39^46 THREE VESTED GERMAN PA IN T IN C ^5r <

government

Storage

H E A R IN G

BE FO RE TH E

SUB COM MIT TEE ON COMM ERCE AND FI NA NC E

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON

INTER STATE AND FOREIGN CO MM E R C E 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

EIGH TY -N IN TII CONG RESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R . 1 25 4 3

A BILL TO AMEND THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT TO 

PROV IDE FOR THE TRA NSF ER OF TH REE PAINTINGS TO 

THE FED ERA L REP UBLIC OF GERMANY IN TRUST 

FOR TH E WEIMAR MUSEUM

(7

------SEPTEMBER 19, 1966

68-874

U. S. GOVERNMEN T PRINTING OFFIC E

WASHIN GTO N : 1966
CO MM IT TE E ON IN TE RS TA TE AN D FO RE IGN CO MMER CE

H AR L E Y O. ST A G G ERS, West Virginia, Chairman

W A L TE R ROGERS, Texas

SA M U EL N. FR IE D E L, Maryla nd

T O R B E R T H. M ACD ON ALD, Massachusetts

JOH N JA RM AN , Oklahoma

LE O W. O’B R IE N , New York

JOH N E. MO SS, California

JOHN D. D IN G E LL, Michigan

PA U L G. RO GE RS , Florida

H ORAC E R. K O R N EG A Y, North Carolina

LI O N EL VAN D E ER LIN , California

J. J. P IC K L E , Texas

FR E D B. RO O NEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN M. M U R PH Y, New Yor k 

DA VID E. SA T T E R F IE LD III, Virginia 

D A N IE L J. RONAN , Illinois 

J. OLI VA HUOT, New Hampshire 

JA MES A . M A C K A Y , Georgia 

JOHN J. G IL LIG AN , Ohio 

CH A R LES P. FA R N SLE Y , Ke ntucky 

JOH N B E L L W IL LI AM S, Mississippi 

B R O C K A D A M S, Washington

W. E,

K enn eth J. P aint er, Assistant Clerk

Professional Sta ff

A nd rew Stev ens on

K urt B orchardt

W IL LI AM L. SPR IN G ER , Illinois 

J. A R T H U R YO U N G ER , California 

SAM U EL L. D EVIN E, Ohio 

A N C H E R N ELSEN , Minnesota 

H AST IN GS K E IT H , Massachusetts 

W IL LA R D S. CU R TIN , Pen nsylvania 

G LEN N CU N NIN G H AM , Nebraska 

JA M ES T. B R O YH IL L, North Carolina 

JA M ES H A R V E Y, Michigan 

A L B E R T W. W AT SO N, South Carolina 

TIM LE E C A R T E R , Kentu cky

Williamson, Clerk

Jame s M . Men ge r, Jr. 

William J. Dixon

Su b c o m m it tee on C om m er ce and F in a n c e

T O R B E R T H . M A CD O N A LD , Massachusetts, Chairman

CH A R LES P. F A R N SLE Y , Ke ntucky H AST IN GS K E IT H , Massachusetts

B R O C K A D A M S, Washington W IL LA R D S. CU R TIN , Pennsylvania
C O N T E N T S

Page Text of H .R. 12543______________________________________________

Report of—

Budget, Bureau of th e________________________________________

Justice, Depar tment of________________________________________

State, Depar tment of_________________________________________

Sta tem ent of—

Maurer, Ely, Assistant Legal Adviser, De par tment of S tate________

Mondello, Anthony L., Chief, Office of Alien Property, Depar tment

of Justic e_________________________________________________

Shackleton, Robert G., Office of German Affairs, De partm ent of State! 

Additional material submitted for the record by the De partm ent of State:

Drafts of notes of agreem ent between the Federal Republic of Germany

and the United States re disposition of three vested painting s________ 22ei - h co os co

h i

THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

MONDAY, SEPTEM BER 19, 1966

H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubco m m it tee on C om mer ce an d F in a n c e,

C om m it tee on I n ter sta te an d F o reig n C om m er ce ,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2123, 

Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. Macdonald. The committee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance is meeting today 

to hold hearings on H.R . 12543 filed by the chairman of the full 

committee, Congressman Staggers of West Virginia, to amend the 

Trading With the Enem y Act to provide for the transfer of three 

paintings to the Federal Republic of Germany in trust for the Weimar 

Museum.

(The bill, H.R. 12543, and department reports thereon, follow:)

[H .R . 12543, 89th Co ng., 2d sess.J

A BILL To amend the Trading With the Enemy Act to provide for the transfer of three paintings to the 

Federal Republic of Germany in tru st for the Weimar Museum

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, Th at section 39 of the Trading With the Enemy 

Act, as amended (62 Sta t. 1246; 50 U.S.C. App., sec. 39) is amended by adding 

at the end thereof the following subsection:

“(e) Notwithstanding any of the provisions of subsections (a) thro ugh (d) of 

this section, the Atto rney General is hereby authorized to tran sfer the three 

pain tings vested und er Vesting Order Num bered 8107, dated Jan uary 28, 1947, 

to the Federal Republic of Germ any, to be held in trus t for eventual transfer to 

the Weimar Museum, Weimar, Sta te of T huringia, Germany, in accord with the 

term s of an agreeme nt to be made between the United States and the Federal 

Republic of German y.”

Department of State, 

Washington, D.C., March 1, 1966.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I refer to your comm unication of F ebruary 10, 1966, 

requesting a report on H.R. 12543, a bill “ To amen d th e T rading W ith the Enem y 

Act to provide for the transfer of thre e paintings to the Federal Republic of 

Germ any in tru st for the Weimar Museum.”

This bill is identical to the legislation which the De par tment of Sta te recommended be enacted in a lette r d ated J anuary 31, 1966, from the Secretary of Sta te 

to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The views of the De partm ent 

in support of th is legislation are set forth in th at letter.

Sincerely,

Douglas MacArthur II, 

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

1
2 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

U.S. Department of J ustice,

Office of the Deputy Attorney General,

Washington, D.C., April 11, 1966.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request for the views of the 

Department of Justice on H.R. 12543, a bill “ To amend the Trading With the 

Enemy Act to provide for the transfer of three paintings to the Federal Republic 

of Germany in trust for the Weimar Museum.”

This bill was introduced at the request of the Department of State and would 

authorize the Attorney General to transfer certain paintings to the Federal 

Republic of Germany to be held in trus t for eventual transfer to the Weimar 

Museum, Weimar, State of Thuringia, Germany, in accordance with the terms of 

an agreement to be made between the United States and the Federal Republic of 

Germany.

The three paintings, which were vested under the Trading With the Enemy 

Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) by Vesting Order No. 8107, dated Janua ry 28, 

1947, are:

1. Rembrandt: Self Portrait.

2. Terborch: Portrait of a Man.

3. Tischbein: Portrait of a Young Woman.

These three paintings were stolen from the Weimar Museum on April 18, 1922 

by two unidentified German soldiers. They were eventually sold in 1934 by a 

German merchant seaman to a Dayton, Ohio, businessman, who kept them in 

his home until July 1945, when they were taken to Siegfried R. Weng, Director, 

Dayton Art Institute, for appraisal.

Mr. Weng advised the Federal Bureau of Investigation of his suspicion that 

these paintings had been stolen from the German museum and, upon confirmation, 

Vesting Order No. 8107 was issued. It does not seem appropriate tha t this 

Department have a public sale of paintings known to have been stolen from the 

Weimar Museum. For this reason and because of the close relationship now 

existing between this country and the Federal Republic of Germany and, finally, 

since these paintings constitute part of the cultural heritage of the German 

people, their return in the manner proposed is deemed to be in the best interest of 

the foreign relations of the United States.

Pursuant to Section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, all vested alien 

property, such as these three paintings, must be liquidated, sold “or otherwise 

dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.” However, 

it is the Department’s view tha t the authority of the Attorney General to deal 

with vested property “in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States” 

is limited by Section 39 of the Act, as amended, which requires tha t the net 

proceeds remaining upon the completion of administration, liquidation, and 

disposition of vested property shall be covered into the Treasury for deposit in 

the War Claims Fund. Thus, even without the prohibition against return of 

vested property to Germany or a national thereof which is contained in Section 

39(a) of the Act, it is necessary for legislation to be enacted authorizing the 

Attorney General to transfer these paintings to the Federal Republic of Germany 

in t rust for the Weimar Museum.

Accordingly, the Department of Justice favors the enactment of H.R. 12543.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised tha t there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. 

Sincerely,

R,amsey Clark,

Deputy Attorney General.

Executive Office of the President,

Bureau of the Budget, 

Washington, D.C., April 27, 1966.

Hon. Harley O. Staggers,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your lette r of February 10, 1966,

requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget regarding H.R. 12543, “To 

amend the Trading With the Enemy Act to provide for the transfer of three 

paintings to the Federal Republic of Germany in trust for the Weimar Museum.”
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 3

The situation which has elicited this bill has been discussed at length in a 

letter the Secretary of State sent the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 

January 31, 1966, recommending legislation identical to this bill and also in the 

report which the Department of Justice is making on this bill.

For the reasons outlined in those letters, the Bureau of the Budget would favor 

enactment of H.R. 12543.

Sincerely yours,

Wilfred H. Rommel,

Act ing Assis tan t Director for Legislative Reference.

Mr. Macdonald. The paintings are a “Self Portrait” by Rembrandt, a “Po rtrait of a Man” by Terborch, and a “Portra it of a 

Young Woman” by Tischbein.

The legislation before us is supported by the Department of State 

and the Attorney General of the United States, and I understand tha t 

witnesses from these Departments are present and will testify.

The first witness we will hear will be from the Department of 

State, Mr. Ely Maurer, Assistant Legal Adviser.

STATEMENT OF ELY MAURER, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER;

ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT G. SHACKLETON, OFFICE OF GERMAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Maurer. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am 

pleased to be here on behalf of the Dep artm ent of State to speak on 

H.R. 12543. I have with me Mr. Robert Shackleton, also of the 

Department of State, of the Office of German Affairs, who will be 

ready with me to answer any questoins tha t th e committee may have.

The Department of State and the Dep artm ent of Justice support 

the passage of H.R. 12543, “To amend the Trading With the Enemy 

Act to provide for the transfer of three paintings to the Federal 

Republic of Germany in trust for the Weimar Museum.” The 

purpose of this bill is to authorize the Attorney General on behalf 

of the United States to transfer certain paintings to the Federal Republic of Germany to be held in tru st for eventual return to the 

Weimar Museum, Weimar, State of Thuringia, Germany, in accordance with the terms of an agreement which will be made between the 

United States and the Federal Republic of Germany if the legislation 

is enacted.

The three paintings consist of a “Self Por trait” by Rembrandt, the 

“Portrait of a Man” by Terborch, and the “Portrait of a Young 

Woman” by Tischbein, and are of substantial artistic and historical 

importance.

The paintings in question were stolen on April IS, 1922, from the 

Weimar Museum by two unidentified German soldiers. The paintings were brought by a German merchant seaman to this country in 

1934 where they were acquired by a U.S. citizen who resided in 

Dayton, Ohio.

The Office of Alien Property, learning in 1946 of the presence of 

these paintings in the United States and their background, vested the 

paintings on the basis they were German owned.

The Department of Justice considers tha t it cannot return the 

paintings to Germany under existing legislation even though they 

were stolen, but is required to sell them. The Department of State is 

of the view tha t it would be prejudicial to our foreign relations for 

these paintings, which are part of the German cultural heritage, to 

be sold.
4 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

The paintings, as valuable works of art, should go back to the 

German people. Since these paintings cannot be returned under 

present U.S. legislation, it is necessary tha t return be authorized by 

the legislation in question.

Since the Weimar Museum is in East Germany, and is subject to a 

regime which the United States does not recognize as a legitimate 

government, the legislation provides for the return of the paintings to 

the Federal Republic of Germany to be held in trust for eventual 

return to the Weimar Museum.

This committee has received from the State Department draft 

copies of the proposed exchange of notes under which the Federal 

Republic of Germany would agree with the United States to hold the 

paintings in trus t for such eventual return.

These notes would be exchanged between the two Governments as 

soon as the legislation was enacted. It is planned that prior to the 

return of these paintings to the Federal Republic of Germany there 

will be a public showing at the National Gallery of Art for the artistic 

and cultural benefit of the citizens of the United States.

The Department of State has been in communication with the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany. They fully concur 

in the proposed legislation and proposed exchange of notes.

The D epartmen t of State strongly urges enactment of the proposed 

bill in the best interests of the foreign relations of the United States.

Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you very much, Mr. Maurer. I just 

have a few questions. Do you know of any objections to the proposed 

transfer?

Mr. Maurer. No; at present we know of none.

Mr. Macdonald. What value has been placed on the paintings?

Mr. M aurer. I th ink that is a question that may perhaps be b ette r 

answered by the Office of Alien Property representative who is now 

present because they did in fact try to ascertain the value. We think 

they are valuable, but not of great value.

Mr. Macdonald. Do you know if they are insured or not?

Mr. M aurer. Yes, we understand from the Office of Alien Property 

that they are insured.

Mr. Macdonald. How much are they insured for?

Mr. Maurer. $140,000 is what they have been insured for.

Mr. Macdonald. On the bottom part of your statement I just had 

a question where you say that under existing legislation these paintings 

could not be returned to Germany even though they were stolen, but 

existing legislation makes i t necessary for them to be sold.

Could you clear tha t up, for me, at least? I don’t quite understand 

why.

Mr. Maurer. Well, this is another matter in which I think the 

Office of Alien Property can speak most authoritativ ely on, but, as 

we understand the Trading With the Enemy Act, it speaks in terms 

of the office or agency designated by the President to liquidate 

German assets and to dispose of them and put the proceeds in the 

war claims fund, and, as I understand, subject to what the representative of the Office of Alien Property further says, they feel that they 

have the mandate for German property to seize it, liquidate it, sell it 

and put the proceeds in the war claims fund.
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 5

Mr. Macdonald. But this goes back to the theft, if I recall your 

testimony correctly; it was stolen in 1922?

Mr. Maurer, nig ht.

Mr. Macdonald. So I don’t really see how it falls under Trading 

With the Enemy. The relationship between the United States and 

German Republic, if it was a republic in 1922, was a friendly one, 

was it not?

Therefore, I don’t see where Trading With the Enemy comes in. 

I mean I am not making any big to-do about it. I would jus t like to 

have it cleared up for the record.

Mr. Maurer. Our understanding is this: That, while i t was stolen 

in 1922, it was brought here and was here in fact in 1946 in the possession of an American citizen, b ut the Office of Alien Property analyzing 

the legal situation found that, although it was in the possession of an 

American citizen, it was still owned by the original German owner.

They felt they had a duty whenever they found property in the 

United States owned by a German owner, no matter w hat its origin, 

whether it came here by theft or stealing, tha t they had a d uty at tha t 

time to vest it and they did vest it in 1946 a t a time when we had been 

through a war with Germany, and they vested it acting under the 

Trading With the Enemy Act.

Then they also felt tha t under the Trading With the Enemy Act 

they had a mandate to sell it and to put the proceeds in the war 

claims fund.

This, too, they can expand on and the Office of Alien Property representative can speak to when he appears before you.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you. Mr. Adams?

Mr. Adams. Who owned the property in 1946? Was the determination made? You say an American citizen held it, and then was the 

ownership decreed to be in the Republic of Germany.

Mr. Maurer. My understanding is that the Office of Alien 

Property had a legal memo written by its General Counsel which 

went to the point that the ownership was in the Weimar Museum for 

the two paintings, excluding the Rembrandt, and ownership was 

probably in the Weimar Museum for the third painting, the Rembrant, with a possibility tha t with respect to the third painting there 

might be some vestigial interest in the Duke of Weimar Saxon.

Mr. Adams. They were not individually owned by Germany and 

citizens of a particular German Government? Is tha t what you 

are telling me?

Mr. Maurer. Th at is what I am telling you, with the possible 

exception of the Rembrandt, bu t I think our own feeling and the 

feeling of the Office of Alien Property is that this was very improbable 

tha t the real ownership was really in the Weimar Museum.

Mr. Adams. Just one last question. It is still the legal opinion of 

the Department of Justice that they cannot transfer this, assuming 

tha t we have a friendly state relationship now with the German 

Government and, as Mr. Macdonald pointed out, had an original 

friendly state relationship with the Republic of Germany?

It is still their legal opinion that they cannot transfer it to a friendly 

government?

Mr. Maurer. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Springer.
6 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

Mr. Springer. I want to ask this question. In the bill they used 

these words: “to be held in trust for eventual transfer to the Weimar 

Museum, Weimar, State of Thuringia, Germany, in accord with the 

terms of an agreement to be made between the United States and the 

Federal Republic of Germany.”

I want to be sure th at there is no doubt tha t we are vesting the title 

in the Federal Republic of Germany. Are we doing th at?

Mr. Maurer. I thin k I may answer in this way. There is no 

question that we are turning over the paintings to the Federal Republic 

of Germany to hold in trus t for eventual retu rn to the Weimar 

Museum.

Mr. Springer. All right. These words are awfully important, 

“in accord with the terms of an agreement to be made between the 

United States and the Federal Republic of Germany.”

Is tha t the kind of agreement you are going to make?

Mr. Maurer. Yes. We have given the text of th at agreement as 

an enclosure to the letter tha t we sent in recommending the passage 

of this legislation.

Mr. Springer. Are you going to vest title then in the Federal 

Republic of Germany in trust?

Mr. Maurer. We are going to transfer it in trust.

Mr. Springer. I just want to be sure of this because I don’t want 

to get over to the floor and have someone raise the question of whether 

we are transferring this to a Communist country.

We would just be in all kinds of soup. Tha t is the kind of thing 

we run into on the floor and someone is going to ask it, and I want 

to be sure tha t we are going to transfer this to the Federal Republic 

of Germany to transfer it at their discretion. And I take it they are 

not going to transfer it until they get some kind of an agreement 

between the two countries with reference to these matters, and I suspect the first thing tha t will come out from Ea st Germany will be an 

attack tha t we are refusing to return their stolen property.

This will be another approach to this, and you know as well as 

I do, having been in East Germany, the tactics they use over there 

on these kinds of things.

But there is no doubt tha t you are returning this and vesting title 

in the Federal Republic of Germany in trust?

Mr. Maurer. Yes, sir. That is clear, and tha t is in fact the 

language we have in the agreement.

Mr. Springer. All right.

Mr. Maurer. I can read that to you. The language we have in 

the letter to the Federal Republic of Germany is: “I have the honor 

to propose tha t upon transfer by the Attorney General of the title 

and possession of three paintings to the Federal Republic, the following terms shall apply. The Federal Republic shall hold the paintings 

in trus t for eventual transfer to the Weimar Museum.”

Mr. Springer. That is enough. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Along tha t line, if the committee does not mind 

my interjecting myself again a t this point, I take it from your answers 

to Mr. Springer that the Weimar Museum in the S tate of Thuringia, 

Germany, is in East Germany.

Mr. Maurer. Yes, it is in East Germany.

Mr. Macdonald. How can anyone be held to know th at 'eventually 

the Federal Republic of West Germany is going to deal with East 

Germany so it will be transferred to East Germany?
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 7

As I understand it, at the moment the feeling between the two 

Germanys is not exactly cordial.

Mr. Maurer. I think certainly nobody can predict exactly what 

may happend in the relations between the Federal Republic and East 

Germany, but I think Mr. Shackleton may be best qualified to talk 

to tha t point.

Mr. Shackleton. Well, sir, I believe that one must assume that 

reunification will someday take place and at that point the Federal 

Republic as the Government of Germany will return these to the 

museum.

Mr. Macdonald. Has the State Department cleared this with the 

Russians?

Mr. Shackleton. No, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. I think th at is a pretty big assumption, tha t they 

are going to be reunified.

Mr. Shackleton. Sir, it would be impossible for me to say when 

this will take place. In fact I don’t know tha t one can say that it 

will take place, but the assumption of all of our policy is tha t Germany 

will be reunified. This is a major aim of course of our foreign policy.

Mr. Macdonald. And since this is a subcommittee of the Committee on In terstate and Foreign Commerce, 1 just don’t want to get in 

the foreign relations field, but does the State Department feel it was 

necessary to include tha t language “for eventual transfer to the 

Weimar Museum” in East Germany?

Mr. Shackleton. Yes, sir. We could not return it to the Soviet 

Zone because we have no relations with it. The Federal Republic of 

Germany is the only Government authorized to speak for all the 

German people.

Therefore, the only authority in Germany to which we could return 

the paintings would be the Federal Republic in Bonn.

Mr. Macdonald. 1 just raise this because, as Mr. Springer indicated, we may have to defend this on the floor and I would rather 

ask you the questions now and have it in the record so tha t we can 

have something to defend, but actually the Federal Republic of 

Germany is not the rightful owner; is it?

Mr. Shackleton. No, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. And then aren’t we returning something to 

somebody who never had original property rights in it?

Mr. Maurer. This is so, but you understand tha t we view that 

we have made the proper adjustment for a situation which exists; 

namely, we believe this painting really belongs to the German people, 

if you will.

The Federal Republic of Germany is the representative of the 

German people, that we consider the representative of the German 

people. We consider tha t we are acting perfectly appropriately in 

turning them over to the Federal Republic of Germany in trus t for 

eventual return.

In other words, there is a recognition tha t ultimately this should 

go to the Weimar Museum. When tha t will take place would be 

when the conditions are ripe for it and when unification takes place 

or there is something of a similar nature.

Mr. Macdonald Mr. Farnsley.

Mr. Springer. May I ask one question.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Springer.
8 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

Mr. Springer. You reduce this to the irreducible. The Federal 

Republic of Germany is the only legal German Government tha t we 

recognize. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Shackleton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Springer. So, therefore, the only legal party to whom you 

can return it is them. Is tha t correct?

Mr. Shackleton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Springer. Now, you admit tha t the Weimar Museum is the 

proper owner of it; is that correct?

Mr. Shackleton. Yes, sir.

Mr. Springer. But you are returning it to them to be held in 

trus t until such time as tha t Government either comes under the 

Federal Republic of Germany or Germany is so united that there is 

a government tha t can return it to the proper owner. Th at is in 

effect what you are saying; is tha t correct?

Mr. Shackleton. That is correct.

Mr. Springer. I just want to be sure about this vesting in trus t 

since you have it to ju st one party tha t we recognize.

Mr. Macdonald. I would just like to point out that the reporter 

can’t see your head nod. You bet ter have it in the record. Your 

answer was in the affirmative to all those questions?

Mr. Shackleton. We could not, in other words, return this to the 

Government of the German Democratic Republic for return to the 

Weimar Museum. We do not have relations with the German 

Democratic Republic.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Farnsley.

Mr. Farnsley. I think I know the answer, but why not just give 

this to the West German Government? Why add the “in tr ust” ?

Mr. Maurer. I think the answer to tha t is tha t we think this is 

something which does belong to the Weimar Museum and tha t in 

terms of getting it back to the Weimar Museum it was most appropriate to give it in trus t for eventual return.

I think t ha t must be the answer.

Mr. Farnsley. Tha t is just saying we think this is right. Is tha t 

part of our policy of trying to unite the two Germanys tha t we are 

putting it in trust? If we think the West German Government 

represents Germany as far as we know why not give it to them and let 

them decide what to do about it?

I am not arguing. I am not advocating this. I am just asking. 

Maybe i t is something you can’t tell me. Maybe it is a secret.

Mr. Maurer. No, I don’t believe there is any particular secret in 

it. It happens tha t this may be of a little help in trying to cement 

the two Germanys, but frankly we don’t think it has much leverage, 

if you will, and it is basically on the notion tha t we deal with the 

Federal Republic of Germany and we feel that it is proper to give it 

to them in trust for eventual return, and the Federal Republic of 

Germany has not itself said, “Give it to us in clear and free title.”

They have themselves gone along with and concurred in this 

manner of dealing.

Mr. Shackleton. There is a question of where the rightful ownership lies.

Mr. Farnsley. What is the question?

Mr. Maurer. In view of the fact tha t our view is t ha t the Weimar 

Museum is the rightful owner, then we would feel perhaps reluctant
TH REE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 9

to give it in full title and complete title rather than in trust to the 

Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Farnsley. Thank you.

Mr. Macdonald. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Curtin. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. Yes, Mr. Curtin.

Mr. Curtin. I notice by your state ment t hat this American citizen 

acquired these paintings in 1934 but it was in 1946 when the Office 

of Alien Property got in the act. What triggered this?

Mr. Maurer. I think the Office of Alien Property representative may 

be able to give you the particulars. I gather that he attempted somehow in 1945 or 1946 to dispose of the paintings and in the course of 

inquiries which the museum raised tha t he was trying to dispose of 

two—I think it was the Dayton Museum—it came to the attention 

of the Office of Alien Property that there was this background and 

history and then they took investigating action.

Mr. Curtin. That is what I am curious about. What was the 

intention of the study?

Mr. Maurer. Perhaps the Office of Alien Property custodian can 

talk to that particular.

Mr. Curtin. He is here?

Mr. Maurer. Yes.

Mr. Curtin. Thank you.

Do you know w hat the American citizen paid for these paintings?

Mr. Maurer. There was a curious story that forms part of the 

record. The seaman is supposed to have gone out on a night on the 

town with a D ayton, Ohio, citizen and at the end of the night on the 

town the Dayton, Ohio, citizen found he didn’t have his wallet, b ut 

he had the paintings.

Mr. Curtin. This is a curious story.

That is all.

Mr. Macdonald. Thank you.

Would the next witness, who I believe is Mr. Anthony Mondello, 

come forward please, Mr. Mondello, representing the Department of 

Justice.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY L. MONDELLO, CHIEF, OFFICE OF ALIEN 

PROPERTY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Mondello. Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared statement as 

such. I am available for whatever questions any of the members 

would like to ask.

Mr. Macdonald. The previous witness referred several questions 

to you so you can sta rt by answering those.

Mr. Mondello. I will try to field them as best I can.

I do have with me a copy of the opinion rendered in 1947 by John 

Ward Cutler, Acting General Counsel of the Office of Alien Property, 

in which he took up the question of the title to these paintings tha t 

might have been in the person who possessed them in 1945 and 1946.

He ran an inquiry into the law of two States, the law of the State 

of New York where the so-called purchase transaction took place, 

whatever tha t may have been, and the law of the State of Ohio where 

by prescription a thief conceivably could have obtained title to the 

paintings or a taker from the thief might have done so.
10 THR EE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

Mr. Macdonald. I just would like to interrupt at tha t point. 

Basically, that is just not possible to obtain title by way of thievery 

under U.S. law.

Mr. Mondello. Under Ohio law—perhaps I stated tha t badly, 

Mr. Chairman—if a thief steals property and takes it away from the 

locale in which he stole it and ultimately sells it off to a purchaser who 

has no knowledge of the theft, it is possible and permissible for tha t 

purchaser, according to the law of wherever he resides, if he holds 

t his property openly and notoriously or if he returns to the place from 

which it was stolen and holds it openly and notoriously and during 

tha t period, whatever it is in the State of Ohio—I believe the period 

was 6 or 10 years—had it been done for that extensive period it is 

possible tha t as against all the world because of the prescription of 

time he might have held good title.

Mr. Adams. You are comparing the prescription doctrine to the 

adverse possession doctrine in real property; is th at correct?

Mr. Mondello. No, sir; this relates only to personal property.

Mr. Adams. I know, b ut I say you are applying prescription, which 

is the personal property equivalent of adverse possession in real 

property.

Mr. Mondello. Yes, sir; I think so.

Mr. Adams. And i t is 6 to 10 years in Ohio. I mean tha t length 

of time passed.

Mr. Mondello. There is a specific period of time. What the 

General Counsel’s opinion is, though, is a comment on the circumstances relating to these paintings which were held by him in his attic.

They were not openly and notoriously held in any fashion and the 

time period had not run under the State of Ohio, so tha t he could 

not conceivably have obtained title by virtue of his possession of these 

objects outside the State where he got them and in the State where 

he resided.

The examination also took into account the New York cases, which 

haven’t changed to this day, which indicated tha t no purchaser from 

a thief there could have gotten title to these paintings.

By the way, your question, sir, was how did the Office of Alien 

Property learn of these things. I believe we learned it initially from 

an FBI report which was furnished to the Office of Alien Property 

at the time the paintings were first brought to the Dayto n Art Institute and nobody knew what th ey were and the Director of the Institute 

reported both to the FBI because he was suspicious of what they 

might be, and he also make inquiry of the Metropolitan Art Museum 

and other museums in order to achieve some identification of the 

paintings because he did not in fact know whether they were authentic 

originals.

Mr. Curtin. If I may interrup t you, do I understand tha t these 

paintings were offered to some a rt gallery for sale and tha t is what 

brought the whole thing to light?

Mr. Mondello. We are informed, and this is hearsay evidence in 

our hands, but we are informed by the couple who possessed the 

painting tha t the individual who got it in New York, for example, 

while he was still in New York went to a number of galleries to determine what it was that he had because when he received it he had 

learned from the German seaman tha t this purported to be an original 

Rembrandt.
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 11

He did not get the verification he desired in New York and when he 

went back to Ohio he simply put it in a footlocker and left it in his 

attic for a number of years.

It wasn’t until about 1945 tha t his wife discovered it with the other 

paintings and began to try to authenticate it. She thought she had 

from some literature she read and then she then took i t to the Dayton 

Art Institute for complete verification and in assisting this lady to 

verify th at these were authentic originals it got a little more notorious 

even than was intended.

The FBI learned of it and the Office of Alien Property learned of it 

and then because of the General Counsel’s opinion that, No. 1, these 

people did not have title to the paintings and tha t title probably resided in German nationals, then the impact of the Trading With the 

Enemy Act almost required tha t these properties be vested and placed 

with all of the other vested property, and liquidate or do whatever had 

to be with such property.

Mr. Curtin. Was there any reason why the names of these people 

could not be disclosed. 1 notice you mentioned this person and tha t 

person.

Mr. Mondello. I would like not to disclose them. I have no 

idea whether this can be damaging to the reputation of a man who may 

by this time be a prominent businessman somewhere and it would 

just be unseemly on our p art I believe to divulge this information.

In the hearing before the Senate and in the consequent publication 

of a confidential print of their report it hasn’t seemed desirable to 

put it in.

The matter did come up and I suggested this to the staff of the 

Senate subcommittee and it was decided by them tha t it would be 

inadvisable to repeat the names.

Mr. Curtin. The method of acquisition from this German sailor 

by this American citizen whom you don’t want to name seems almost 

incredible. They were out on the town and instead of paying a bar 

bill turned over these paintings, one of which was a Rembrandt.

Mr. Macdonald. No, those are not the facts. The facts are tha t 

they went o ut on the town, according to the testimony, and then the 

next morning apparently, the seaman had left and he left with the 

American citizen’s wallet, and therefore, he felt tha t he had purchased 

these paintings because the seaman took the wallet-----

Mr. Curtin. And left the paintings.

Mr. Macdonald. Which presumably contained money and left the 

paintings instead of the money.

Mr. Mondello. Yes. Mr. Chairman, if I may add a slight note to 

that, apparently the seaman attem pted to sell these to the American 

citizen the day prior.

They were apparently in each other’s company for a couple of days 

and the American citizen just was not buying and then they did have 

their night on the town and the story is, as we get it from the couple 

themselves, is tha t when he woke up the next morning after having rejected the offer to sell, he found that he did in fact possess the paintings and did not in fact possess his wallet or the money in it.

Mr. Curtin. By a rather strange coincidence. Was there a very 

large sum of money in tha t wallet?

Mr. Mondello. He does not say so and we have no idea what the 

amount was.
12 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

Mr. Macdonald. Before you get off the subject of money, the 

question was referred to you as to the value of the paintings, both individually and then collectively.

Mr. Mondello. First of all, I would like to correct the record as 

to the value for which they had been insured. The Rembrandt is 

insured at a value of $140,000, Terborch is insured at a value of $2,000, 

and the “Po rtrait of a Young Woman,” by Tischbein, is insured at a 

value of $1,200—the grand total being $143,200.

We have tried in the past to inquire into the value of the paintings 

and I do not believe that, short of an actual sale, you are going to 

ever come out with much more than expert valuations if you procure 

them.

Our files do not contain a record of an appraisal. I am also told by 

the person who restored these paintings—I am sorry, I don’t have the 

pictures of them, the before and after pictures we had, but I should 

explain these things were not well taken care of.

The Rembrandt, for example, which is about 2 feet wide by 3 feet 

long, was rolled on itself with the pain t on the inside and the backing 

of the canvas on the outside, so tha t cracks appeared completely across 

the painting in the process of the creasing that took place when it was 

rolled and, apparently, placed under something and pressed.

All three paintings were slightly damaged, but the Rem brandt more 

severely than the other two. The Office of Alien Property some years 

ago hired the restorer who works for the National Gallery of Art, who 

did in fact restore them, and, to my unexpert eye, he did a tremendous 

job.They looked like the kind of paintings you see that are in the 

museum tha t appear as though they just had not been touched since 

they had been painted.

There are two schools of thought I am told about how this kind 

of restoration affects valuation. There is a school that believes 

tha t paintings of this character should never be touched, tha t no 

paint should be added 300 years later to one of these original works 

of art. The other school suggests that the only way you can tell the true 

kind of painting it was is to restore it. 1 asked at the gallery about 

what effect restoration would have on value. I was talking to two 

people then, both of whom are presumably expert, one of whom 

was the actual restorer who did the work, and they differ as to whether 

the price would be enhanced or the price would go down.

You can read in the press about old masters being sold from time 

to time at auction and see the price that they bring, but there is no 

way to tell, short of putting this to sale, I don’t suppose, just where 

it fits in the general scheme of things.

I have no way of knowing whether this is one of Rem brandt’s 

best works, worse works, or whatever.

Mr. Macdonald. I have two questions and then will turn to the 

committee for whatever questions they might have to fill out your

statement. . . . . _ ,

I still am not clear in my own mind, and I would hate to, under the 

present conditions, defend on the floor, why the Alien Property Act 

is invoked in this instance.

From my facts—you correct me if I am wrong—in 1922 we had 

friendly relations with Germany and in 1946 we did. Therefore, I do 

not quite understand how it gets invoked.
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAIN TINGS 13

Mr. Mondello. Well, I would like to try to answer this slightly in 

backward fashion, if yon will. There is in the Trading With the 

Enemy Act, section 39 which prohibits returns of vested property to 

Germany and its nationals as well as to Japan and its nationals, and 

that same provision, section 39, requires that the net proceeds remaining upon completion of the admission, liquidation, and dispossession 

of vested property shall be covered into the Treasury for deposit in 

the War Claims Fund.

Mr. Macdonald. And this includes stolen goods too?

Mr. Mondello. It does not specifically mention stolen goods. It 

simply applies across the board to vested property.

Mr. Macdonald. That takes me to my second question. I did 

not follow the title to the paintings very clearly. The two German 

soldiers stole the paintings in what year?

Mr. Mondello. 1922.

Mr. Macdonald. 1922. And then we are lost as to what happened 

to the paintings until this merchant seaman showed up in the United 

States with them. What year was that?

Mr. Mondello. 1934.

Mr. Macdonald. 1934?

Mr. Mondello. Yes, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. And in 1934 somebody in New York took 

possession of the paintings?

Mr. Mondello. Yes, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. And then they got to two other people in Ohio?

Mr. Mondello. No. The person who took possession in New 

York was a Dayton, Ohio, citizen and he simply took the paintings 

back home with him.

Mr. Macdonald. And it is t hat person and his wife who called it 

to the attention of the Dayton Art Institute?

Mr. Mondello. Yes, sir.

Mr. Curtin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Macdonald. Yes.

Mr. Curtin. I understood tha t the husband got out of the picture 

and then the wife found these and then she proceeded. Is tha t 

correct, or do I have a misunderstanding?

Mr. Mondello. I think you understood. Our information is tha t 

while these paintings were still in the possession of the husband, he 

simply had them in the attic and the wife was simply the moving 

party of the two.

Mr. Curtin. The husband is still in the picture?

Mr. Mondello. Yes, sir.

Mr. Curtin. One other question. Did this couple in Oliio file any 

type of legal protest about the taking of this property from their 

possession by the Alien Property Custodian?

Mr. Mondello. No, sir; they never did. We were in communication with them. They knew th at we had taken the paintings. They 

had a copy of the vesting order, as a m atte r of fact, sent to them which 

described why we took it, which answers your question more directly.

In 1946 the vesting power was still in existence. The President did 

not exercise his discretion not to vest until 1953 and in 1946 there were 

any number of investigations taking place with respect to property 

which was believed to be property of German or Japanese citizens and 

which was physically located in this country.
14 THR EE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

This merely became one of many investigations. Once the determination was made that title to this property was in German citizens, it 

then became like all other property available to be vested and it was 

vested on the basis th at title was either in the Weimar Museum or in 

tha t then regal family that had given possession to the Weimar 

Museum and was a long time ago contesting with the Weimar Museum 

as to who owned it, whether the family did or the museum.

We did not seek to disturb that title or anything except what it 

meant to us was since only Germans could conceivably own it, under 

tha t set of circumstances then we had the power, probably the duty 

at tha t time, to vest it and so i t was vested.

The vesting order makes recitations of th at sort.

Mr. Macdonald. Well, yes; b ut once again being the devil’s advocate, because I might have to defend this on the floor, and you know 

more about it than I do. If we are giving it back to the museum in 

a country that we don’t recognize-----

Mr. Mondello. Well, we are actually giving it back to the Federal 

Republic.

Mr. Macdonald. It gets a little complicated.

Mr. Mondello. It may get complicated, sir, but I suggest this. 

If we take these paintings on the basis that it would be helpful to 

our foreign policy because they are part of the cultural heritage of 

Germany and give them to that part of the German nation which 

we do recognize, we give it only in trust.

We make no attem pt to interfere with whoever owns tha t painting 

in Germany. There is no doubt that it was publicly held, and what 

we would be doing in effect is what the German’s would be doing if 

the situation were reversed and gave to the U.S. Government in trust 

until such time as it could give over to a State, or to the public museum 

in a State, a valuable work of American art.

Mr. Macdonald. What State does the Federal Government not 

recognize? Mississippi?

Mr. Mondello. We don’t have the war situation and what has 

happened with the cold war in Germany, bu t this is as close as you 

can come to setting up a parallel.

Mr. Macdonald. I don’t think it is a very clear analogy, frankly. 

I am bothered about the fact that, as I stated to the previous witness—■ 

I would like your comment about it—that we are giving it to a government in trust to be turned over to a museum when the two countries 

become one, and I think tha t is quite a presumption.

Mr. Shackleton. Sir, may I make a statement?

Mr. Macdonald. I think you did already, Mr. Shackleton. I 

would be happier to hear from you after I hear Mr. Mondello.

Mr. Mondello. I am afraid, sir, this is beyond my competence. I 

know nothing about foreign policy except what I read in the newspapers and I can tell you what the Trading With the Enemy Act 

requires, b ut I have no notion.

Mr. Macdonald. Yes, Mr. Shackleton.

Mr. Shackleton. Sir, the Weimar Museum was a public authority 

and as such in order to return them to tha t museum today it would 

require our turning the paintings over to the authority for the so-called 

German Democratic Republic, with which, of course, we do not have 

relations.

Therefore, logically, we must give it to the Federal Republic of 

Germany. Now, if the Federal Republic of Germany, sir, were to
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 15

decide to give it to the Weimar Museum today, I believe that it could 

after receiving the paintings from us; b ut this is a legal question and I 

could not go into i t in detail.

Mr. Curtin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Macdonald. Yes, I would be happy to in just a minute.

Does West Germany have relations with East Germany?

Mr. Shackleton. No, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. How could they turn them over to some place 

that does not exist?

Mr. Shackleton. T raise the hypothetical point that if the Federal 

Republic were to decide to do this, I assume tha t they could under 

the terms by which we would give them the paintings.

Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Curtin?

Mr. Curtin. T have just one question. Do I understand that you 

have previously said that there is some dispute in Germany as to 

whether these paintings are owned by the Weimar Museum or by some 

couple that placed them in the Weimar Museum?

Mr. Mondello. We understand tha t there was a dispute. As a 

matter of fact, T can tell you what our information is on it very briefly. 

We were fortunate in having at the Fogg Museum in Harvard a person 

by the name of William Koehler, who is the former director of the 

Weimar Museum, but by the time the war broke he came out and he 

was in this country.

He says this in a letter to us back on September 27, 1946:

Th e Rem br an dt p or trai t was l en t t o th e mu seu m by th e Grand Du ke of Saxon 

We imar arou nd the year 1909 a nd rema ine d his pr op erty u ntil afte r th e r ev olu tio n 

of 1918.

At th at tim e the highest cou rt of th e s ta te of T hu rin gia , Ob erlandsg ericht , actin g 

as an ar bi trat io n comm ittee agr eed upon by bo th t he rep rese ntatives of th e stat e 

of Th uringia and tho se of t he Gr an d Duk e’s family, decided th at, in exchan ge for 

ce rta in concessions in othe r matters, th e works of ar t le nt by th e Grand Duk e to 

th e museu m sho uld rem ain pe rm an en tly in th e custo dy of th e state, am ong them 

th e Re mbr an dt po rtrait.

I better read on:

I do no t en tirely t ru st my me mo ry in rega rd to th e wording of th e arbitratio n. 

I am no t sure wh eth er a full tra ns fer of ow nership was dec reed or a pe rm an en t 

custo dy by th e St ate inv olv ing only practic al loss of ownership on th e par t of th e 

Gr an d Duk e’s fa mily.

Now, I tried to determine whether we could find in the Library of 

Congress or other repositories of foreign legal documents, and case 

reports, and so on, a copy of an arbitration decree of any sort about 

that.

I was unsuccessful and I don’t know tha t it exists anywhere in the 

United States. So we do not yet get the terms, but tha t is a German 

legal title question tha t certainly the Office of Alien Property need 

have no concern with.

So long as both are Germans we could vest and that is what we did.

Mr. Macdonald. On tha t point, and I hate to keep coming back 

to it, you are not returning it to the person or the association that held 

title to it. You are returning it to an alien government as far as the 

two Germanys are concerned.

Tha t is what puzzles me. It does not puzzle me because I know 

what you want to do and I am in accord with what you want to do, 

but tha t is a difficulty th at certain Members of the House who want 

to harass it will bring up.
16 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

I would like some ammunition to answer them when they ask what 

seems to me to be a reasonable question.

Mr. Mondello. I would like to suggest this. We are friendly 

with the West German Government, the Federal Republic of Germany. To the extent tha t the problem arises by virtue of giving the 

object to someone that does not have title to it and just placing it 

in trust is concerned, this is a question I think you can fairly leave 

to a rather refined judicial system in Germany.

If people in Weimar want to t ry to get at the paintings, I presume 

tha t they can sue the German Government if there is a basis for suit 

and standing and all the various consents, just as anyone here in this 

country could litigate a question of title of this sort in a suit.

It is not a question we have to determine. In fact, it is not a question we could.

Mr. Macdonald. What is the difference between our passing this 

bill or passing a bill saying that we are going to give these paintings 

back to the Government of Italy for the Weimar Museum in trust 

until such a time tha t East Germany becomes reunited with West 

Germany?

Do you follow my question?

Mr. Mondello. Yes, sir, and I think we have the power to do that. 

When we took title under the Trading W ith the Enemy Act our title 

is defensible in this country. Our title is defensible against all comers. 

I don’t know what the situation would be if we would give it to Italy 

under the terms you suggest and then somehow the matter could be 

subjected to litigation in Italy.

Mr. Adams. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. Macdonald. Yes.

Mr. Adams. I want to follow directly on this point.

We have already made a legal determination as to title. This is 

what is bothering Mr. Macdonald. It was bothering me. When 

we say that this is given to the West German Government in trust 

for the Weimar Museum, the U.S. Government has stated tha t they 

have made a determination as to who owns this painting.

It goes back to Mr. Farnsley’s question and we are trying to ride 

two horses at the same time. We either give it to the German 

Government and they decide between litigants within their system, 

or we give it to the individual directly.

We aren’t doing either in this case here. We are giving it to the 

German Government, but saying, “No, you can’t decide where it 

goes.” It really belongs to the Weimar Museum, and this is bothering 

us because we have made this determination and it could be used 

certainly as a defense, I would say, by the German Government to 

giving it to anyone except the Weimar Museum.

Mr. Mondello. I don’t think anything tha t has been done in the 

proposed language of this bill constitutes a determination of title.

Mr. Adams. Then you would have no objection to doing what 

Mr. Farnsley asked, which would be just to strike the portion in here 

tha t says “to be held in trus t for eventual transfer to the Weimar 

Museum” ?

Mr. Mondello. I think what we did by tha t language was to 

suggest tha t the custody of these paintings which had been taken 

from the Weimar Museum should be restored to the Weimar Museum. 

From tha t point on let anybody fight about title tha t wanted to, but
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 17

we didn’t think we should make that determination. I don’t think 

the statutory language does it.

Mr. Adams. The bill does.

Mr. Mondello. I don’t think so.

Mr. Adams. It says “to the Federal Republic of Germany, to be 

held in trust for eventual transfer to the Weimar Museum.” We are 

constituting that Government truste e with the equitable interest in 

the Weimar Museum. Now, I don’t w ant to quibble about the legal 

terms, but I worry about, and I think it is justifiable, tha t you are 

riding two horses.

We just w ant to know which one to end up on if we have to choose 

between one of the two.

Mr. Mondello. I think a former version of this proposed stat utory 

language did include use of the word “title” and it was deleted on the 

suggestion t ha t we should not be making a determination of title and 

it was left open so that we could simply restore custody as it was in 

1922.

Mr. Macdonald. I would just like to add a third course because 

the language also says tha t what we have been discussing would be 

done, “in accord with the terms of an agreement to be made,” so 

actually we are just giving out a blank check.

How do we know what the agreement is going to be?

Mr. Mondello. The State Department can speak to that. The 

terms of the agreement are known.

Mr. Maurer. Let me speak to one or two of the points that have 

been made.

Mr. Macdonald. Would you answer tha t one first because it 

is in my mind.

Mr. Maurer. Yes, I think I can answer that one first. The terms 

of the agreement are already cleared, as it were, between us and the 

Federal Republic of Germany and they are reflected in the documents 

we have given the staff and which we gave to the Senate committee, 

and they are tha t title and possession do go to the Federal Republic 

of Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany shall hold the 

paintings in trust for eventual transfer to the Weimar Museum on 

the same basis such paintings were held by the museum prior to 

April 18, 1922.

That is the language. Now, we are fully confident on the basis 

of the studies tha t we have made that really the Weimar Museum 

was possessed of full title of two of the paintings and we think was 

possessed of full title of the third painting, the Rembrandt, with the 

possibility tha t the Weimar Museum had what you might call was 

permanent custody with a vestigial interest in the Duke of Saxon 

Weimar, so tha t we think by this language that we are getting it 

back to the state it was in 1922 and that is the way it should be.

Mr. Macdonald. If that is so, sir, why don’t we strike the words 

“in accord with the terms of an agreement” and why don’t we strike 

“to be made”?

Mr. Maurer. We have given you the text of the agreement. The 

text of the agreement is known and the agreement allows us-----

Mr. Macdonald. Why then, if you will permit me, shouldn’t it 

read “in accord with the terms of an agreement between the United 

States and the Federal Republic of Germany”?

Mr. Maurer. I am sorry.
18 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

Do I understand that all you are suggesting is putting in the terms 

“between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany” ?

Mr. Macdonald. It is all I am saying. On line 4 on page 2 of 

the bill strike “ to be made”, which is a clause in between “ agreement” 

and “between.”

Mr. Maurer. The bill reads “in accord with the terms of an 

agreement to be made between the United States and the Federal 

Republic of Germany” and are you suggesting the dropping of “to 

be made” ?

Mr. Macdonald. Yes. Tha t is what strike means.

Mr. Maurer. Well, but I don’t think tha t would change it in 

any respect in the sense that the agreement is still to be made. It 

doesn’t exist at the present time. We haven’t exchanged notes with 

the Federal Republic of Germany yet.

Mr. Macdonald. You just read from the agreement.

Mr. Maurer. We read from the text of the proposed agreement.

Mr. Mondello. Without the legislation we have no authority.

Mr. Macdonald. All right.

Mr. M aurer. These notes would be exchanged after the legislation 

had passed. I think I have answered one question of yours.

The second question was rathe r than turn it over to the Federal 

Republic of Germany to be held in trust for an agreement to be made, 

why don’t we turn it over to the Italian Government.

Mr. Macdonald. I was using th at by way of illustration.

Mr. Maurer. The only point I would make as to tha t is that the 

appropriateness it seems to us is quite clear of turning it over to the 

Federal Republic of Germany, which in the meantime until it decides 

about eventual return to Weimar may very well keep this painting 

in its own museum, show it to its own people, and it seems totally 

appropriate to let them be the holder for the meantime.

Now, a third suggestion which has been made, and I think in a 

sense this runs the gamut of possibilities, is why don’t we just give 

it in fee simply to the Federal Republic of Germany. This is Mr. 

Farnsley’s suggestion and it is one of the things tha t I say we considered, but frankly we reached a decision tha t this belongs to the 

Weimar Museum.

We would prefer to give it to the Federal Republic of Germany to 

be held in trust. We think it appropriate because tha t is where the 

title, we think, resides, rather than give it in fee simple title to the 

Federal Republic of Germany.

Now, you also raise the question—let me say this—why not give 

it to the individuals concerned, and I think there have been two 

answers to that. One, that the individual here is a public institution, 

the Weimar Museum. It is under the German Democratic Republic 

and we don’t recognize tha t regime and we look to the Federal 

Republic of Germany as the authorized representative of the German 

people, and this is not such a heterodoxical situation, as I might 

point out by one example.

For instance, when the U.S. Government deals with the Polish 

Government with respect to American claimants we could make an 

agreement by which the Polish Government will pay the American 

claimant itself, but the agreement tha t we generally make is we get 

$40 million or $20 million from the Polish Government and then we 

set up the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission to distribute the 

claims amongst American claimants.
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 19

In other words, we a ct in terms of talking to governments generally 

and in terms of their seeing out for the best interests of their people, 

and I think this must be considered as being part of the situation with 

respect to the particula r solution which we have embodied in this 

legislation.

Mr. Curtin. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Macdonald. Yes.

Mr. Curtin. Assuming tha t we turn these paintings over in the 

manner that you are indicating, supposing eventually tha t the 

Government of the West German Republic does not recognize it and 

they hold them in trusteeship, but really say tha t they have fee simple 

title to them and then eventually when the two countries are joined 

put them in a German museum and say that is where they are going 

to stay.

Would not the American Government, under those circumstances, be 

responsible to the Weimar Museum for the value of those paintings 

because we recognize the Weimar Museum owned them at the time 

we turned them over to another party?

Mr. Maurer. I think maybe one or two answers.

First, the agreement to be made with the Federal Republic of 

Germany is an international agreement-----

Mr. Curtin. It wouldn’t affect the Weimar Museum.

Mr. Maurer. Which binds the Federal Republic of Germany to 

us and if the Federal Republic of Germany did something in transgression of the international agreement we woidd have all the rights 

that we could vindicate in the International Court, if you will, so tha t 

I think basically we have an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany which we think will be complied with by the Federal Republic of Germany and if it should not be we would have the right in 

international forum, but we really don’t contemplate that the Federal 

Republic of Germany would do anything tha t will be in violation or in 

breach of what it has committed us to.

Mr. Curtin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Adams. Yes. I just wanted to know from the Alien Property 

Custodian what is your general policy when you are returning property 

that has been vested in the United States, in the Alien Property 

Custodian, to another government?

Don ’t you ordinarily, for example, if we have something out of a 

museum—well, let us stick with Italy—and we seized it during 

hostilities, just simply return this to the Government of Italy and 

let them deal with their citizens abo ut it?

Mr. Maurer. I think this is the answer. Normally we have 

procedures under the Trading With the Enemy Act whereby individuals file claims with the Trading With the Enemy-----

Mr. Adams. You deal government to government?

Mr. Maurer. No. Wait. I think this will clarify it.

If anybody has a claim before the Office of Alien Property they file 

a claim with the Office of Alien Property and if it is an individual he 

gets the property directly and if it should be in some case a government—for instance, we may have vested by mistake something belonging to the Government of the Netherlands, or maybe we vested 

something relating to the Italian Government.
20 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

Now, in tha t case it might be tha t we would give it just merely 

under the procedures of the Trading With the Enemy Act. I think 

in the case of I taly there might have been some difficulties and they 

entered into an international agreement with us, but it isn’t to my 

knowledge unorthodox for an ordinary claim by Government to be 

submitted to the Office of Alien Property and for the Office of Alien 

Property to make a simple return to the Government involved.

Mr. Adams. All right. I anticipate somebody will ask these two 

questions.

One, was this actually vested before the cessation of hostilities, the 

official cessation of hostilities between the United States and the 

German Government?

Mr. Mondello. Yes. Th at occurred in October, I believe, of 1951.

Mr. Adams. That is what I thought. This was during the continuation of hostilities in official form so there is no problem about our 

title there.

Second, if the question is asked, Does this follow the general form 

under the Trading With the Enemy Act for the return of property to a 

claimant? what do we answer, yes or no?

Mr. M ondello. I think the answer has to be "No.” This is a relatively unusual development. In normal course what we do is-----

Mr. Adams. Ordinarily you just have title. You could give it to 

anybody you want or you could sell it, couldn’t you?

Mr. Mondello. Well, yes, but we normally are in the business of 

making returns of dollars because we have already liquidated the 

property.

In this case we hadn’t done so. If the claimant caught us early 

enough so that we could make a return in kind and he was eligible for 

a return, we would give him the property back.

If it was shares of stock he would get the shares of stock. Whatever it was he would have gotten it back.

Mr. Adams. Did we do this?

Mr. Mondello. Yes; we did,

Mr. Adams. Generally if a German claimant, say in West Germany, 

came in and said, “This is my painting” and you still had it you would 

or wouldn’t have given it to him? He sold it so you have got it.

Mr. Mondello. If you change the example from a German to, 

say, one of the overrun countries, the answer is “Yes.”

Mr. Adams. I want to stay with the enemy.

Mr. Maurer. Let me answer tha t question. I think I have the 

answer.

Mr. Mondello has not been as specific as I think the situation warrants. If the property belonged to an enemy country like Germany 

there have been no returns at all.

Mr. Adams. They don’t get anything back.

Mr. Maurer. They don’t get anything back.

Mr. Adams. If i t is a German citizen?

Mr. Mauer. He gets nothing back if it is a German citizen. So 

that what we are dealing with here is something which is admittedly 

German-owned, b ut which we believe is part of the cultural heritage 

of Germany, so tha t we need legislation to return the property.

Mr. Adams. Th at gets down to the final point.

You ordinarily do not retu rn property to the enemy. It has been 

sold and gone. In this case you are returning it and for a specific pur-
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 21

pose—you mentioned cultural heritage—only you are not returning it 

to the country tha t has control of it now.

Now, do you feel that you should say in this case because it is so 

unusual tha t i t could go in trust for the individual as opposed to just 

giving it because you never usually give it to the government at all 

for anybody.

Mr. Mondello. I think that is right.

Mr. Macdonald. Just a final question.

Mr. Shackleton, you raised something that these people always 

seeing Communists under the bed might raise.

You said, if I recall your state ment correctly, that in your opinion 

once we turned this over to the West German Government they then, 

if they wanted to, could turn it over to the museum in Eas t Germany.

In effect, if what you say is so, and I would like the comment of 

your counsel about this, wouldn’t tha t have us indirectly deal with a 

Communist country which we don’t recognize?

Mr. Shackleton. I don’t think that we would be dealing indirectly 

with them, sir, but we seek to return them to the German Federal 

Republic Government because it is the only legal authority that we 

recognize for all of Germany.

Mr. Macdonald. I am not talking about that. 1 am talking 

about your statem ent that they then within a week or 2 weeks could, 

if they saw fit, turn around and hand it over to the Communist 

regime in East Germany.

Mr. Shackleton. 1 raise tha t only as a theoretical possibility, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. It is a theoretical possibility and it would be an 

embarrassing theoretical possibility to be raised on the floor and 1 

would like your counsel’s comment about it.

Mr. Maurer. Yes. We have been rather explicit in the note 

which we presented to you on this very situation.

Mr. Macdonald. I haven’t seen the note.

Mr. Maurer. I have read it to you already about holding in trust 

for eventual return on and the same basis such paintings were held 

by the museum prior to April 18, 1922.

The next sentence reads:

The Federal Republic shall determine when conditions are appropriate for the 

transfer of the three paintings to the Weimar Museum. The Federal Republic 

shall notify the Department of State in advance of a transfer to the Weimar 

Museum.

So we have set forth exactly the situation. Now, it is theoretically 

possible for the Federal Republic of Germany the next week to deal 

and then merely to notify, but the realities of the situation are quite 

clearly different.

They would consult with us before and we would be indicating what 

our views might be.

Mr. Macdonald. What would the State Department say?

Mr. Maurer. First of all, they w ouldn’t be thinking of turning it 

over tomorrow, and then if they did we would probably say we think 

that is a little bit ill advised.

The other thing I would like to say in answer to your question is, 

the Federal Republic of Germany, as Mr. Shackleton will confirm, 

maintains informal relations with the German Democratic Republic 

on certain matters. They are trade m atters and things of that type. 

We have low-level informal contact. We don’t think they are going
22 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

to be bringing this up in any of these informal contacts, but we don’t 

believe at all that by reason of their bringing it up tha t somehow 

they are representing us or that we are talking with them, and let me 

put it this way.

I think you must be apprised of the realities of some of these matters. 

We maintain informal contacts in Warsaw with the Communist 

Chinese, if you will, which we don’t recognize, and I think there is a 

certain little give and take here.

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the drafts of the notes 

of the agreement be supplied and be made a part of the record.

Mr. Macdonald. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(The information referred to above follows:)

(To Ambassador of Federal Republic of Germany).

Excellency: I have the honor to refer to discussions between represen tatives 

of the Department of Sta te and the E mbassy of the Federal Republic of Germany 

with respe ct to the disposition of three pain tings by Rem brandt, Terborch and 

Tischbein vested by U.S. Vesting Order No. 8107, Jan uary 28, 1947, which 

belonged originally to the Weimar Museum. The three paintings are:

1. Rem brandt: Self Po rtrait

2. Terb orch: Po rtrait of a Man

3. Tischbein: Po rtrait of a Young Woman

I enclose herewith a copy of the legislation which the United States Congress 

recently passed authorizing the United States Attorney General to transfer the 

three pain tings to the Federal Republic of Germany, to be held in trus t for 

eventual transfer to the Weimar Museum, Weimar, Sta te of Thurigia, Germany, 

“in accord with the terms of an agreement to be made between the United States 

and the Federal Republic of German y.”

I have the honor to propose that, upon transfer by the Attorney General of 

the title a nd possession of the three paintin gs to the Federal Republic, the following terms shall apply:

1. The Federal Republic shall hold the paintings in tru st for even tual transfer 

to th e W eimar Museum on the same basis such paintings were held by the Museum 

prio r to April 18, 1922. The Federal Republic shall determine when conditions 

are app ropriate for the transfer of the thre e paintings to the Weimar Museum. 

The Federal Republic shall notify the Department of State, in advance, of a 

tran sfer to the Weimar Museum.

2. Until the transfer is made, the Federal Republic shall hold, care for and 

safeguard the tnree paintings in th e same way as it would a rt treasures of its own.

If the foregoing proposal is acceptable to the Federal Republic of Germany, 

Your Excellency’s reply to th at effect and this note shall constitute a n agreement 

effective on the date of the reply.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

Secretary of State (or for the Secretary of State).

Embassy, Federal Republic of Germany. 

(To the Secretary of State).

Excellency: I have the honor to refer to your note of concerning the disposition of three paintings by Rembran dt, Terborch and Tischbein, vested under 

U.S. Vesting Order No. 8107, Janu ary 28, 1947, which belonged originally to 

the Weimar Museum, Weimar, State of Thuringia, Germany.

My Governm ent has advised th at the proposal contained in your Excellency’s 

note is acceptable.

It is my understanding th at this reply and your Excellency’s note of 

constitu te an agreement effective on th e date of th is reply.

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.

Ambassador,

Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Farnsley. I am not advocating this. I am just asking. 

What would you think if we p ut in the bill “for eventual transfer to 

the Weimar Museum in the event of a merger?”
THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS 23

Somebody said you wanted East and West Germany to get together 

and conceivably they could make a little deal. We say tha t we can 

transfer after they have merged.

Mr. Maurer. I think if the committee or the Congress felt that it 

was desirable to pin tha t down tha t way the State Department would 

go along with it and I think we would in fact want to consult with the 

Federal Republic of Germany on it, but we have thought tha t tha t is a 

straitjacket type of provision or we think it is too strict in view of 

the uncertainties as to what in the next 10 or 20 years may emerge, 

and we view this as a long-range agreement.

Mr. Farnsley. You are straightjacketing the Weimar Museum. 

Nobody knows what will become of the Weimar Museum. Somebody 

may steal the whole museum and title. You want a straight]acket 

that it goes to the museum but you don’t want a straight]acket tha t 

it goes after they merge, although you are very anxious for them to 

merge, and you won’t give them to the Weimar Museum now and you 

suspect tha t they won’t merge.

Mr. Macdonald. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. Farnsley. Yes.

Mr. Macdonald. This perhaps is none of my concern or business, 

but I don’t think tha t the State Department through any representations wants to go on record as saying tha t the State Department and 

the administration favor a reunification of Germany.

Mr. Maurer. Oh, I am sorry, I think we definitely do go on record 

as saying we favor the reunification of Germany. This is a standard 

ironclad policy of the State Department.

Mr. Shackleton. Indeed, tha t is the policy.

Mr. Macdonald. That is the official American policy?

Mr. Shackleton. That we favor the reunification of Germany, 

indeed, sir. Sir, may I make a comment to Mr. Farnsley?

Mr. Macdonald. Even though the Russians might, if this were 

put into effect, take over all of Berlin? The French obviously are 

afraid of it, and all the people in Europe who suffered under a militant 

unified Germany are certainly opposed to tha t position, aren’t they?

Mr. Shackleton. Sir, we favor a reunification of Germany under 

peaceful means under a democratic government. I am not sure tha t 

I understand your question exactly, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. My question is tha t it was my opinion, and I 

am glad I learn something every day here in Washington, that the 

reunification of Germany is a very thorny subject which the administration has never publicly stated, tha t I have ever seen, tha t they 

favor because there are so many countries in Western Europe with 

whom we are trying to maintain friendly relationships who fear a 

reunification of Germany.

Am I incorrect in that?

Mr. Maurer. No; I think you are not correct in the sense that the 

State Department has as one of its standard policies now from the end 

of the war the reunification of Germany. The reunification would be 

on terms which would mean that the people who constitute the majority 

of the German people would be in control, and we have not any feeling 

ourselves that that would mean it would be the Democratic Republic 

in control of all of Germany, and one of the things which we have constantly emphasized, and Mr. Shackleton can confirm it, is that reunification would be accomplished by free elections in which the Ger-
24 THREE VESTED GERMAN PAINTINGS

man people would express their view, and we have full confidence th at 

a democratic German Government would emerge and this would be 

the most hoped for consummation of the difficulty.

Mr. Macdonald. I am glad I came to the hearings this morning. 

I learned not only about paintings, but I learned something about 

State Department policy. Are there any further questions of the 

witnesses?

Thank you all very much.

Mr. Maurer. Thank you very much.

Mr. Macdonald. The hearing is adjourned.

(Whereupon, a t 11:23 a.m., the hearing was adjourned to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.)

o