Mr. DUNN. Exactly-the progressive appropriations, as the matters would be determined. I have written out a short statement in effect, to cover this point, if I may put it in the record.

Senator THOMAS ot Utah. We shall be glad to have it.
(The statement referred to is in the appendix, exhibit D.)

Mr. DUNN. My point is this: In my experience in other matters-I am just going to touch on two points that have been raised by others. As I say, I represent no claims here at all except Parker. We have other business, and I am representing him as my friend, but my experience in relation to the settlement of claims under the Dent Act, sections 1 to 4, dealing with the legalizing of informal contracts entered into during the last war by the Secretary of War, and section 5, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to pay net losses in respect to war minerals matters, have given, I think, something in the nature of models that not only this committee but other committees perhaps when they meet in the future or near future may consider in relation to matters of adjustment of claims.

We and that in the settlements by the War Department something over $3,000,000,000 was settled within 2 years after the end of the last That was, in effect, a one-man commission in form; that is to say, the officers in charge of the army post.

war.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Was that all done under the War Contracts Adjustment Board?

Mr. DUNN. No, sir.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Or did the War Department just pay claim it thought was due?

Mr. DUNN. No. The War Department had authority to validate the informal contracts. The provision of the law provided that claimants could appeal to the Court of Claims for adjustments, for interpretations of the law, on questions in which they felt aggrieved, and also some matters went to the Supreme Court. War Department matters were settled very quickly; I believe that some 1,600 public accountants or firms of accountants and lawyers throughout the country were employed, and the matters were handled most expeditiously, and, of course, the commanders of the various posts would determine, and in the event of their decisions not being approved by the contractor, he appealed from the War Department to the Court of Claims and to the Supreme Court, but that was a matter that was handled in some 2 years.

Of course there was some activity on the other matter, under the Dent Act. Anyhow, the Secretary of the Interior, in charge of the war minerals claims, had a commission of three men, two of whom were learned in the law; I understand the other was an engineer. They laid the foundation for satisfactory adjustments of claims, but evolved the wrong policy for the adjustment, in my judgment, and Congress was bedeviled by a series of amendments and finally the matters were settled only last year.

I am confident of this fact, that the one-man commission gave the best results, he in turn being supported by adequate and proper examiners, so I would suggest insofar as I may, for the future business here, Mr. Chairman, that a one-man commission should be appointed to handle this whole matter-a high-grade man. He in turn would have one, two, or three assistant commissioners, say one man a lawyer,

another an engineer, another an economist. In turn they would have adequate and proper examiners.

On the question of the appraisals by Mr. Underwood, I may say that unlike other speakers I know Mr. Underwood, and I am confident that any judgment which he would form, any appraisal that he would make, would be based on the record, and the records I understand of special claims were fully completed before they ever came to him, and if anything you will find that his judgment on them, even though he had only three men to help him-which was a surprising fact-I think you will find the work has been very adequately and very thoroughly done. Oscar Underwood has the character and the talent of his heritage.

As to whether the appraisals should be adopted as proposed in the bill, I should say that they should not. I should say that they should be, in the statement of Mr. Walton, in the nature of prima facie awards or appraisals, against which claimants would have the right of appeal say within 30 or 60 days, and thereafter the appeal should be determined.

As I understand the position-and I stand corrected by you gentlemen who know the record-it is a fact, is it not, that all of the records in all these claims have been thoroughly documented in the past, from the nature of the facts submitted and the law determined by examiners, and all that remains is for one man to pass on them? Mr. WOOLSEY. Not entirely.

General BETHEL. Not entirely. That is approximately right.

Mr. DUNN. But that being so then it is reasonable and proper to give notice of the form adopted say by the Special Claims Commission, and that the claimants would have a right of appeal particularly on the questions of law.

I do not have anything else to say, Mr. Chairman.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Thank you very much.
We will stand in recess until Friday at 10:30.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed until next Friday, July 10, 1942, at 10:30 a. m.)

CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AGAINST MEXICO

FRIDAY, JULY 10, 1942

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The recess having expired, the subcommittee met again at 10:30 a. m., in the committee room in the Capitol, Senator Elbert D. Thomas, chairman, presiding.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. The committee will be in order.

STATEMENT OF GEN. W. A. BETHEL

Senator THOMAS of Utah. General Bethel, for the record, if you will, give your name and address, please.

General BETHEL. W. A. Bethel, 6507 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase, Md.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Proceed.

General BETHEL. Mr. Chairman, I am an attorney for one claimant, but I should have a much broader interest in the success of these arbitrations than that. Under an appointment from the Secretary of State I was counsel for our Government for 5 years, 1926-31, before the Commission, in the matter of these Mexican claims, and I collected the evidence and developed a considerable number among the claims that are now under consideration-probably some 40, 50, or 60. Also, I prosecuted some claims before the Commission when it was in session. I have shared the discouragement that has been pretty general with the lack of progress that has been made in these arbitrations, and I have observed the great impatience that has grown up among all people interested, not only the claimants themselves but others, and I feel that that impatience has at last pervaded the very offices of the Government and that this bill, which I consider rather remarkable, is the result of that impatience.

Now those who criticize what has taken place thus far do not realize the difficulties that have been encountered. The State Department has encountered obstacles for the last 20 or more years in its negotiations with Mexico, and I want to say now that I think the State Department is to be very highly commended for its efforts and accomplishments in the matter resulting in the treaty of November 1941. I, of course, do not concur in the recommendations the Department of State has recently made, and that is the matter, of course, which we are at present opposing.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. By "those recommendations" you mean you do not concur in the bill?

General BETHEL. The recommendations for the enactment of this bill, which resulted in its being offered in the Senate and House and is now before those bodies. Not only the Department of State has encountered great difficulties but the Commission itself and the agency, the staff of lawyers that was set up to represent the interests of the United States have, also. I can speak very feelingly on this subject because I was one of them for a number of years.

It probably is not generally realized how great an arbitration, or arbitrations, these are. These two treaties cover more claims and relate to more claims than any other treaties I think that we have ever had by several times with the exception of the treaty covering German claims after the last war. The general claims include all those arising since the year 1868, in which the last Mexican claims treaty was made, setting up a commission which sat for several years and disposed of the cases up to that time.

It is natural therefore that there should be a large number of claims back and forth between the two countries in that long period of 60 years.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. General, tell me about the commission in 1868.

General BETHEL. I think it settled about a thousand claims. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Running back how far-back to the Mexican War?

General BETHEL. Back to probably 1840.

Mr. NIELSON. 1841.

Mr. WOOLSEY. 1939.

General BETHEL. 1839.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is, they took claims even prior to the Mexican War, then?

General BETHEL. Yes, sir. I believe there had been set up some sort of organization to try claims about 1839, and the matter was interrupted by the Mexican War, but I think those earlier claims then were settled by the treaty and a domestic commission that was set up. I am speaking from memory, Mr. Chairman. I do not claim to be accurate. But the arbitration under the treaty of 1868 I think was quite satisfactory in its results.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Did the arbitration of 1868 result in setting down any precedents which were followed as guides in 1923? General BETHEL. Yes; oh, yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is, which influenced the whole scheme?

General BETHEL. Yes.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Were there any disputes between the United States and Mexico earlier than that time that resulted in any commission, that you know of?

General BETHEL. There was a commission established I think in about 1839; was there not?

Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes.

General BETHEL. But it had not gotten very far until war broke out. Senator, the decisions of arbitral tribunals constitute you might say a system of arbitral law, and those decisions are considered very important and are cited from time to time as precedents, and we have an international lawyer in this country, Mr. John Bassett Moore, who has written a work, of a number of volumes, setting forth the substance of