree I do not in the way in which you say it, but I don't think it would have an effect on the matter here.

Mr. WOOD. How can I phrase a question that would get the correct answer when it is agreed that there is litigation not only in the U.S. Federal courts but in the International Court of Justice over the title to property, two courts, one domestic and the other international, where the very question to the title of the asset is the issue in the case as to whether the Swiss owned it or the Germans owned it? Do you know of anybody that would buy that property and pay the amount for it that it is worth with the title still in dispute in these two separate jurisdictions?

Mr. ROBISON. Even in the way in which you phrase your question I would have to say that in this case I don't think it would have any effect. I recognize the problem of litigation.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you happen to know what percent of stock is owned by Americans?

Mr. ROBISON. Approximately 2 percent or 3 percent. It is a small

amount.

Senator JOHNSTON. Very small amount.

Mr. ROBISON. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is the figure that we find.

Mr. TAWNEY. I call your attention to page 3 of the bill that you have before you, S. 1103 which says:

An order for the payment of just compensation hereunder shall be a judgment against the United States and shall be payable first from the net proceeds of the sale in an amount not to exceed the amount the claimant would have received had he elected to accept his proportionate part of the net proceeds of the sale and the balance, if any, shall be payable in the same manner as are judgments in cases arising under section 1346 of title 28, United States Code.

In other words, if the property were to be sold at a lower price the claimant in this case, who I understand would be certain Swiss interests who would receive the proceeds of the sale and could then proceed as if they had a judgment against the United States for the unpaid part of their claim so that ultimately it looks to me like they would get a full recovery regardless of the sale price.

Mr. Wood. And in the event that they interpret that, in the event the courts decide that it belonged to the United States and there was a sale at a sacrifice price, then the United States would lose because the United States would not have to reimburse itself under the proposition as enumerated by my friend and associate counsel here. Would that not be a fact?

Mr. ROBISON. I would assume it would.

Mr. TAWNEY. Yes.

Mr. ROBISON. I would like to confirm your statement as agreeing with my understanding of the bill.

Mr. TAWNEY. Thank you.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you know of any German national who has claimed any stock in General Aniline?

Mr. ROBISON. Not personally.

Senator JOHNSTON. If they don't and it is seized, how does it fall under the heading of the enemy assets? That is the serious question that I am faced with.

Mr. ROBISON. You are asking me what is the position of the U.S. Government in the pending litigation. It has always been that Interhandel was merely a cloak for the true German interests. This is something we have never been able to prove because the records of ownership, through the Swiss, by virtue of the Swiss laws, are not available to our country.

Senator JOHNSTON. That is because of the system, the way they keep the accounts in the Swiss banks.

Mr. ROBISON. Yes sir.

Senator JOHNSTON. I have been over there and checked that and the courts over here did not say it was or was not, but they said when you bring in the records and prove that then you can have it. That is the position they are in. I think that is true.

Mr. ROBISON. I have often thought if they had the proof the other way it would be very easy for them to bring it in. It would be one way to resolve it. There are benefits on both sides of this situation.

Senator JOHNSTON. That shows how complicated this is.

Mr. ROBISON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TAWNEY. That seems to be the whole difficulty in this case; namely, that the Swiss refused to divulge—and they say under their laws they cannot divulge-the ownership of the asset here involved so that this is a very difficult problem.

Senator JOHNSTON. Mr. Tawney, do you have any further questions?

Mr. TAWNEY. May I ask one further question?

Senator JOHNSTON. Yes.

Mr. TAWNEY. Mr. Robison, wouldn't the net effect of the enactment of your bill, or its companion bill S. 1103, relieve the United

States of the administrative expenses and costs of the operation of this corporation?

Mr. ROBISON. Yes, it would.

Mr. TAWNEY. It would put us out of that business.

Mr. ROBISON. It would take us out of this business, and I think it is time we are out of it.

Mr. Woood. Is not the corporation (GAF) now paying the costs of the administrative expenses?

Mr. ROBISON. Oh yes.

Mr. Wood. And it is not costing the United States anything by our holding it in the way of any direct appropriation?

Mr. ROBISON. That may be true but we still have to have the Office of the Alien Custodian, Alien Property Custodian to supervise this activity. We can terminate that.

Mr. WOOD. We can terminate it, but that Bureau isn't costing us anything.

Mr. ROBISON. I don't know how the bookkeeping goes, but we pay the salaries.

Mr. WOOD. We pay it out of vested assets. We have paid more than $55 million and it so appears in Senator Johnston's statement this morning. We want to terminate that office too.

Senator JOHNSTON. I understand Mr. Eisenberg, assistant to Senator Keating, wants to ask a question.

Mr. MILTON EISENBERG. I want to express Senator Keating's regrets at not being here. He was detained on the floor of the Senate. I know he wanted to state on the record his own appreciation of the invitation to be heard on behalf of the people who reside in his district and work in the General Aniline & Film Corp. plants in that area, and to express his appreciation for the support of this bill this afternoon.

Mr. ROBISON. Thank you.

Mr. TAWNEY. I am sure Senator Dirksen would associate himself with that statement.

Senator JOHNSTON. We are certainly glad to have had you with us this morning, Congressman Robison.

Mr. WOOD. At this point, Mr. Chairman, at the request of Senator Dirksen, I ask that a copy of a press release of the Department of Justice dated March 31, 1959 be inserted in the record. On that very same date the Attorney General replied in the form of a press release to a communication which you wrote dated the 23d of March. The subject matter of a possible sale of General Aniline & Film Corp. is being discussed and I want to call to your attention, for the purpose of the record, that you requested that there be a public auction of this property under the provisions of section 12 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, and that the Department of Justice insists that a sale by sealed bids opened publicly is embraced within the provisions of section 12 which provides for a public sale to the highest bidder. Mr. Chairman, you engaged in some correspondence about that same time or maybe a few days thereafter with the Department of Justice and with the State Department in reference to this same subject matter and I ask that this correspondence be inserted at this point for the elaboration of this record.

Senator JOHNSTON. I think the letter that brought that forth and the further matter should be put into the record.

Mr. Wood. As soon as I get an opportunity to get it I will give it to the reporter at this point.

Senator JOHNSTON. All right.

(Press release, Department of Justice and other material follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(For immediate release, Tuesday, March 31, 1959)

The Department of Justice made public today an exchange of letters between Attorney General William P. Rogers and Senator Olin D. Johnston of South Carolina relating to suggested procedures for the sale of General Aniline & Film Corp.

Senator Johnston wrote as follows:

Hon. WILLIAM P. ROGERS,

The Attorney General of the United States,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

MARCH 23, 1959.

MY DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The subcommittee and I have received several inquiries in reference to a sale of General Aniline & Film Corp. This asset being the largest of all the vested properties, I urge that great care be taken in the preparation of the prospectus and advertisements for its sale. I further urge that this asset be sold at public auction with provision for each competitive bidder to increase his offer during the auction of this property. Such provision will eliminate future complaints or criticism that favoritism existed or that the asset was sold for less than its true value. This view seems

to me to be within the letter and spirit of section 12 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended. A private or negotiated sale of this asset should be prohibited.

I am of the firm opinion that every prospective bidder should have access to all the pertinent facts concerning the administration of this vested asset, its potentials and its current value at the time of the sale.

Please furnish me at the appropriate time with copies of all advertisements, prospectus, etc.

With kind regards, I remain.

Sincerely yours,

The Attorney General's reply:

Hon. OLIN D. JOHNSTON,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

OLIN D. JOHNSTON, Chairman.

MARCH 31, 1959.

DEAR SENATOR: This will acknowledge your letter of March 23 advising that you have received inquiries with respect to a possible sale of General Aniline & Film Corp.

As you know, section 9 of the Trading With the Enemy Act prohibits the sale of vested property while a suit for return is pending and such a suit is now pending in the District Court for the District of Columbia (I. G. Chemie v. Rogers). In view of the pendency of this litigation there is no present prospect of a sale of the vested shares unless the Congress should enact into law one of the various pending bills which would amend section 9 to permit the sale of vested property despite the pendency of the suit for return or unless the litigation is dismissed or settled. The Department of Justice has supported bills to enable the United States to sell the stock it now holds and to hold sufficient proceeds to pay off any claims.

I have stated on numerous public occasions, and I am happy to repeat it again, this property, when and if sold, will be offered at public sale to the highest bidder after full and adequate public advertisement.

The procedure which will be followed is set forth in section 12 of the Trading With the Enemy Act and by section 501.25 of the Regulations of the Office of Alien Property (8 CFR 501.25). Every prospective bidder, of course, would have access to pertinent facts concerning the vested asset, business secrets excepted, and such information will be disclosed in the prospectus and