CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

with Kempner or the cotton sales, Germann & Co., had been lost through improper administration by the Alien Property Custodian. The determined amount

of the loss of the Germann & Co. vested

property would be then withdrawn from

the war claims fund and used to compensate the Kempner Trust Association

to the extent of its loss.

Following World War I the Kempner

Trust Association through subsidiary

corporations entered into contracts for

the sale of cotton with a number of

German textile manufacturers for future delivery. A fall in cotton prices before delivery led the German firms to

breach their contracts with the association. The amounts payable by the German debtors on account of the breaches

of contract, as determined by judgments

and negotiated settlements, could not be

paid through the subsequent period before World War II because of German

foreign exchange controls, and, as a result, the trust association lost money

on the transactions. These losses would

be paid by the United States if this bill

were enacted although it is clear that

the United States bears no moral or legal

liability for the transactions which resulted in the losses in question.

Moreover, the method of payment proposed by the bill raises serious questions

of propriety. The matter involving Germann & Co. has no relationship to the

claim which the Kempner Trust Association seeks to have paid. During World

War I the Alien Property Custodian had

seized the property of Germann & Co.,

a firm in the Philippines, as enemy property. When the property was returned

to Germann & Co., following enactment

of legislation authorizing return of

seized property after World War I, it was

claimed that the firm's assets had been

depleted by approximately $1 million

during the period of its administration

by the Alien Property Custodian through

allegedly improper payments. The

Treaty of Berlin which terminated World

War I between the United States and

Germany, however, precludes Germann

& Co. from asserting any claim against

the United States on account of the

seizure of its property or any losses during the period it was held by the United

States. There is, therefore, no valid

claim to be asserted by Germann & Co.

as the basis for the proposed determination by the Court of Claims. Even if such

a claim existed, however, the proposed

payment of its proceeds to the Kempner

Trust Association instead of to Germann

& Co. would not appear to be a proper

disposition of the rights of the latter

company.

Furthermore, the bill confers upon the

United States Court of Claims jurisdiction to sit in judgment upon the acts of

the former German Government with

respect to acts committed in Germany.

I am informed that this would be contrary to a well-recognized principle of

international law and practice.

For these reasons, the purpose and

method of payment would not appear

justified. Moreover, enactment of this

bill would establish an undesirable precedent for the assumption by the United

States for the commercial losses of American citizens, even where no governmental sponsorship of the commercial yenture appeared. It would also set an un- desirable precedent for the use of the

German and Japanese assets vested during World War II for commercial losses

suffered during peacetime in lieu of their

present use through the war claims fund

as the source of payment of the wartime

personal injury damages suffered by

American nationals.

Accordingly, I am constrained to withhold my approval from the bill. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 3, 1954.

SANITARY DISTRICT OF CHICAGO, H. R. 3300

H. R. 3300. I have withheld my approval of H. R. 3300, to authorize the

State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the direction of

the Secretary of the Army, to help control the lake level of Lake Michigan by

diverting water from Lake Michigan into

the Illinois Waterway.

The bill would authorize the State of

Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago, under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of the Army, to

withdraw from Lake Michigan, in addition to all domestic pumpage, a total an- nual average of 2,500 cubic feet of water

per second into the Illinois Waterway

for a period of 3 years. This diversion

would be 1,000 cubic feet per second more

than is presently permitted under a decree of the Supreme Court of the United

States dated April 21, 1930. The bill

also would direct the Secretary of the

Army to study the effect in the improvement in conditions in the Illinois Waterway by reason of the increased diversion,

and to report to the Congress as to the

results of the study on or before January

31, 1957, with his recommendations as

to continuance of the increased diversion authorized.

The bill specifies that the diversion

would be authorized in order to regulate

and promote commerce, to protect, improve, and promote navigation in the

Illinois Waterway and Mississippi Valley, to help control the lake level, to afford protection to property and shores

along the Great Lakes, and to provide

for a navigable Illinois Waterway. No

mention is made of possible improvement of sanitary conditions or increase

in hydroelectric power generation on the

waterway.

I am unable to approve the bill because

(1) existing diversions are adequate for

navigation on the Illinois Waterway and

Mississippi River, (2) all methods of

control of lake levels and protection of

property on the Great Lakes should be

considered before arbitrarily proceeding

with the proposed increased diversion,

(3) the diversions are authorized without reference to negotiations with Canada, and (4) the legitimate interests of

other States affected by the diversion

may be adversely affected. I wish to

comment briefly on each of these points.

I understand that waterborne traffic

on the Illinois Waterway has grown in

the last 20 years from 200,000 tons to

16 million tons annually. The Corps of

Engineers advises, however, that the existing diversions of water are adequate

for navigation purposes in the Illinois

Waterway and the Mississippi River.

Surveys are now underway by the International Joint Commission and the

Corps of Engineers to determine the best

methods of obtaining improved control

of the levels of the Great Lakes and of

preventing recurrence of damage along

their shores. Reasonable opportunity

to complete these surveys should be afforded before legislative action is undertaken.

The diversion of waters into and out

of the Great Lakes has historically been

the subject of negotiations with Canada.

To proceed unilaterally in the manner proposed in H. R. 3300 is not wise policy.

It would be the kind of action to which we would object if taken by one of our neighbors. The Canadian Government

protested the proposed authorization

when it was under consideration by the

Congress, and has continued its objection to this bill in a note to the Department of State dated August 24, 1954. It seems to me that the additional diversion is not of such national importance as to justify action without regard to

the views of Canada.

Finally, as is clear from the report of

the Senate committee, a major purpose

of the proposal to divert additional water

from Lake Michigan into the Illinois

waterway is to determine whether the increased flow will improve existing ad- verse sanitation conditions. The waters

of Lake Michigan are interstate in character. It would seem to me that a diversion for the purposes of one State

alone should be authorized only after

general agreement has been reached

among all the affected States. Officials

of several States adjoining the Great

Lakes, other than Illinois, have protested

approval of the bill as being contrary to

their interests and not in accord with

the diversion authorized under the 1930

decree of the Supreme Court. Under all

of these circumstances, I have felt that

the bill should not be approved.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 3, 1954.

FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT,

H. R. 9728

H. R. 9728. I have withheld my approval from H. R. 9728, to revise, codify,

and enact into law, title 21 of the United

States Code, entitled "Food, Drugs, and

Cosmetics."

The legislative history of this meas- ure indicates that it was enacted in the

view that existing law would not be substantially changed by the bill or that no changes in existing law would be made

which would not meet with substantially

unanimous approval.

Notwithstanding this, the bill makes one very important substantive change

and casts serious doubts on the status

and interpretation of other statutory

provisions. The most important change

is the deletion from the multiple seizure

powers of the present law the authority

which the Food and Drug Administration has had for a number of years to

make more than one seizure of food;

drugs, and cosmetics, where they bear

identical labeling which is believed

fraudulent or so materially misleading as to injure or damage the purchaser or consumer. In the cases subject to

removal of authority made by the bill,

the Food and Drug Administration

1954 15569