and records of the associations quoted and statements of fact concerning them,' but 'the inference and conclusions contained therein are of doubtful value as evidently the conclusions of a Japanese silk representative defending his industry against a claim.' In this connection, the Wakimoto affidavit states:
'That, likewise, affiant was apprised of the investigation conducted in 1948 by representatives of the Japanese Government at the direction of the Supreme Commander Allied Powers (SCAP) which resulted in a report to the Office of alien Property in the United States allegedly relating to the claims of the Guild against the vested assets of said exporting firms.
'That, in the course of said investigation, former representatives of each of the said exporting firms, including affiant, were advised by one of the representatives of the Japanese Government conducting the investigation that it might be better for them to indicate their denial of any obligation to the Guild to elimate any complications in the future but, if they considered it better not to do so or a matter of policy in the interest of the silk industry as a whole, it was entirely up to them; and affiant knows of his own knowledge that the report of those conducting said investigation was transmitted to SCAP without examination by or the approval of the exporters.'
I would agree with the Hearing Examiner in according very little weight to the evidentiary value of the document, but in this proceeding I cannot substitute my judgment for that of the Deputy Director, Office of Alien Property, who relied upon this document. In any event, the Guild at no time ever attempted to hold the individual exporters responsible for monies they had remitted to the special committee, but always insisted that the special committee had only the administrative duty of transferring the monies to it, and accepted the remittances of the exporters as a performance of their part of the agreement. Proof is lacking that the exporters were able to exercise the control over the special committee which would simply constitute it their agent so as to make the monies held by the special committee at the time of the vesting of the property of Asahi, Japan, the monies of the exporters, in this instance Asahi, Japan.
For the reasons stated, summary judgment will be granted to the plaintiff for the value of $ 80,323.09. These funds were returned to Asahi, Japan, on September 22 and 25, 1942, thus fixing its liability as of those dates, which were subsequent to the freezing controls. Remittance to the Guild thereafter was not possible until relations with Japan were restored on December 31, 1946, by amendments to General License 94 and to Public Circular No. 25 (12 Fed.Reg. 1457, 1459, March 4 1947). There was, however, no rate of exchange on that date, and exhibits filed in the case show that, pursuant to a directive on April 25, 1949, of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, the Japanese government promulgated a foreign exchange and foreign trade control law, effective as of December 5, 1949, and designated two New York City banks to handle foreign exchange transactions. Under the principles stated in the case of Southerland v. Mayer, 271 U.S. 272, 46 S. Ct. 538, 70 L. Ed. 943, it is the exchange rate effective on this latter date (the first after Asahi, Japan, became liable for payment of the $ 80,323.09) to which the plaintiff is entitled. According to a letter dated January 17, 1950, from the Treasury Department, Office of International Finance, to the Office of Alien Property, Department, Office of Justice, also filed as an exhibit herein, such rate of exchange is $ 361.55 to the dollar. Summary judgment will be granted to the defendants respecting the balance of the claim, which is dependent upon the monies held by the special committee.
Counsel will prepare an appropriate order to carry this decision into effect.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.