STATEMENT OF LESTER H. WOOLSEY, LAWYER, Senator THOMAS of Utah. For the record, Mr. Woolsey, if you will state your name, your position, what you represent, and then if you will summarize your answers to these questions in a paragraph so that the record will show what you are a representative of, I would appreciate it. Mr. WOOLSEY. My name is L. H. Woolsey, attorney, 726 Jackson Place; representing claimants who are interested in the pending bill in all of the categories; that is, in the classes of general claims, late special claims, old special claims, and agrarian claims. I have here, Senator, amendments to the pending bill. There are two chief amendments, but they are both incorporated in this onenamely, insert pages 3A, 4A, 4B, and 4C. This amendment is aimed to cure what I think are two very serious defects in the bill. The first is the freezing of the appraisals of Mr. Underwood and of Mr. Lawson; the American Commissioner of the General Claims, and the American Commissioner of the Agrarian Claims, respectively. That is done in section 3 of the bill. The second, the setting up in section 5 of a single commissioner to adjudicate the remaining general claims, and in section 10 of a single Commissioner to adjudicate the remaining special claims. Our plan as set forth in the amendment here is to substitute in place of those sections a plan which is patterned after the act of 1935 which established the Special Mexican Claims Commission, which operated I believe so well. It was composed of three men learned in the law; they did their job in a short time, covering 2,833 claims; and I think claimants have been as well satisfied as any claimant could be after losing 43 percent of his claim on account of the small size of the fund. We have used that as I say as a pattern for this amendment, and in substance it proposes to establish again a 3-man commission composed of three men learned in the law, to be appointed by the President, and that commission "shall have jurisdiction to examine and decide on their merits as herein provided," I am now reading from the amendment, "all claims of American nationals against the Republic of Mexico, not heretofore decided as provided in section 3, which fall within" certain categories, and those categories are aimed to cover all of the remaining unadjudicated claims. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Within the treaty bounds only? You have not gone outside the treaty bounds, have you? Because there are still claims outstanding against Mexico that are not covered by the treaty. Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes-within the treaty bounds. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Within the treaty? Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes, except these claims that were not filed on time. I have included those. Senator THOMAS of Utah. By the "treaty bounds" I mean, for instance that the treaty definitely leaves the oil claims out-the expropriations? Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes; all those treaty exceptions are left out. Senator THOMAS of Utah. What you mean is, it would alter some claims that have not been filed, that are in the categories mentioned here? Mr. WOOLSEY. Well, the treaty exceptions are not included in the categories in the bill, but the unfiled claims are. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Are they within the categories of the treaty? Mr. WOOLSEY. I cannot answer that exactly, Senator. Senator THOMAS of Utah. You would not suggest a law that would go outside the bounds of the treaty, would you? Mr. WOOLSEY. No, I would not; I would keep entirely within the treaty if possible, at the same time not cutting out any claims on which there might be some doubt as to whether they are included in the treaty or not. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Let me get the complete understanding of this. It seems to me that the amount of money decided upon must bave come as the result of an understanding that only certain claims would be included. Now, if you go outside the treaty and allow certain other claims to come into this picture you are doing an injustice to the group of claimants that were theoretically covered, in the minds at least of those who were negotiating the treaty. Mr. WOOLSEY. I do not want a misconception. Senator THOMAS of Utah. For instance, you say you have a claim for $20,000,000, that is a good, valid, and fine claim, but outside, and you allow it to come into the en bloc treaty; you take away half the money. That would not be fair to anybody, would it? Mr. WOOLSEY. No; I agree with that entirely, Senator, and I want to say here that I do not represent any such claims that I am trying to get in. Senator THOMAS of Utah. I am interested in that because you used the word "possible." Mr. WOOLSEY. Well, take for example the class of claims that Mr. English mentioned yesterday.. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Mr. McDonald is trying to help you I think, Mr. Woolsey. Mr. McDONALD. Speaking on that, I want to refer to the report of the Special Mexican Claims Commission. It shows that 11 claims which were not included within the lump-sum settlement were brought within the settlement by the Commission because of the fact that they were not presented by the agency of the United States to the Special Claims Commission in time to be formally filed; in other words, where there was an error in the filing a mistake on the part of the agencythe Commission allowed those claims to be brought within the lumpsum settlement, and that was specifically provided for in the Special Claims Act. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is all right, but they were within the category of special claims, were they not? Mr. McDONALD. Oh, yes; they were special claims, but not counted. Senator THOMAS of Utah. The two points we are talking about, the categories within the treaty, is the thing that you started first; then if you bring something without the treaty you may do violent injustice to the treaty claimants. Mr. McDONALD. Yes. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Now, if those 11 claims were definitely within a special claim classification, that is one thing; if they were outside, why, I think that they were improperly taken in. Mr. McDONALD. I believe that I can answer that. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Well, you do not have to answer it, I merely make the point. Mr. McDONALD. No-explain it. In that, the special claims lump sum was founded upon a certain percentage of a face amount. These 11 were not included within the face amount. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes; that would affect one issue, but still they did not go into the oil claims or they did not go into the railway claims? Mr. McDONALD. Oh, no. Mr. WOOLSEY. No. Senator THOMAS of Utah. They were definitely claims that were in the minds of the negotiators of this treaty. Mr. McDONALD. And should have been filed. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Yes; that is all right. Mr. WOOLSEY. Those are the categories I mean, too, Senator. I have not gone outside the treaty in that sense. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Well, we would have to consider a claim of that kind on the basis of its value and its worth, to get into the point as to whether it should come into a financial arrangement that has already been understood. But you can say that you will not go outside the treaty categories? Mr. WOOLSEY. No; I do not say that, Senator, because I think there is a question about that, and it is the same question which Mr. English raised yesterday, and which I think you questioned him about. That is the category of claims which arose after March 1, 1914. That is covered on the top of page 4A: Claims which arose after March 1, 1924, the date of the exchange of ratifications of the Convention of September 8, 1923, and notices of which were not filed with the General Claims Commission prior to August 30, 1927. Now I understood Mr. English to say yesterday that there was a class of claims which Mexico refused to pay for and refused to have included, and that was the same, exactly analogous with the class of claims which Mr. McDonald has mentioned, which were not filed but were good claims, I have no doubt. That is, I mean it was correct to have them considered and adjudicated. I have no interest in any of those claims. Now it says here in the treaty: All claims filed by the Governments of the United States and of the United Mexican States with the General Claims Commission. Those were not filed, Senator, and therefore we may say they are not exactly within the terms of that treaty, yet I understand this treaty to be a complete settlement and liquidation and satisfaction of all claims against Mexico by American nationals up to a certain date, so in that sense they are included. Senator THOMAS of Utah. There are two points. It would settle all the claims that anybody might bring against Mexico. Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That would be one thing. But when once we set up some kind of tribunal, the claim then is against Amèrica, isn't it? Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes. Senator THOMAS of Utah. Against our own country? Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes. Senator THOMAS of Utah. And it is in that range only that you expect to move? Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes; exactly. Senator THOMAS of Utah. That is another point. Mr. WOOLSEY. This amendment, as I say, proposes to establish a 3-man commission with jurisdiction to handle all unsettled claims; all claims that are mentioned in article I, all other claims against Mexico which have not been filed, as I have stated, in time, which through inadvertence were not filed. Now, I will take up each category here to discuss that if you wish. These are the categories that indicate the jurisdiction of this commission. We have tried to condense it into one paragraph, as Mr. Nielsen did, but we found it impossible to do so because of these odds and ends of claims that have somehow dropped into the crack and have not been considered by any commission heretofore. Now, it is, of course, a question whether you wish to consider them or not. It does not make me any difference; personally I am not interested, because the claims that I represent-and I think that is true of the rest of usare within the treaty. But to get a complete adjudication of all pending claims it is necessary to go into those or there will not be a complete adjudication of all claims pending against Mexico, if the claimants are not able to have a day in court. Now the first paragraph here is paragraph 1, under these categories: (Page 3A of Insert.) (1) Claims filed by the United States with the General Claims Commission established in accordance with the Convention signed September 8, 1923, including any claims decided by said General Claims Commission or its extensions in which the United States filed a petition for rehearing. Now that includes all the claims mentioned in paragraph (a) of article I of the Convention. It also includes some claims in which the United States Government filed a petition for rehearing before the General Claims Commission, and that petition was never acted on. There were serious and important grounds for filing such a petition for rehearing. One particular claim that is included there-and there are only-I think perhaps two or three others—the claim was thrown out on the ground of the calvo clause. What is that? Senator THOMAS of Utah. Mr. WOOLSEY. The calvo clause is a clause that Latin American countries like to write into contracts between foreigners and the government, whereby the foreigner agrees to submit all questions to the local courts before he can take any diplomatic action or ask his government to interfere diplomatically. For the first time in this arbitration that question was decided adversely to the United States, and the claim thrown out on that technicality. Now I regard that as a technicality. I do not know if it is true, but I have reason to believe that Commissioner Underwood in his appraisals did not take that view, that he did not throw out claims because of the calvo clause, and so unless you put this in you have a decision by the General Commission throwing out a claim on account of the calvo clause, and if you freeze these appraisals of Underwood you have claims retained without regard to the calvo clause. Now I think as between those two groups there is an injustice, Mr: Chairman. Senator THOMAS of Utah. We will meet tomorrow morning at 10:30. (Whereupon, at 12 m., the committee recessed until tomorrow, Thursday, July 2, 1942, at 10:30 a. m.) CLAIMS OF AMERICAN NATIONALS AGAINST MEXICO THURSDAY, JULY 2, 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. Present: Senators Elbert D. Thomas (chairman) and White. STATEMENT OF LESTER H. WOOLSEY, ATTORNEY-Resumed Senator THOMAS of Utah. The committee will please be in order, and Mr. Woolsey will continue. You are on page 3A? Mr. WOOLSEY. I was on page 3A. I have made a note here, Mr. Chairman, to add a little to my preliminary statement. As I said, this amendment that we are proposing is a joint effort. Now we, the attorneys who worked on this, have conflicting interests among ourselves, and in order to get to an agreement we had eventually to draft a bill on the basis of principle and impartiality, and, as nearly as we could, to disassociate ourselves. This we have conscientiously tried to do, giving no one class of claims an advantage over another, so far as we can see. It is a concerted effort to give every claimant a day in court, to clean up all left-overs, and to finish the job in the shortest possible time in our opinion. Senator THOMAS of Utah. You think that this projected draft of yours will do that? Mr. McDONALD. Yes, sir. Mr. WOOLSEY. Yes, sir; we believe so. I was considering on page 3A of the insert the categories that give jurisdiction to the proposed three-man commission, and I was discussing the addition there. I was discussing paragraph (1), claims filed by the United States with the General Claims Commission established in accordance with the convention signed September 8, 1923; that is, the General Claims Convention; including any claims decided by said General Claims Convention or its extensions, in which the United States filed a petition for rehearing. I was discussing that, and I want to finish that up now. The first part of this is the same as the 1941 convention, article I. None of this paragraph is outside the convention in any way. The clause at the end relates to the Calvo clause question. None of this paragraph (1) is in the Department's bill, because these claims are to be frozen under the pending bill, so they do not come, under that bill, before any commission. 3382 53 |