. NMT06-T0678
Volume VI · Page 678
| Four Year Plan in the letter of
appointment. This arrangement is in complete conformity with every civilized
system of law based on private property, among others with American, English,
and French law, which to my knowledge all admit an expropriation of private
property with compensation (cf. the tabulations in my letters of 17/28 March
1938 mentioned under paragraph 1, and the expropriation of coal mines carried
through only recently by the English Government). I took this arrangement from
the Law for the Conversion of Capital, in force probably since 1931, which gave
each main partner, no matter of what nationality or race, the right to transfer
the company to himself even against the will of the other partners provided he
appropriately compensated the old stockholders. I do not know whether Mr.
Steinbrinck in any manner discussed with other gentlemen or agencies my
exposé of 20 June 1938, composed at his request for his legal
information. I myself never heard anything to this effect, nor did I myself
have any more talks, conferences, or negotiations on the Ignaz Petschek problem
with any person whatsoever, in particular neither with Dr. Flick nor Mr.
Kaletsch; I never spoke to these persons about my expert opinion, either before
or after its delivery. Once (probably) in February 1939 questions were again
submitted to me concerning this case, and this was again done by Mr.
Steinbrinck only; I replied to these questions in my exposé of 1939.
3. If, instead of Mr. Steinbrinck, the Ignaz Petschek group had asked me at that time for an exposé on the legal position and what under existing circumstances a legal regulation might look like, in case the German Government — as they had been notified — would after the failure of negotiations carry out a transfer by law of the group's share in the property, the substance of my expert opinion — apart from the alterations made necessary by the change of the persons requesting it — would of course have been identical. If however, the Ignaz Petschek group had requested the exposé. would have been duty bound to use the letter accompanying my expert opinion, to call their attention to the fact that the value contained in my draft was the highest imaginable within the law and partly by far exceeded the amounts provided for in the international expropriation laws. Assuming myself in the position of attorney for the Ignaz Petschek group and therefore, the representative of their interests, I would, however, have taken into consideration the following points: a. The ordinances of 26 April and 15 June 1938. b. The official or semiofficial interpretation published in the daily press and cited by me. |
