Mr. ZABLOCKI. It is of real concern that one firm, in effect, will be the beneficiary of a fairly good payment if the legislation is acted upon favorably. If we can find some way of assuring that there will be no windfall to one firm I think this would enhance the possibility of favorable action on the legislation, very frankly, Mr. Secretary.

We will have to try to work that out. I am not an attorney. So, we will look into that later.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Are we in executive session?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. We are in executive session.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. If I might make a statement in regard to that issue, if one law firm happens to be the only law firm which thought there was merit in the case of the Ryukyuans and pursued the matter, if it was a matter of voluntary contract between the claimants and the attorneys, I cannot see anything really wrong with it as an attorney, myself, because I have taken cases where other lawyers have refused, and made recovery, in accident cases. It does not mean that, because I was the only one who was willing to take that case, I should not be getting a 33-percent fee in damage suits. I feel no scruples about having to deal with only one law firm or, rather, to pass legislation which would mean the payment of fees by the claimants to any one law firm.

From the statement just made, a 1-percent fee is really a minimum amount. Over a period of 8 years, I can imagine what must have gone on between the claimants and the attorney. Being an attorney, I can say that you can be hounded, especially where there are 80,000

claimants.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. How many of the 80,000-plus claimants have agreed to retain this law firm to act on their behalf?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I do not know anything about that.

General WATSON. There are approximately 80,000 claimants, 180,000 claims.

Mr. RESOR. As I understand, they were the attorneys for the association which represented all the claimants.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. All the 80,000 claimants?

Mr. RESOR. Yes.

Incidentally, I might give you a copy of this correspondence.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. We would be happy to have it for the subcommittee files.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I might state further that the average claim, as I stated in my testimony, runs to about only $275. What attorney would represent a client who has only $275 in claims? He couldn't find one. It is only because of the association getting them all together, each one paying $2 or $5, that they were able to hire counsel.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Congressman, are you saying that the larger claimants-for example, the city of Naha-did not retain Hemmendinger as their attorney?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I do not know, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RESOR. I think that they are one of the members of the association.

General WATSON. They should be.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Concerning the nearly $1 million to be paid to various cities and towns. It would seem that our moral obligations if any should relate only to individuals. Why should the United States have a moral obligation to Naha City? Over the years the United States has given many millions of dollars in economic aid, a substantial part of which was directly beneficial to cities and towns. Are we taking that into consideration or have we taken that into consideration?

Mr. RESOR. I think General Watson will respond to that, but I just might make one comment.

The Hague Convention No. IV, expressly refers to municipalities, as well as to individuals, and states the principle that the property of municipalities, as well as of individuals, should not be taken without due compensation.

General WATSON. I would like to follow right in trail with that. We are right in sequence very nicely. Article 56 states:

The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. May I pursue another point?
Mr. RESOR. I might add one other thing, if I
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, Mr. Secretary.

may.

Mr. RESOR. We have given aid, and Congress has authorized aid to the Ryukyus during the period of occupation. But it is my understanding that the congressional intent, as clearly reflected in the reports relating to that so-called GARIOA aid, made it quite clear it was nonreimbursable aid. If we were to offset the claims of the city of Naha against the aid that has been given, we would, in effect, be securing reimbursement for the aid.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Another matter-and we had testimony on this this morning-was that Japan has already contributed $2.8 million to pretreaty claimants. Who received the Japanese contribution, and how were the recipients selected, or who selected the recipients? Doesn't this contribution make it appear that Japan has accepted total responsibility for pretreaty claims despite the fact that they have disclaimed such responsibility publicly?

I think we ought to have a reply to that point on the record.
General WATSON. Should we provide it for the record?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. If you provide it for the record it will expedite the hearing this afternoon.

General WATSON. We will be glad to provide it for the record. (The information is as follows:)

Background details concerning the Japanese Government's solatium payment of 1957 are set forth in the opening statements which were presented to the subcommittee this morning by Secretary Resor and Ambassador Berger.

With regard to the first question (as to who received these funds), it should be noted that this gratuitous contribution of 1 billion yen (about $2.8 million) was but a small fraction (1/17th) of the 17 billion yen (about $47 million), which was the total amount of the claims on record as of that time. The Japanese Government paid out these funds (through the GRI) to the individual landowners, across the board, on a pro rata basis. As noted in Secretary Resor's opening statement, these payments have been deducted from the claims covered by the proposed legislation, and a specific provision has been included therein, precluding disbursement of funds appropriated thereunder for claims already satisfied by the Government of Japan.

With regard to the second question (as to whether, by making this partial payment, Japan has accepted the total responsibility for them), this matter has been the subject of a number of interpellations and replies by Japanese Government officials before various committees of the Japanese Diet, particularly during 1956 and 1957. In these discussions, the Japanese Government has consistently presented its position as denying any legal liability on Japan's part for Ryukyuan pretreaty claims. For instance, Prime Minister Kishi stated as follows on March 18, 1957, in answering an interpellation before the Budget Committee of the Lower House of the Diet: "It is because the Government cannot leave the people of Okinawa in difficulties as they are, and not because Japan is responsible for payment, that the Government decided to pay a solatium. It is our belief that the United States has to make payment."

Two days later (on March 29, 1957), Japanese Finance Minister Hayato Ikeda made the following statement in this matter before the Budget Committee of the Upper House of the Japanese Diet: "According to a view of the Japanese Government, Japan is not responsible for compensation. The United States is responsible. The Government believes so, despite there are many arguments in connection with the peace treaty."

Further, the Japanese Cabinet decision of May 8, 1957, which authorized the payment, clearly indicated that his action was in the nature of a solatium contribution.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Congressman Whalley, do you have any questions? Mr. WHALLEY. In Mr. Matsunaga's presentation in the third paragraph he said, "This includes claims for personal injury and death." Suppose there was a death, how could you arrive at the amount of the claim? Was that just for the death of the person?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. For wrongful death, of course, where a soldier of our Armed Forces happens to run over a person in negligence. Mr. WHALLEY. By the U.S. military forces?

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Yes. How the damages were actually assessed, I do no know. Those who served on the Joint Committee might better be able to sav. The claims do include private tort claims.

Mr. RESOR. We have the answer for that here.

Mr. WHALLEY. In other words, in any death caused by our military, was there a set figure for each one, or was it a different figure, according to income or some other basis?

General WATSON. May I ask Mr. Slattery to respond? Mr. Slattery is the lawyer.

STATEMENT OF EUGENE V. SLATTERY, GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY, U.S. CIVIL ADMINISTRATION, RYUKYU ISLANDS

Mr. SLATTERY. The procedures for determining death claims in the Ryukyus are based on the Labor Standards Act of Japan, which has been incorporated, by enactment of a similar law, into the laws of the Ryukyu Islands. A death claim beneficiary would receive a salary equal to his wages for 1,000 days, plus some other benefits. I might say that the claims average roughly between $1,500 and $1,600. As I recall there were about 345 death claims, in the overall averaging from $1,500 to $1,600. But the regular schedule is followed, to determine the amounts that are paid to the surviving widow and the children, if it happens to be the male member of the family.

Mr. WHALLEY. The presentation also said that the per capita income was $319 average. Now you say $1,500, on the basis of a thousand days, so that would be above the average per capita.

Mr. SLATTERY. I cannot answer that.

General WATSON. It just comes out that way; 319 times 3 years. A thousand days is roughly 3 years; $957.

_Mr. WHALLEY. In proportion to the $319 annual per capita income, the $275 average claim would be approximately 80 percent, or something similar. So the claims are really higher than you think, for people from that particular area.

In this country, if you give the claimant 80 percent of his annual salary it would be a sizable figure.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. By Okinawan standards?

Mr. WHALLEY. Yes.

Mr. MATSUNAGA. I believe Mr. Slattery can make a comment on that, but the standards I believe were measured by prewar standards. Right now, the standards in Okinawa are such that it is almost equal to American standards.

Mr. WHALLEY. You mean higher?

General WATSON. They are higher in Okinawa than prewar Okinawa. There is no question about it.

if

Mr. WHALLEY. Don't you think it would make the statement stronger you had a $275 claim and the per capita income was $10,000 or $15,000, rather than a per capita income of $319 with a $275 claim?

Mr. RESOR. The per capita income includes men, women, and children, so the wage earners as an individual, would have a higher annual income than $319. Actually, if the $22 million were broken down among the entire population of 930,000 in the Ryukyuan Archipelago, it would mean about $24 a person.

Mr. WHALLEY. I am thinking when you get the bill before the House, that someone might say that the claim seems to be low, but it is not low compared to the $319, where in reality today you say it is more like American standards. It would seem to me to have a better opportunity of getting a better hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Ambassador, do you have any knowledge as to whether or not Japan is presently considering making any additional contribution to the Ryukyuans for pretreaty claims?

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL D. BERGER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FAR EASTERN AFFAIRS

Mr. BERGER. We have no information that they have any intention excepting that one contribution in 1957. They are considering providing additional economic assistance.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Is there a part of these pretreaty claims outstanding that the Japanese still owe to the Ryukyuans, or are they all settled? Mr. BERGER. The Japanese take the position that they have no legal responsibility for these claims. That is their position. In 1957, they made a $2.8 million contribution.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. As I understand it they assumed responsibility for a portion of the pretreaty claims. Have they satisfied that entire amount that they have taken responsibility for?

Mr. BERGER. As I understand it, they decided to make a payment in the amount of 1 billion yen, to relieve the hardship of people of Okinawa in the Ryukyus, who had had these claims. This is Prime Minister Kishi:

It is because the Government cannot leave the people in Okinawa in difficulties as they are, and not because Japan is responsible for payment that the Government decided to pay. It is our belief that the United States has to make the payment.

This is the only payment we know of that they have made or intend

to make.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Secretary, the Department of the Army carries out a substantial economic aid program to the Ryukyus. What is the nature of the total amount contributed over the last 5 years? General WATSON. May I take that, sir?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, General.

General WATSON. The last 2 years, it has been $12 million each year. The current request before the Congress is for $12 million. That is for fiscal 1966. In fiscal 1965 it was also $12 million. In just a very short moment, I can find the backup sheet which has the 3 preceding years, if you would like to have me submit that for the record or give it to you now. I can do it. I have it right here.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Is it expected that the $12 million of grant economic assistance will continue for some time to come.

General WATSON. In my personal opinion, without making an expectation of the pleasure of Congress [security deletion].

Mr. ZABLOCKI. At any rate, I am coming to the point that I would like to have your opinion on, General. You would emphasize to the subcommittee that the amounts of aid that the Army gives to the Ryukyu Islands should not be offset to the private claims.

General WATSON. I would very definitely say that they should not. Furthermore, I would like to point out that, in addition to the observation just made, it is against the specific appropriation act for us to apply these aid funds to claims.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. To pursue a question which has been the crux of the Philippine war damage claims, it was maintained in the other body that the claims could be handled easier if we paid a lump sum to the Government of the Philippines, and let that Government settle the outstanding claims against the United States. Therefore, it would not be a payment by the U.S. Government directly to the claimants, but a lump sum settlement with the Philippine Government. You do not foresee any possibility or need for such a procedure in this instance?

General WATSON. I would say not. I do not think that it is a possibility. I would also like to point out, for one thing—and I believe that there is a difference in this matter between the Ryukyus and the Philippines-that the Ryukyuan government is, in effect, not an independent national government. It is under the provisions of the Executive order of the President of the United States that the government of the Ryukyu Islands is established and conducted.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Yes, I understand. Just to pursue again the policy and method of payment, you believe that it would not be satisfactory to increase the $12 million annual aid to, say, $20 million and use the $8 million to pay the claimants in part.

General WATSON. It definitely would not, Mr. Chairman. This, I think, is a very strong point. This matter of aid to the Ryukyu Íslands is an entirely separate and distinct activity and operation from the payment of claims.

I would say that it would be quite undesirable for any such mixture of nonhomogeneous expenditures to be covered by placing them all in the authorization for economic aid to the Ryukyu Islands.