British Parliament Hears Plea on Property Belonging to Nazi Victims

The question of the disposal of property in this country belonging to victims of Nazi persecution who sent their property here before the war was raised in the House of Commons this week end by Sir Henry d Avigdor Goldsmid, Conservative Member of Parliament.

Prefacing his criticism with a tribute to the humane policy of the British Government which had enabled many Jews to enter this country thus saving them from extermination at the hands of the Nazis, Sir Henry declared. “For this the Jewish people will always be grateful, and although I propose to be critical of the Board of Trade, that criticism in no way extends to the policy of this country as a whole, which has always been a great up holder of the oppressed.”

What he was concerned about, said Sir Henry, was heirless property which is still administered by the custodian of enemy property. Pointing out that the United States had approved a bill authorizing the transfer of $3,000,000 to Jewish institutions from unidentifiable assets of this nature for the relief of persecutes and that Switzerland was considering a similar bill, Sir Henry urged the Government to consider whether it might not be appropriate to make a special “ex gratia” payment to refugee organizations–Jewish and Christian–which had worked to relieve the victims of Nazism.

Referring to property sent here for safekeeping from enemy countries other than Germany and Austria–particularly Hungary and Rumania–he said that such property had been frozen and vested in the Administration for Enemy Property. The Conservative M. P. also referred to those who went underground to evade persecution they did not qualify for the restoration of their assets if they avoided imprisonment. “The view is taken that where owners of funds died a natural death,” he went on, “the estate is refused to their heirs, even if the heirs themselves had been persecuted. All these cases are known to the Board of Trade and only in some of them have the claims been met.”

BRITISH MINISTER OUTLINES GOVERNMENT’S STAND ON HEIRLESS FUNDS

In his reply to Sir Henry, A. R. W. Low, Minister of State at the Board of Trade, expressed regret that Sir Henry had charged the Board with being unkind in the way it had administered the matter. “There’s no difference inside the government on these matters,” he asserted. “Great consideration has been given to the kind of concession which could be allowed. The decision to allow concessions was taken after the war. A large number of claims had been made for concessions; 904 cases have been examined 656 were admitted and 248 rejected. In other words, 73 percent of the cases had been admitted, and covered 1,500,000 pounds.”

“These cases,” continued Mr. Low, “have all been handled very thoroughly and with the greatest sympathy. When considering concessions the House must be aware of the difficulties of administration.” Among these difficulties, he said, were the large number of cases which differed widely and the great difficulty of getting evidence which must come from behind the Iron Curtain. “I’m afraid it is too late to consider altering the rules, “he stated, adding that “apart from the effect on the amount of property that is left, if the rules were altered, every single one of the cases which had been rejected would have to be looked at anew.”

Mr. Low commented that it was not only persecuted Jews who went underground, but criminals as well. Evidence of going underground was difficult to find and often obtainable only from interested parties. In reference to the suggestion that heirless funds should be treated separately and distributed to refugee organizations, Mr. Low states, it would be impossible to define and identify this property. The U.S. had treated the problem differently, but they had larger assets and relatively fewer claims, he argued.