Experts See No Immediate Benefits to Claimants Under Restitution Law

The restitution law issued here this morning by General Clay is hedged about with conditions which make it doubtful that the claimants will derive much benefit soon, according to experts here.

T.H. Ball, director of the finance division of the Military Government, pointed out to a questioner that the present owner, if he can prove that he did not use personal duress himself on the original owner, has a chance to regain both what he said and the value of any improvements.

Since it is estimated that between 80 and 90 percent of the properties affected formerly belonged to Jews, and since most of these former owners or their heirs are abroad, they are likely to run into financial complications in regaining their properties. One such complication is the requirement that if the claimant does not have a bank balance of marks in Germany, he must use dollars to buy the necessary marks to repay the present holder where the latter is entitled to the return of the purchase price or the cost of improvements.

Since virtually all persecutees who fled abroad had their bank accounts confiscated by the Nazis, they of course have no mark bank balance. Thus, the persecuted Jews and other emigres may find themselves in the strange position of aiding the German import-export program by helping to remedy Germany’s dollar deficiency and handing in good dollars to buy back the properties they lost under Hitler. “We do not see any way to restore those bank accounts which the Nazis have already wiped out,” Mr. Ball said.

Another difficulty about restitution, when it is carried out, is that the owner will have no way of converting his regained property into foreign currency. He can come back and live in his house, or sell it for marks, but he cannot realize anything on it for use abroad until that far-off day when Germany currency and forsign exchange are again stabilized.