Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

"Moved by these impelling considerations and acting, as they believe, in accordance with sound business principles for the protection and preservation of their property rights, my clients have entered into agreements with the American Bosch Magneto Corporation, copies of which I enclose herewith.

"Because of these agreements, my clients earnestly desire the discontinuance of the action now pending in the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts." "

The Attorney General concurred with the views expressed in Mr. Todd's letter, and in a memorandum of January 23, 1930, recommended that the case be dismissed. He justified the dismissal on the grounds that the real disputants in the case, American Bosch Magneto Corporation and Robert Bosch Aktiengesellschaft and associated companies, had reached a mutually satisfactory agreement on all points at issue. Further litigation, the Attorney General declared, would not be compensatory for the benefits the Government might derive therefrom. The Attorney General wrote, in part:

"Since all the interested parties, other than the United States, have reached a settlement and desire discontinuance of the litigation, the only question is whether the interest of the United States justifies the continuance of the litigation. It seems to me this question answers itself. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Alien Property Custodian have already expended, in expenses and counsel fees in the conduct of this case, over $187,000. The evidence for the plaintiff has not yet been completed before the auditor, and there remains the taking of the balance of the Government's evidence and the testimony for the defense, to be followed by a trial before a jury with the auditor's report as evidence. The litigation is likely to last for years. The annual cost of conducting it on behalf of the United States is away beyond the total amount of the interest of the United States in the ultimate outcome.

* **

"I would have ordered the dismissal of this case last November, when this settlement was first brought to my attention, on the very obvious ground that the United States had no such financial interest as to justify any further litigation and expense, but was asked by some of the counsel for the Government to withhold action in order that testimony of some additional witnesses which had been set for December might be taken, with the idea that this evidence would clear up once and for all the question of whether there had been any misconduct by public officials.

"It is unfortunate that the counsel for the Government are not unanimous on this question as a result of this additional evidence, but on any theory the case should be dismissed. Instructions should immediately be sent to counsel for the plaintiff to dismiss the case at once, and close the files." 15

*

Accordingly, on January 31, 1930, the case of United States of America v. A. Mitchell Palmer, et al. was dismissed. As a consequence of the Attorney General's decision to discontinue the Government's case, orders of dismissal were granted in the other four pending actions. The discontinuance of all litigation made possible a final distribution by the Custodian of all funds held in trust by him for the former enemy owners. Such funds amounted to more than $4,000,000, the proceeds of the December 7, 1918, sale of 250 shares of Bosch Magneto Co. stock. By virtue of claims filed under section 9 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, the proceeds of the sale of 95 shares of this stock were returned to Albert R. Klein, as the sole heir of Gustav Klein, the original owner. Under a war claim filed by Robert Bosch, pursuant to the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, 80 percent of the proceeds of 10 shares were returned to Robert Bosch.18 The proceeds of 10 shares of Bosch Magneto Co. stock registered in the name of Gunther Jahn, were returned to Otto Heins under the allowance of the President on August 12, 1929.

Allowance of the foregoing claims had provided for the return of the proceeds of 115 shares of the original company's 250 shares of capital stock. The proceeds of sale of the remaining 135 shares were claimed by Otto Heins. As a part of the general settlement resulting from the Government's motion to dismiss its suit, the Attorney General with the concurrence of the Alien Property Custodian recommended to the President that Otto Hein's claim be allowed, since

14 Department of Justice file 9-17-78, sec. 15, Todd to Attorney General, November 8, 1929. 15 Sterck litigation file, Bosch Magneto Co.; copies of agreements No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 are included in this file.

16 Claim No. 41621, sec. II, Application for executive allowance, January 25, 1930, p. 8.

[blocks in formation]

Heins had been determined a nonenemy within the meaning of the Trading With the Enemy Act." The application for allowance was approved by the President on January 27, 1930. Shortly thereafter, approximately $2,800,000 was forwarded by the Alien Property Custodian to Heins. Agreements No. 2 and No. 3 between Robert Bosch Aktiengesellschaft and its associated companies and the American Bosch Magneto Corporation automatically went into effect. Under agreement No. 2 the following financial settlement was agreed : 15

18

(1) The American Bosch assigned to Robert Bosch Atkiengesellshaft all its rights, title and interest to the sum of $468,283.17 held for Otto Heins in trust by the Alien Property Custodian.

(2) Robert Bosch Aktiengesellshaft and associated companies assigned all their right, title and interest to American Bosch Magneto in a $544,500 fund held by the Custodian, which represented the old Bosch Magneto Co.'s share in the proceeds of the Eiseman Magneto Co. sale. By agreement one-half of this amount was to be turned over to the German interests when the fund was allowed to the American Bosch by the Alien Property Custodian.

(3) The aforesaid distribution of the Heins fund and Eiseman fund would allow Robert Bosch Aktiengesellshaft a total of approximately $740,533.17 and the American Bosch Magneto Corporation approximately $272,250.

ments.

In terms of establishing long-term trade relationships between the American Bosch interests and the German Bosch interests, agreement No. 3-the so-called trade agreement-was the most significant of the three October 26, 1929, agreeBy designating, in agreement No. 3, where and how the trade name “Bosch" could be used exclusively in advertising or marking the products of either company, both parties agreed, in effect, to apportion the world market on the basis of the exclusive use of the "Bosch" trade name. Hiram C. Todd had indicated clearly in his letter of November 8, 1929, to the Attorney General that Robert Bosch's new American branch, Robert Bosch Magneto Co., Inc., would be practically denied the right to do business in the United States, if the American Bosch Magneto Corporation succeeded in enjoining its use of the Bosch trade name. In short, a product marked "Bosch" alone, was considered by the American and German firms to have great acceptability in the world markets than a product bearing either producer's full name, viz, American Bosch Magneto Corporation or Robert Bosch Aktiengesellshaft or any of its associated companies.

The term "American territory" as used in the following summary of the trade agreement included the United States and all its Territories, possessions, and dependencies (including but not limited to Alaska, Hawaii, Panama Canal Zone, and Virgin Islands) and Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, Canada, Cuba, and Mexico. The term "non-American territory" as used herein included all countries of the world except those defined as American territory. The salient features of the trade agreement between American Bosch Magneto Corporation and Robert Bosch Aktiengesellshaft and its affiliated companies were as follows:

(1) In the American territory, the American Bosch had exclusive right to advertise or mark its products with the trade-mark "Bosch" alone. Robert Bosch and his companies in their advertising or marking of products to be sold in American territory were obliged to use the trade name "Robert Bosch," all the letters of which were to be of one style, size, and color.

(2) In the non-American territory the advertising and product marking advantages in the trade name "Bosch" alone, were to fall to Robert Bosch Aktiengesellshaft. Should the American Bosch send goods into non-American territory they would have to be marked "American Bosch."

(3) Neither party was to demean the quality of the other's products in its advertising, nor use the words "genuine," "original," or "world famous", in describing itself or its products.

(4) Neither party was to sell knowingly any replacement parts which were intended for use on products of the other party, in American territory or nonAmerican territory.

(5) Both parties agreed not to renew or apply for trade-marks in the exclusive territory of the other party, unless such trade-marks contained the full name of the applying party and conformed with the restrictions already cited with respect to use of the trade-name "Bosch" alone.

(6) Neither party was to sue the other for infringement of any patent issued anywhere in the world on or before January 1, 1919, or for infringement of any patent for which application was pending anywhere in the world on January 1, 1919.

17 Claim No. 41621, sec. II, application for executive allowance, January 25, 1930, p. 8-9. 19 Claim No. 41621, sec. II, application for executive allowance, January 25, 1930, p. 8.

(7) All disputes and differences arising out of the trade agreement were to be settled either by arbitration, or at the option of either party, by p.oceedings in the courts of the State of New York.

EXHIBIT No. 654

[From the Washington Post, Washington, D. C., September 17, 1944]

WAR CRIMES GROUP LISTS BUT 350 NAMES-HITLER, HIMMLER, OTHER NAZI BIGWIGS OMITTED BY COMMISSION IN LONDON

(By Frederick Kuh)

LONDON, September 16.-With free people everywhere awaiting the punishment of Nazi Fascist war criminals, the prospects today are that if the United Nations War Crimes Commission in London has its way the immense majority of culprits will literally get away with murder.

The Commission has been working at the pace of a rheumatic snail. Several jurists on the Commission, especially Herbert Pell, United States member, have been fighting a losing battle for a speedy justice, but others have retarded everything.

Some semiofficial estimates put the number of war criminals to be dealt with at hundreds of thousands. At least one Allied government asserted the total at 6,000,000, including 1,500,000 Gestapo and S. S. men and 4,500,000 S. A. militia.

350 NAMES NOW LISTED

The same government emphasized that, besides their guilt for past misdeeds, it is these same men that provide the greatest potential force and manpower reserve for a Nazi military rebirth.

Many would argue that punishment of such a huge number of Axis culprits, particularly the Germans, is neither desirable nor feasible.

After 11 months of "activity," the Commission's actual list of war criminals consists today of about 350 names.

Among the archcriminals so far totally omitted from the list are Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Labor Minister Robert Ley, Gauleiter Wilhelm Frick, and Employment Commissioner Fritz Sautel.

Owing to legal objections raised particularly by British and Norwegian members, the Commission has failed to agree on any punishment for Nazis, Hungarians, and other Axis citizens for persecuting or butchering Jews unless they happen to be of Allied nationality or the crimes were committed on Allied soil.

RECALL FARCE OF 1918

Here one may parenthetically recall that at the end of the last war the Allies' first list of German criminals included 3,000. Later as the result of negotiations with the Germans that was cut to 900, of which, finally, less than a dozen were mildly punished, by a German court.

But the Commission now in London has done other things besides just sitting for 1 year. It has drafted a convention for the transfer of enemy war offenders from one Allied country to another without extradition procedure. It has another convention almost completed for the creation of a United Nations War Crimes Court in London. It has decided to recommend to Allied Governments the internment of Gestapo and SS troops. Without so far reaching a conclusion, it has discussed enlargement of the definition of war crimes as described in the Hague Convention of 1907.

REDS NOT REPRESENTED

Even the meager attainments of the Commission are made largely meaningless by Russia's absence from membership.

As the British Dominions, all of which fortunately escaped enemy occupation, have representatives on the Commission, Moscow asked that autonomous Soviet Republics (such as the Ukraine, Byelo-Russian, and the Baltic Republics), also be granted representation, notably because while occupied they endured intimate experience of Nazi war criminals.

Britain and the United States were reported to have denied the request, so Russia stayed outside the Commission,

The Russians have their own ideas and plans, as shown in the Kharkov trial culminating in the hanging of Nazi assassins. The Russians also contemplate the coralling of up to 4,000,000 Germans as forced laborers to repair the destruction inflicted on the Soviet Union. The German groups especially identified with war crimes will perhaps enjoy preference.

Some of these experts on the Commission here insist on regarding Hitler as the chief of state, his cogangsters as the government or high command, and his Gestapo and SS as state police.

It is the same decorous mentality that prompted the British Broadcasting Corporation in the early weeks of the war to censor a passage of John Gunther's script which had alluded disrespectfully to Hitler's inability to speak good German.

EVEN HITLER EXCEPTED

"After all, Hitler is the head of the state," Gunther was told.

The attitude of some of the leading members of the United Nations Commission overlooks the fact that important Nazi state organizations were created to commit mass crimes and their chiefs assigned to direct criminal enterprises.

Millions of people, especially in the countries that Hitler victimized, would fail to understand why he should be treated in accordance with lofty political decisions while lesser scoundrels come before criminal courts or other Allied tribunals.

Some declaration, unless amended, ties the Commission's hands in dealing with Nazi exterminators of the Jews. The legal basis of the Commission's work now bars punishment of Nazis for maltreating and slaughtering of the Jews of Germany or of other Axis nationality, stateless persons or German-Jewish citizens of Polish, Czech, French, or other allied origin.

For the Hague Convention defines a war crime as an offense by one belligerent against the army or citizenry of another belligerent.

Pell, the American delegate to the Commission, proposed as a solution that the Commission include among war crimes all offenses against the persons because of race, religion, or political beliefs, irrespective of the victim's nationality or the territory on which the crimes were committed.

A subcommittee even adopted Pell's suggestion, but on the Commission itself the British and Norwegian jurists solemnly announced that governments really ought to be asked to grant the Commission greater powers to deal with such questions before anything is done about it.

As affairs now stand, the Commission would ignore the instigators or actual murderers of many of the 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 Jews who met death at Nazi hands. Similarly, the Commission would refrain from touching the Germans who jailed, tortured, and killed gentile anti-Nazis.

JAMES S. MARTIN,

EXHIBIT No. €55

THE OHIO SEAMLESS TUBE COMPANY SEAMLESS AND ELECTRIC-WELD STEEL TUBING, Shelby, Ohio, September 15, 1944.

Chief of the Economic Warfare Division,

U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Regarding the enclosed letter, it is our intention to release a copy of same just as soon as this letter and the accompanying letters are in the local post office.

The release will be made to the Associated Press, Cleveland and Shelby newspapers, Senators Burton and Taft of Ohio, and J. Harry McGregor, Congressman representing this district.

Yours very truly,

THE OHIO SEAMLESS TUBE Co..
W. C. CONNELLY, President.

JAMES S. MARTIN,

THE OHIO SEAMLESS TUBE COMPANY, SEAMLESS AND ELECTRIC-WELD STEEL TUBING, Shelby, Ohio, September 15, 1944.

Chief of the Economic Warfare Division,

U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIRS: Since writing you earlier in the day my attention has been called to a stenographic error. In the opening paragraph of my letter I used the dates of September 12th and 13th as the days for the issuance of the Cleveland newspapers containing the news items referred to. The correct dates are that the evening papers in Cleveland on September 13th and the morning Plain Dealer of September 14th carried the above-mentioned articles.

Yours very truly,

JAMES S. MARTIN,

THE OHIO SEAMLESS TUBE Co.,
W. C. CONNELLY, President.

THE OHIO SEAMLESS TUBE COMPANY,
SEAMLESS AND ELECTRIC-WELD STEEL TUBING,

Shelby, Ohio, September 15, 1944.

Chief of the Economic Warfare Division, U. S. Department of Justice,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Items appearing in the newspapers of Cleveland on September 12th and 13th quote you as stating that The Ohio Seamless Tube Company had agreed to accept orders from a Japanese concern without any reservations but subject to cancellation in the event of a U. S. embargo. For some reason you have failed to state the date of any letter by this Company, or the existence of any order to this Company (if such existed) by which The Ohio Seamless Tube Co. made any such proposal.

We call your attention to the fact that the last shipment by this Company on an order from any Japanese concern was made in March 1939, the amount of such shipment being less than $1,000, and we call your attention to the fact that this shipment was made five months before war was declared in Europe September 1, 1939. We also call your attention to the fact that this shipment was made 2 years and 9 months before the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7, 1941.

At the time of our last shipment in March 1939 our Secretary of State was recognizing the Japanese Government which had an Ambassador in Washington and the United States had an Ambassador in Japan. In fact, Secretary of State Cordell Hull had representatives of Japan in his office at the very moment of the attack on Pearl Harbor, whereas The Ohio Seamless Tube Co. had made no shipments to Japan for a period of 2 years and 9 months prior to that day.

Inasmuch as the greatest asset any person or company has is its good name, we feel that with these facts you can do no less than to personally appear before the same U. S. Senate Committee before whom you made the charges against this Company, and read to them this letter which we ask you to place in the records of that Senate Committee and in the records of your office pertaining to this subject.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR MR. CONNELLY: I have your letter of September 15, 1944, in which you state that items appearing in the newspapers of Cleveland on September 12 and 13 quoted me as stating that the Ohio Seamless Tube Company had agreed to

« AnteriorContinuar »