¹ The amount of material available is vast. See the following: Symposium on “Enemy Property,” 11 Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law, 1945): Berman, Herbert A., “Cartels and Enemy Property”;Google Scholar Domke, Martin, “Western Hemisphere Control Over Enemy Property: A Comparative Survey”; Eisner, Frederick W., “Administrative Machinery and Steps for the Lawyer”; Gearhart, Bertrand W., “Post-War Prospects for Treatment of Enemy Property”; McNulty, George A., “Constitutionality of Alien Property Controls”; Myron, Paul V., “The Work of the Alien Property Custodian”; Rabel, Ernst, “Situs Problems in Enemy Property Measures”; Reeves, William Harvey, “The Control of Foreign Funds by the United States Treasury”; Rubin, Seymour J., “ ‘Inviolability’ of Enemy Private Property”; Sargeant, Howland H., and Creamer, Henrietta L., “Enemy Patents”; Sommerich, Otto C., “A Brief Against Confiscation”; Wechsler, Herbert, “Constitutionality of Alien Property Controls: A Comment on the Problem of Remedies”; de Vries, , Henry, P., “The International Responsibility of the United States for Vested German Assets,” 51 A.J.I.L. 18-28 (1957)Google Scholar; Hale, and Clift, , “Enemy Assets —The $500,000,000 Question,” The Reporter Magazine, July 14, 1956, p. 8 Google Scholar; Howard, , “The Paris Agreement on Reparation from Germany,” 14 Dept. of State Bulletin 1023 (1946)Google Scholar; Huijsmans, , “German External Assets and American Contractual Obligations,” 27 Nederlands Juristenblad 581 (July 14, 1956)Google Scholar; Jessup, Philip C., “Enemy Property,” 49 A.J.I.L. 57-62 (1955)Google Scholar; Mason, Malcolm S., “Relationship of Vested Assets to War Claims,” 16 Law and Contemporary Problems 395-406 (Duke University School of Law, 1951)Google Scholar; Reeves, William Harvey, “Private Foreign Capital and United States Policy: Is Confiscation of Enemy Assets in the National Interest?”, prepared for The International Bar Association, The Fifth International Conference of the Legal Profession, Monaco, July 19-24, 1954 (Note: Published with minor revisions in 40 Virginia Law Review 1029, December, 1954)Google Scholar; Sommerich, Otto C., “Treatment by United States of World War I and II Enemy-Owned Patents and Copyrights,” Monaco Conference (1954), International Bar Association, Bulletin No. XII EGoogle Scholar; Stetler, C. Joseph, “To What Extent Should Congress Appropriate to Distribute the Burden of War Loss, Given the Insufficiency of War Reparation,” 16 Law and Contemporary Problems 469-486 (Duke University School of Law, 1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “War Claims: What of the Future?”, ibid. 543-553; Senate Bill S. 3423 to Amend the Trading with the Enemy Act, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., Report No. 1982; Report of the Committee on the Judiciary (Majority Views) to accompany S. 3423; Report of the Committee on the Judiciary (Minority Views) to accompany S. 3423; Final Report of the Subcommittee to Examine and Review the Administration of the Trading with the Enemy Act of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Washington, 1954 Google Scholar; Senate Bill S. 995 to Amend the Trading with the Enemy Act, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 8, 1955; Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 (Act of Oct. 6, 1917, C. 196, 40 Stat. 411, as Amended), Title 50, U.S.C.A.; Report of Committee on Adjudication of War Claims, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, December, 1945, p. 53, and Special Appendix to this Report, p. 69Google Scholar; Report of the Committee on Treatment of Property Rights in the War Settlement, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, October, 1946, p. 72 Google Scholar; Report of the Committee on Adjudication of War Claims and Treatment of Property Rights in the War Settlement, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, September, 1950, p. 25 Google Scholar; Report of the Committee on Adjudication of War Claims and Treatment of Property Rights in the War Settlement, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, September, 1951, p. 27 Google Scholar; Report of the Committee on Adjudication of War Claims and Treatment of Property Rights in the War Settlement, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, August, 1953, p. 44 Google Scholar; Report of Council Subcommittee on Adjudication of War Claims and Treatment of Property Rights in the War Settlement, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, August, 1954, p. 70 Google Scholar; Report of the Special Committee to Study the Dirksen Bill, Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, August, 1955, p. 52 Google Scholar; Debate: “Should Enemy Property Seized in Time of War Be Returned?” (For the Affirmative by Charles R. Carroll and William Harvey Reeves) and “Postwar Return of Vested Enemy Property” (For the Negative by Cecil Sims and Robert B. Ely III), Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law, August, 1955, pp. 36-49.

² Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 411, S. 600, S. 727, S. 1302, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (April 4, 5, and 6, 1957) (hereinafter cited as Hearings on S. 411, S. 600, S. 727, S. 1302).

³ The Paris Agreement on Reparation of January 14, 1946 (U. S. Dept. of State Pub. No. 2584, European Series 12), p. 11; 14 Dept. of State Bulletin 114 (1946); 40 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117 (1946).

⁴ The War Claims Act of July 3, 1948, 50 U.S.C.A., App., Sec. 39 (1948), 62 Stat. 1240.

⁵ Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising Out of the War and the Occupation, signed at Bonn on May 26, 1952 (hereinafter cited as Bonn Convention).

⁶ Bonn Convention, as amended by the Protocol on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany, signed at Paris on Oct. 23, 1954.

⁷ For example, General Aniline & Film Corporation vested as the property of I. G. Farbenindustrie, has increased in value from $35,000,000 at the date of vesting to approximately $100,000,000 at the present time; Schering Corp. increased from $1,300,000 at the date of vesting to over $29,000,000 at the date of sale. S. Rep. No. 1982, Pt. 2, 83d Cong., 2d Sess.

⁸ Hearings on S. 411, S. 600, S. 727, S. 1302, pp. 45-279.

⁹ Ibid., p. 49.

¹⁰ Bundestag Meeting of Jan. 22, 1958.

¹¹ Hearings on S. 411, S. 600, S. 727, S. 1302, pp. 84-254.

¹² See, for example, Supplementary Report of the War Claims Commission with Respect to War Claims Arising out of World War II (P. L. 896, 80th Cong., July 3, 1948, as amended), House Doc. No. 67, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. (U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1953).

¹³ See, for example, Senate Bills Nos. S. 3423, 83d Cong., and S. 995, 84th Cong.

¹⁴ “No essential difference exists between private property and public property in the case of Germany and Japan. For several years before World War II, while Germany and Japan were preparing to make war upon the United States, property owned in the United States by the citizens of both these countries was subject to rigid control of their respective Governments. While the fiction of private ownership was retained, actually property of German and Japanese nationals in the United States was widely used to accomplish the national objectives of those countries.” H. Rep. No. 976 (on the War Claims Act), 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (July, 1947), p. 2.

¹⁵ U.S.C.A., Title 50, App., Secs. 2011 and 2012.

¹⁶ For a most concise discussion of the “private” property and “confiscation” arguments, see the de Vries article cited in footnote 1.

^* On March 24 Chairman Sommerich wrote a letter to Mr. Ely, a copy of which was sent to the Chairman of the Committee on Annual Meeting and to all the panelists, in which Mr. Sommerich stated that the subject would be as stated in the revised program.—ED.