*1 v. HULL, & REALIZATION CORP. Z. F. ASSETS * STATE, SECRETARY OF al. et Argued Decided January 6, 1941. 9, December 10, No. 381. 1940. *Together 382, with No. Steamship American-Hawaiian Co. v. Hull, Secretary State, al., et also on writ of certiorari, post, p. 632, to,, Appeals the Court for the District of Columbia. *2 Proskauer, Joseph with whom Frank
Mr. M. Messrs. Roberson, Condon, John F. Jr., John Bassett Moore for & were on Z. F. Assets brief, Realization Corp., 381. petitioner No.
Mr. Fred K. Nielsen for. American-Hawaiian Steam- ship petitioner No. 382. Company, *7 Solicitor Biddle, General with whom Assistant Attor- ney Siegel Shea, General' and Messrs. Melvin H. Francis Hull, J. McNamara were on the for Cordell brief, Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of State, and respondents. Treasury, *8 Mitchell, with whom Messrs. Frederic
Mr. William D. Woolsey,, Peaslee, Amos Lester H. Coudert, R. Lehigh McCloy' Valley John on the brief, were J. intervener-respondent. Company, Railroad *9 480 Hughes delivered opinion
Mr. Chief Justice the Court.
Petitioners, Z. and Corporation & F. Assets Realization holders Steamship Company, American-Hawaiian are awards of the Mixed Claims States Commission, United ' Germany. by and These been certified have awards fund Secretary payable and are thus out of the State Act of by established of War Claims the Settlement 1928.1 a latеr judgment declaring Petitioners seek by the Com- purporting awards to be made Mixed Claims Lehigh Valley Company, mission favor of the Railroad Agency Foundry Company, of Canadian Car and Limited, aré Company Bethlehem Steel and others, these null and and the certification of restraining void, Secretary and their payment State Secretary Lehigh Valley Rail- Treasury. The Company road intervened as a defendant. Defendants, of State
n petitioners’ moved bills dismiss Treasury, jurisdiction and for to state upon want of failure a claim granted. relief could intervener defendant summary an answer and moved for judgment. filed (31 F. Court dismissed bills Supp. 371) District by the Court of 114 judgment Appeals. affirmed its was granted certiorari, post, p. 464. 632. F. 2d We Commission, United States and The Mixed Claims agreement to an of Au- pursuant Germany, up was set amount paid to be to determine gust 10, 1922,2 obligations of her financial under Germany satisfaction August 25, 1921.3 The Commis- Treaty of Berlin appointed by one of three members, consisted sion Germany, Umpire and an se- States, another United 1 45 Stat. 254. 242 Stat. 2200. 1939. Stat. *10 by
leсted the two The Umpire was “to .Governments. upon any decide the concerning cases commission- may disagree, ers or upon any points' of difference that may in the their arise course of It proceedings.” fur- was provided ther that the Umpire any should or the Commissioners die or or be any unable for retire, reason discharge to functions, vacancy his the should be filled in the original same manner as the appointment. It was agreed that decisions of the Commission and those the the Umpire final aсcepted binding should as and upon the two Governments.
The Settlemént of War Claims Act of in 1928 created Treasury “German Special the a Deposit Account.” Sec- 2 provided tion that the Secretary of State should certify to from time time to the Secretary of Treasury the the Claims awards the Mixed Commission, and the Secre- tary Treasury of the was directed to pay out the in placed the amounts account the principal of each certified, so interest as award stated. by claims covered by peti- attacked of the arose out destruction property
tioners caused by Black Tom and explosions at Kingsland, New Jersey, 1917. These claims were 1916 and dismissed by the Com- for 1930, petitions and rehearing mission were denied In the following year in 1931 and 1932. the American to agent sought reopen cases upon ground that of 1930 in its decision the Commission had been misled collusive incomplete, and “fraudulent, false evidence” of witnesses for part Germany. The on German power denied the Government Commission to re- Mr. Umpire, Justice and the open Roberts, finding that disagreement upon question there was a between the decided, December, Commissioners, 1933, that competent to determine juris- was Commission its own interpretation of the Agreement diction creating n Umpire ^further decided that, it. while the Com- merely reopen, a case power was without mission the Com- evidence, of after-discovered presentation power court and did have sitting as a mission was still fraud been charge it had misled to consider cages in purpose reopen and for that collusion, ten- the further consider evidence might order that it in reply and that offered the American dered agent, and either confirm decisions on of Germany, behalf might. justice right made or alter them as theretofore demand- agent denying filedvan
Thereafter, German answer of fraud and presented. evidence was *11 .^allegations in ren June,. 193b, the argument, Commission, After concurring, the German Commissioner dered a decision, ruling denying rehearing the ‘of 1932 a was set by which re the whether there should be a aside; question and hearing sep for hearing was reserved a should argument from an on the merits arate and distinct Germany to a different course. unless should consent un- Efforts to obtain a settlement of the claims were much additional had been and, successful after evidence in ex- January, the heard 1939, Commission,- introduced, , agents the arguments by respective Gov- tended the agent requested The had ernments. American only original the Commission not set aside deci- should sion of. 1930 but should also -'to a final decision proceed merits, pre- on the as-it was contended that the evidence rehearing sented to es- support application also Germany tablished for the responsibility destruc- tion of the It property appears’ as' claimed. also that the German before the that, .Commissioner insisted motion for rehearing should be the Commission should granted, by examine- tendered the United to de- proofs States This, termine whether the claims had made good. been as stated upon ground: was that even Umpire, though the been Commission had misled false that would be testimony, if, immaterial upon fraudulent consideration, United States independent an its had failed to sustain its burden of proof. own cases the Umpire American Commissioner and thereupon had agreed beyond they thought go necessary what in the function of the Commission circumstances and had the German to canvass with Commissioner the proceeded made the United-States. cases as of that During investigation, course on March 1, Commissioner the German withdrеw from the Com- 1939, At withdrawal, the time his mission. the two Com- according to the contention of the missioners, American found Commissioner and Umpire, were dis- as upon points issue. On agreement receiving notice meeting of the a Commission be held on June 15, agent the German said that he appear would not 1939, Embassy the German advised the of State that, the withdrawal of the German since Commissioner, incompetent to 'make Commission was decisions. meeting
At the held to the pursuant notice, Ameri- a disagreement can Commissionеr filed certificate of n opinion sustaining jurisdiction an of the Commis- Umpire thereupon sion. decided that there did exist disagreement Commissioners, a between the two dis-—á *12 agreement of which he was personally cognizant and also by which was shown the certificate opinion and of the American the Commissioner; that jurisdiction of the Commission was not ousted the withdrawal' of the German Commissioner “after submission the parties, the and after tribunal, having taken the cases under ad- visement, pursuant to its was engaged in rules, the' tаsk deciding of the presented”; that the United issues^ proved “had allegation States its that in fraud the evi- presented dence Germany misled the Commission and affected its decision in favor of Germany”; that upon and .484 were the claims the cases for it then stood
the record as made ous. for awards agent the American moved
Thereupon, sabotage the behalf of of on favor the United States deci- setting An aside the was entered order cl'aimanté. that of determining liability of and Ger- 1930, sion it that that, appeared and as many had .been established Germany proceed- not intena to take in further part did upon awards should be made ings of the Commission, and findings opinion. Commission’s ad-, Charge d’Affaires 1939, On October German 3, Secretary communication dressed an elaborate to to making supplementary a detailed statement a State July 11, 1939, respect allegedj-illegal note of. to the further Umpire, protesting against of the -and all acts by the the American Commissioner measures Umpire, the American at agént, sеcuring and were aimed Kingsland in the Tom Black and cases. replied, 18, of State on that it 1939, October highly for thé inappropriate Department be to would to determine endeavor the course proceedings thé Commission; that had entire confi- integrity ability Umpire dence and the United appointed despite Commissioner States he believed, “entirely the severe'1 as unwarranted and, he to that was constrained atten- criticisms,” invite fact “that the remarkable tion action the Com- by Germany appointеd apparently was de- missioner indefinitely frustrate or signed postpone work of at time after when, years a of labor on the'Commission it involved, cases particúlar expected- was its brought to a conclusion.-’ would be functions meeting a given of Notice was Commission to 30, which the Com- held on October German 1939, attend, were made did not and awards then missioner fayor he Umpire claimants. The stated that *13 accurately properly awards to be cal- found the had joined the American in had Commissioner culated and signing,them. certified
The were State awards Treasury 31, on October 1939, to the pursuant to Settlement War Claims Act of. 1928.. brought, complaint day, this suit was the same On process being being on filed served the Sec- before, retary certification of the his awards. after, State Appeals question has held that the Court with validity respect in of- to favor of the sabotage political in is its nature claimants and that the jurisdiction without District Court was to entertain it. preliminary questions however, There certain are, indubitably appropriate/for judicial which are consider- proper these-ques- think and we that the to answer ation, of the whole tions is determinative case. question petitioners standing first is whether have bring Except this suit. for the
to situation created they of War Claims Act 1928, the Settlement would standing. They no have such could not be heard to complain upon of action claims other than their own. Congress, provide And with or without awards, could payment question claims without let or by petitioners. petitioners hindranсe But contend that of War Claims Act Settlement created a fund Treasury, Special Deposit known as “German Ac- petitioners count”; that othér earlier award-holders payment are entitled the Act to out of that fund; pay petitioners’ fund is insufficient to claims payments permitted if full are to the sabo- made.to tage petitioners standing claimants; and hence that have complain depletion of an unlawful of the fund to their injury by payments. means of such
We-think that in these circumstances as shown petitiоners protect bills are entitled to inter- sue such *14 486 Houston they Compare the may as have under Act.
ests Ormes, Co., Iron Mellon v. Orinoco U. S. 266 469; v. the standing solely upon 121. But as their rests U. S. may they escape the not its terms or provisions of Act, challenge in which payments to the Act succeed a is provide. found to next to that question with the effect respect is the given
should be under the terms of to the statute Secretary certifying of the in the action of State awards. Congress the Secretary has authorized and.required of the to out the Treasury pay special оf account the awards Secretary the of certified. There is no State has the question Secretary that of given State has his cer- in tificate instance.- It adequate this is. in form and the under terms of Act. the substance contend that Petitioners certification a mere is " It is to mean merely ministerial act. said that the award in the same genuine document, is a sense notary that a in signature authenticates of a public axgrantor deed. of this construction Act We think that is inadmissible. of conception The notаrial of the function ignores matter role in this the conduct of State his foreign right as the hand of Executive and of affairs proceedings his relation to for the deter- particular against foreign mination of claims United States There no of the constitu- can be doubt governments. authority Congress lodge of to with the Secretary tional authority pass upon State the to consider ai|d validity by made the Mixed regularity and statutory purpose qualify- Commission for the Claims Treasury. ing them for out of account payment to сomplete decide what Congress power payments had account to such from that attach be made should Congress not this only it had saw fit. conditions as Congress that appropriate it natural and but was power State the decision entrust should to the might respect arise propri of questions of awards made the Commission ety payment through action his affirmative certification require had Mixed Claims Commission payment. before agreement. been created an executive The claims to only were those Commission sporn considered against the United States presented sored and Ger They presented were as claims the United many. States, having claimants themselves no national *15 standing they represented save as were the United Frelinghuysen Key, 63, States. See v. 110 U. S. 75, 76; Blaine, Boynton v. 139 U. S. Williams v. 306, 323, 325; S. 538. The Heard, U. claims so 529, 537, spon presented sored were and handled an agent American . appointed by the President. It obvious, was the pres as ent abundantly contentions that proceed the illustrate, ings before such a might easily commission give to rise questions between the governments concerned might and diplomatic involve representations protests or with which it would be. the duty of the Secretary of State to deal. might Whatever be said of such representations or the for protests, occasion or or the them, respect to existence any right obligation international arising or the agreement setting from up the Congress Commission, could, naturally would, require views of the the. Secretary of State-before appropriating money for the payment and, creating of awards, a special fund for that purpose, the Secretary look to of State for /would the exercise of his appropriate on authority behalf of the Executive thus for his judgment upon the' ques tion whether the been proceedings had such as duly to qualify payment. the for See Frelinghuysen v. Key, Blaine, supra; Boynton v. supra. We find.nothing Settlement the of War Claims At points to a purpose. different Secretary the construed
It that State suggested is he because certifying merely action in as ministerial his But of the awards. presentation acted at once on the Secretary of the argument fact overlooks' the that Qf that had had long, cognizant questions State been grant to authority arisen relation Commission’s to early October, a as rehearing and make As awards. Secre- had notified the 1933, German Government with- as tary regarded of State that it Commission on grant rehearing sabotage out to a Authority claims. agent Secretary of State had infоrmed the American to be jurisdiction was question properly one that by the itself and he directed decided Commission agent bring American the matter attention the full Commissioner,, Commission, the American or obtaining decision of on purpose Umpire March,- 1939, In the American disputed point. informed the State Commissioner the German and reviewed withdrawal of Commissioner In June, 1939, petitioners themselves the circumstances. to the of State their formally communicated In month the proceedings. to the the same objеctions ' *16 Secretary of that Embassy advised the State its German regarded incompetent the Commission as Government make because of the Commissioner’s” German decisions by This was followed a further de- protest withdrawal. in Secretary July to the of State and a detailed livered in grounds the German Government of its statement October 3, 1939, communication of to which the Sec- its on retary replied -of State October in the note 18, 1939, which quoted. from we have when the Thus, actual presented awards were of State had before him representations fully these was con- diplomatic and with all the of proceedings versant the Commission, the action of the German Commissioner and the attitude of with the Government, his contentions' of peti- concluding no for Sec- tioners. findWe basis not the awards did act after retary certifying of State express judg- due deliberation or fail to his considerate we think the ment, contemplated. as statute that for the opinion purpose pay- We are of under certificate of mеnt the statute the df' State must be deemed to not We do need conclusive. . Congress judi- to consider whether could to the commit ciary determination of validity challenged, of the La (See Mining claims Abra Silver States, Co. v. United Congress 423), U. S. has not so but done has out of payment depend upon made the fund the Secre- tary’s certificate. question in this relation simply is one .of the intent of Congress as disclosed the Act. Congress has expressly directed payments to be made special from the account the awards “so certified.” literal import and natural provision this is that finality is to be accorded the certificate of the Secre- tary of State and we.perceive no ground for limiting the the Act terms On the construction. contrary, n nature of the questions presented their relation.to the conduct of foreign affairs within the province Secretary of support State the conclusion that the statute should have according effect to its explicit terms. of,
In statutory view the provisions governing case,- this wе have no occasion to consider the circumstances in which an international of action agreement, thereunder, may-be rights deemed to vest in private or persons, the. scope rights particular such cases: See Comegys v. 1 Pet. Vasse, 193; Mellon Co., v. Orinoco Iron supra. Pe- ' interest, titioners must claim solely by virtue of their fund the statute created and under its terms they complain are not entitled to of payments of that'., out. fund Secretary-of State has certified *17 judgment of Appeals the Court of The is
Affirmed. [Over.] Mr. in the part Justice Roberts took'no consideration or of this decision case. Black,
Mr. Justice concurring: Douglas of judgment and concur in the Mr. Justice I affirmance ground but on the that the set petitioners justiciable up controversy power no which the court had in- questions petitions to determine. The the raised Germany, volve relations between the United States and constitutionally exclu- which we believe are committed legislative departments. the and executive sively to ground upon petitioners prayed relief sole that awards made the Mixed the District Court was “wholly and Claims Commission Were null and void jurisdiction alleged of part without on the the Commis- the judgment sought was have declaratory sion.” A to enjoin to the declared null and and Secre- void, awards from of the tary certifying Secretary State and the of made Treasury from such awards paying n mandatory In petitioners asked a Commission. addition require Secretary Treasury injunction to of regard to other without pay petitioners awards Sta,te. Secretary of certified Cоmmission Secretary of and the of the Treas- Secretary State others, among dismiss on ury moved to grounds,' no cause of the court complaint stated action; that review the of the Mixed action jurisdiction, had no was without power,to pass- court Commission; Claims the Mixed Claims Commission; jurisdiction upon jurisdiction to restrain the had no Secre- the court certifying from Commission tary State awards Treasury paying from enjoin or to The District certified. Court dismissed so the claims Appeals ground affirmed on the Court Circuit and the Clаims actions Commission .in théQdixed in certifying of State making *18 them were committed for determination to the political department government of and therefore the were courts power agree without to review their determination. We in with their conclusion. And this vie# we the believe of the certifications of State must be deemed final and conclusive the not because the con-' courts, duct of the and the Commission preceding certification of approval meets the. but because courts, to final power make determination with rests the politi- n cal departments government of alone. . The fundamental questions raised the petitions as presented to the District were: can chal- Court, Who lenge the of the propriety Commission’s awards? Does judicial the of government, branch rather than po- power finally to determine the litical,-possess propri- ety of the And fact awards? that petitioners sought to challenge the Commission’s power by proceedings against of Secretaries State and Treasury, and not by against direct suit the Commission, is immaterial. in„ If petitioners directly cannot attack the Commission neither can courts, they, Congres- absence of consent, sional the propriety assail through its awards expedient against charged suits others respon- sibility executing the final determination Commission. Mixed Commission Claims was set pursuant up agreement between United
to an States and Germany. The agreement gave the Commission power full to hold hearings to determine “the amount be paid to by Ger- many satisfaction Germany’s obligations” financial under two previously treaties made between the two further, agreement provided countries. that “the Commission, decisions of the and those of Umpire (in may there case shall be any) accepted final as governments.” binding upon the two The Com- Umpiré set with an up mission was all of the awards reported were to the Secretary State Commis- sion.
While petitioners contend that they right have the challenge the certification of the Secretary Statе, it is to >be that their petitions ultimately remembered solely upon rest it premise duty is his to refuse carry out Commission’s awards because alleged *19 proceedings of the of impropriety the Commission. the They say jurisdiction that Commission was without make awards to certain power to and claimants other these payment of themselves; than awards out of a in amount will that is result fund limited diminishingj them below the full amount of to their award paypiepts>, the Commission interest; since was power— without with other awards, make these charge the Secre- as tfhey —to not have certified them for should tly of State payment; Treasury reason the should not pay for the samé and through right court procedure assert a to They them. by to the other claimants challenge reason of piayment 1928? Congress of ofAct an . the Act provides Secretary shall But the to the certify Secretary of the Treasury time .time to from the Mixed Claims Commission of of awards of the Treasury and that is States,,, United “the anjd to pay principal of each directed authorized the interest thereon, accord- certified, plus so award Nowhere in . .” the'award, . Act is there ance either or fair expressly language implica- which any Congress to permit some purpose a indicates! tion petitioners courts —as here have resort to to claimants awards propriety Mixed determine done —to to other claimants. Claims <3ommission by petitioners against made .challenge exact ¡Commission subject of a diplomatic is of the 254. 1 45 Stat. Germany. and
controversy bеtween the United States is the same as Germany’s petitioners’. contention And affairs, in charge of our State, foreign Germany’s to to contention that has declined accede controversy improper here were particular awards subject The immediate not certified or paid. should of petitioners’ upon matter rests the complaint, of the if it act, any Court has has there- power, power political branch repudiated gov- fore been of our contrary A conclusion ernment. courts would about between the bring square a clash executive of government. branches judicial And far more than finally Whoever is entrusted this. determine what or must not do government must a dispute between in. is the questions nations ultimate momentous .arbiter this policies affecting public nation’s relations with countries world. the other controversy here bears all the' earmarks of that controversies which our Constitution type con- has exclusively to the executive or political departihents fided *20 concеrning this government, Court has many repeated times “that action of the political government a that belongs to branches matter 2 conclusive.” this is Since them, clearly appeared from very at the pleadings outset, face District stayed its hands and properly power Court renounced proceed. 2 Co., 420; 415, 13 Pet. v. Insurance Williams United States Suffolk Boynton Blaine, 306, 321, 322-6; 320, Freling v. S.
ex rel. U. huysen good purpose Key, 63. would be v. U. S. No served to the decisions this Court same setting out the numerous effect. Digest of Supreme For of such cases see U. S. a collection Court Reports, Courts, 4, 49^63. vol. §§