Mr. SANDERS. Is it your opinion, Mr. Ewing, that all of this property in the hands of our Alien Property Custodian should be released before the property held by the alien property custodian in Germany is released. Mr. EWING. Yes, sir. Mr. SANDERS. Do you see any distinction between property which the Alien Property Custodian has taken over and the claims of American nationals arising out of that occurrence on the one hand, and ordinary claims against the Government, on the other hand. Mr. EWING. No; I think they are all in the same class. It is a claim against the Government of Germany and not against its nationals, and this proposition holds the property of some one who is not legally responsible for the debt. Mr. SANDERS. Do you not think it is more consistent for our Alien Property Custodian to hold the property of those nationals so long as their alien property custodian holds the property of our nationals. Do you not think that is more consistent than for our Alien Property Custodian to hold the property until after all the claims are settled? Mr. EWING. Yes; I think it would be more proper, if there is any propriety about it at all, in holding property until there is a full settlement by the alien property custodian of Germany rather than holding it until a full settlement of all American claims is made. Mr. SANDERS. It seems to me there is quite distinction between general claims of American nationals against the German Government and specific claims of American nationals against the Government on account of property taken over by their alien property custodian. Do you see anything inconsistent with the Knox-Porter resolution in turning this property back? Mr. EWING. Not in the least. Mr. SANDERS. Does not the Knox-Porter resolution specifically provide and specifically anticipate subsequent legislation? Mr. EWING. Yes, sir. Mr. SANDERS. In other words, its says except as shall have been heretofore that is, prior to the Knox-Porter resolution-or specifically hereafter shall be provided by law. Mr. EWING. Yes, sir. Mr. SANDERS. That is tantamount to an agreement with Germany that when all the claims are settled this property shall be turned back, and it is not an agreement either on our own part or anybody else's part that we shall hold it until all of them are satisfied. There is a specific recognition in that resolution of the right to turn part of it back, as is proposed by the pending bill, or the right to turn it all back, as you suggest; is not that true? Mr. EWING. Yes, sir. Secondly, I do not suppose Mr. MERRITT (interposing). That is, after we get satisfactory guaranties from Ger many. Mr. SANDERS. No. Mr. EWING. I do not suppose that one Congress, as a legal proposition, could, even though it wanted to do so, bind the hands of a later Congress. Mr. SANDERS. Certainly not. We have the right to repeal laws, and we have the right to repeal treaties. Mr. EwING. Exactly. Mr. SANDERS. The point has been made over and over again that we bound ourselves up so we can not go back on it and can not in any way turn back all of this property until all these claims are satisfied. If it should appear to the Congress of the United States as now constituted that it was the best course to pursue, to recognize and protect the property of nationals which we have seized, there is nothing at all inconsistent, the Congress having reached that determination, in turning all of it back. Mr. EWING. Not the slightest. Mr. SANDERS. France is now talking about going over and taking some more German property because Germany has failed to carry out her treaty obligations. France is not proposing, if she carries out that policy, that she shall seize property owned by the German nationals and sell that property and apply it to their debts. Mr. EWING. I am not familiar with that, Mr. Sanders. Mr. SANDERS. Has any civilized nation at any time in the past 200 years, with the possible exception of the arrangement of the Versailles treaty, at any time in the past two centuries, taken the property of the nationals of an enemy country and confiscated it to pay the debts of an enemy Government? Mr. EWING. I understand they have not. Mr. SANDERS. Is it not the policy of giving the most careful protection to property of aliens an important international policy for all of our future trade relations with all countries? Mr. EWING. Absolutely; very important. Mr. SANDERS. If it should turn out that the United States Government, either confiscated in part or in whole, and if we hold the property an untimely length of time we are confiscating to that extent, if it should be determined that that is to be the policy of the United States Government, do you think the determination of that policy would be helpful or harmful to the United States? Mr. EWING. Very harmful. It certainly would weaken the confidence of all foreigners in any investment in this country or in making any deposits or having any property here. Mr. SANDERS. And if, as an administration, we have settled upon the policy that we will not ultimately confiscate this property, does it not seem to follow as a natural corollary to that, that we should, in as short a time as possible, turn the property back to the nationals of that country? Mr. EWING. I think it does, sir. Mr. MAPES. I simply want to follow Mr. Sanders's line of thought one step further by asking this question: As far as the treaty between Germany and the United States is concerned, so far as this immediate question is concerned, all the treaty did was to incorporate the provisions of the Knox-Porter resolution, was it not? Mr. EWING. Yes, sir. Mr. MAPES. And that was made a part of the peace treaty, and the representatives of our Government, at least, were bound to follow out the instructions of that statute, so that, so far as this question is now concerned, Congress is now free in every way to determine what it considers a proper legislative policy? Mr. EWING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questlns, we are obliged to you, Mr. Ewing. Mr. Pitcairn, will you kindly take the stand? Give you rname to the reporter and state whom you represent. STATEMENT OF MR. RAYMOND PITCAIRN, REPRESENTING THE PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS CO. Mr. PITCAIRN. Raymond Pitcairn is my name. I represent the Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. We have a claim filed for $1,916,000 against Germany, and our claim arose in this manner: About 20 years ago we acquired a plate-glass plant in Belgium. Mr. NEWTON. What place in Belgium? Mr. PITCAIRN. A little town called Courcelles. It is about 20 miles from Brussels. This plant manufactured rough, smooth, and polished plate glass and its product was sold all over the world, throughout Europe. Egypt and the East used a lot of mirrors, Japan and elsewhere. The company operated this plant through a subsidiary known as the Societe Anonyme des Glaces de Courcelles, and the Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. owned all of the stock of this company, which had a very good record as a good earner. For example, in the year before the war, in 1913, their earnings were 1,061,000 francs, good francs. Mr. HUDDLESTON. Is that a Belgian corporation? Mr. PITCAIRN. That is a Belgian corporation; yes, sir. And they had a dividend record for several years previous to the war of paying 375,000 francs per annum. This plant, as I said, is located about 20 miles from Brussels on the high road going toward France, quite near to the battlefield of Waterloo. The plant covers about 30 acres, including its sidings and its various buildings, and the little town of Courcelles is an industrial town that has grown up around this factory which has existed for generations there. In 1914, after the Germans were stopped at Liege, they swept through Belgium, as you recall, to Brussels, and on past the battlefield of Waterloo, and we received word that the Germans were in our factory. After a period of suspense we were advised that the Germans had gone on toward France and that the plant and the little village of Courcelles were left uninjured. But Germany had control of Belgium, of course, during this period, and in April of 1915 they commenced issuing orders to turn over certain parts, certain materials and things belonging to the plant, and receipts were given for the property that was turned over. In fact, we had two judgments subsequently approved and awarded by a war tribunal in Berlin. One of these, a trifling judgment, was paid. Before the second one was paid the Germans took another think. Mr. GRAHAM. They did what? Mr. PITCAIRN. They thought the matter over and refused to pay the other one. Mr. PITCAIRN. Because it was an American claim. Mr. GRAHAM. Was this during the war? Mr. PITCAIRN. This was during the war; yes, in 1915. Mr. NEWTON. Let me ask right there, were there German glass-manufacturing concerns that were in competition with this Pittsburg Plate Glass subsidiary? Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir. Mr. NEWTON. Preceding the war? Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes; there were plants in Germany, and then there were seven other plate-glass plants in Belgium, Belgian plants. Belgium was a great glass manufacturing country, has been for generations, and there were seven other plants in Belgium. If you will allow me, sir, just to run through this story, I will take that up as I come to it. Mr. NEWTON. Go right ahead. Mr. PITCAIRN. In August of 1917 the first serious damage to our plant occurred. The German military took charge of the plant and installed in it a wood shavings manufactory which they used for making trench mattresses, and in order to make this installation they tore out machinery and considerable damage was done. In February, 1918, they commenced to store ammunition in a portion of the plant. The plate-glass plant contains what is called a "lear," which is an immense kiln that the glass is annealed in, and this was a very dry place and they filled it up with ammunition. Soon after they seized all or practically all parts of the machinery and a general dismantling and wreckage followed. Mr. MERRITT. What did they do with it when they seized it? Mr. PITCAIRN. Many parts were taken away. Parts that were usable they took away. Later on they sawed up certain things. For instance, our big prime mover was made a wreck. They sawed through the shaft. It was too big a thing to carry away, one of the few things they could not carry off, and they just sawed through the big driving rod so as to make it impossible to use that engine. Finally a Lieutenant Kellerman, who was the man who was always at the plant, a German army man, advised our Mr. Richard Melchers, whose title was that of administrateur delegue, that a decision had been rendered ordering the removal of all material and equipment. A German army engineer by the name of Kummer advised our Mr. Melchers that nothing would be left in that plant save the walls when they got through and enough machinery to run their wood-shaving outfit. Mr. Melchers thereupon petitioned the German consul to modify this military decree, on the principle that it was treating this plant in a totally different way from which the other plate-glass plants in Belgium were treated. In fact, the treatment that was given to the other plants was very good. Germany regarded Belgium as a German province and they had unusually good treatment. Mr. GRAHAM. How much of this mutilation happened before the 6th of April, 1917? Mr. GRAHAM. Most of your claim is based upon what happened after we went into the war? Mr. PITCAIRN. The larger part of it. That is, in substance, but it went back. There was damage going way back. Mr. MERRITT. But you are now stating that they distinguished against your plant because it was an American plant? At the Mr. PITCAIRN. Because it was an American plant; yes, sir. In fact, Mr. Melchers put that right up to this engineer and he admitted that that was the case. same time a petition was made through Mr. Melchers and a petition was made by the engineer and the employees to the German authorities, through the governor general, asking that at least a nucleus of that plant remain so that when the war was over the people in this town-all of the industrial citizens of the town, practically, work in the plant-would have some means of livelihood. That had been the industry of the little town for generations. But it was all without avail. The only answer was dated September 4, 1918, signed by von Borsig, and this stated that the destruction was the result of war necessity and that it was out of the question to alter the disposition taken. Now, I do not want to take up your time to read at length, but I do want to read one or two paragraphs, because it will give the committee a much clearer and more convincing idea of the nature of this thing than if I just told it to you. For example, the order to which I referred, the German order, provides: "All that is in your works, your property or belonging to others, machinery, spare parts, installation for castings, the cast-iron floor plates, as designated when visiting your establishment, is seized for the needs of the German military administration. This will be taken away shortly. If necessary you will have to attend to the loading. You are responsible for the conservation and the guarding of the seized material." 25789-23-PT 3- -4 Now in writing our representative protested Mr. MERRITT (interposing). This was in 1917? Mr. PITCAIRN. This was in 1918, February 27. Our representative on August 18, 1918, protested as follows: "From information that has reached me the governor general intends to have the Glaces de Courcelles demolished in a manner that makes it impossible to resume work, thus inflicting on this property, because it is American property, a different treatment from the one applied to the other plate-glass factories in Belgium." Now this petition that the engineer and the employees sent in-I will quote just a few lines: "We beg your excellency"-that was the German governor general-“to let us take the liberty of addressing to him our request to keep intact at least a nucleus that prevents complete disappearance of what is indispensable to our existence after the war, and which will give bread to an industrial class of people at present consternated at the decision which falls on them." Now, not one of the seven other glass factories, the Belgian plate-glass factories, were injured sufficiently to prevent their resuming almost immediately after the armistice. There are seven of these companies: Glaces de Charleroi, at Roux; Glaces d'Auvelais, at Auvelais; Glaces de St. Roch, at Auvelais; Glaces d'Oignies, at Ste. Narie d'Oignies; Glaces de Moustier, at Moustier; Glaces de Floreffe, at Floreffe; and Glaces de St. Gobain, at Franiere. All of these companies existed there, and they were given treatment that, under the circumstances, was most lenient, but our case was a different matter. The point was that here Belgium was regarded as a German Province. These plants were regardeda s German. Ours was an American plant, also a competitor, and Americans were not popular with the Germans at that time. During this period for four years we paid, in order to help these employees, 300,000 francs a year to prevent an absolute starvation situation among our employees there. The general destruction of our property was not necessary for war purposes. It was deliberate, with the object of crippling for a long period after the war this large industrial operation because it was owned and operated in the interest of American citizens. The plant was never used for direct war operations. Mr. GRAHAM. The manufacture of these shavings, these mattresses for the trenches, that was war purpose. Mr. PITCAIRN. That was not direct war. That could have been done at any place. It might have been done in Germany. Our plant was more convenient, because we were somewhat nearer the line, but we were way back of the line of battle. There was no reason at all for doing it there except this, that they found it convenient for their purpose. Mr. GRAHAM. I understood you to say it was not used for war purposes; it was in fact used for making trench material, was it not? Mr. PITCAIRN. It was used for making these mattresses, yes, sir; but nothing that was for direct war purposes. Mr. HoсH. What is the difference whether it was for war purposes or not, so far as this legislation is concerned? It is a claim for the destruction of the property of American citizens, regardless of whether it was done for war purposes or not. Mr. PITCAIRN. But there is a distinction. If we had been injured while the war was sweeping over Belgium and had been in the line of battle and it was used directly in military operations it would have been a different case from this. Mr. HOCH. There might be a difference as to the provocation or the motive, but would it be any different so far as the legal claim to reparations is concerned? Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes, sir; I think we have a very much stronger claim, because not being in the war area Germany owed a very different treatment to people who were not military in any sense. Mr. HOCH. If they destroyed property of American citizens for any purpose there is a legitimate claim to compensation, isn't there? Mr. PITCAIRN. Yes; there is a legitimate claim to compensation. Mr. HOCH. So it seems to me it is not of very much importance in connection with this claim to enter into a discussion as to whether it was for war purposes or not. Mr. PITCAIRN. I feel it is material but I will not argue that. Mr. NEWTON. One element that enters into it, at least from my own observation over there, was that property would be dismantled and the machinery and the equipment taken over into Germany in one instance and not in another instance, and it developed that properties that were in successful competition with German concerns were dismantled. Mr. PITCAIRN. I think that was undoubtedly true. Mr. NEWTON. Their equipment was taken over to Germany or destroyed. Now the effect might have been beneficial to the German Government, but the principal effect was to benefit not the German Government but to benefit the German competitive industries. So there was a private benefit that was the moving factor. Now that was true of a number of industries that came under my own personal observation over there. Mr. PITCAIRN. I think that was true, also, in our own case. Mr. COOPER. May I ask you, when was this glass factory built? Mr. PITCAIRN. This glass factory? The glass factory in its original form, when we got it, was 20 years ago but it had been improved and had grown and grown during the period that we had it, and just shortly previous to the war we had made very considerable extensions and rebuilt a large casting hall and a lear. Now the president of that company, Mr. Heory, is in the room and I am sure he can answer those questions in detail better than I can, if you are interested in that detail. Mr. COOPER. Where was most of your product sold? Was it exported to America? Mr. PITCAIRN. No, there was very little of it that has ever been imported into America, generally speaking, hardly any. But of course it was exported throughout Europe, and, as I say, to Egypt and Japan. They are very fond of mirrors in the Orient. Mr. MAPES. Was any of it sold to American buyers and by them imported into this country? Mr. PITCAIRN. I think practically none, not to American buyers, no. Mr. MAPES. Americans go to Belgium and buy more or less glass, do they not? Mr. MAPES. Your plant there, however, competes with the Belgian factories? After the armistice there was a Belgian commission appointed to review the war claims and the situation of Belgian nationals, and at that time we endeavored to place our claim through them, but we were not allowed an award, and any relief through that source was denied us on account of our American citizenship. But a commission which was appointed and reviewed this general situation, and particularly the situation of the plate-glass plants, reported, among other things, on our own situation, which came under their observation, and coming as it did from a Belgian source, our competitors, I would like to read you a few lines confirmatory of the fact that we suffered peculiarly because of our American citizenship. This commission was appointed by royal decree in 1919, and I quote from volume 3, page 319, of the official report as follows: In contrast with the general mildness shown by the German authorities toward Belgian plate glass factories, which were with one exception affiliated with the Union Continentale des Glaceries, the particular case of the Societe des Glaces de Courcelles (that is our company), the stockholders of which are principally Americans, should be noted. "These facts are sufficient to prove that the Courcelles factory was the only one of the Belgian plate-glass industry which was completely annihilated, owing to its American ownership, economic reasons rendering its disappearance desirable for Germany.' This is all quoted from the report. "It is easy to understand the object which the enemy had in mind by comparing the complete dismantling to which Courcelles was subject, with the partial removal of equipment from the other Belgian plate-glass factories hereafter mentioned. Moreover, the other factories were able to resume operation within a few months after the armistice, while at Courcelles several years are required within which to restore the plant to running order.' The CHAIRMAN. What was this commission composed of? Mr. PITCAIRN. That commission was composed of Belgians and its object was to investigate violations of the laws and customs of warfare by Germany during the occupation of Belgium. The CHAIRMAN. What authority created the commission? Mr. PITCAIRN. It was by royal decree, February 15, 1919. The CHAIRMAN. That is part of the general review of the whole situation? Mr. PITCAIRN. Of the whole situation: yes, sir. Mr. MERRITT. How long, in fact, did it take you to get your factory started? Mr. PITCAIRN. I was there, sir, about a month and a half ago, and we were just casting glass. We had commenced grinding glass but had not yet been able to start polishing glass. I believe the first shipment since that time has been made out of the plant. Mr. GRAHAM. Are you going to give some attention to the discussion had by Mr. Ewing here, and the proposition he advances? Mr. PITCAIRN. Well, I will go right to that. I have finished with my brief statement. I just wanted to give a picture of the situation, the bare facts. The CHAIRMAN. Does any gentleman of the committee desire to ask any questions in respect to the picture? |