Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Far East and Australasia, Volume VI

656d.006/3–1948

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, by Mr. Joseph B. Matré, Assistmit to the Legal Adviser (Gross)¹

[Washington,] March 19, 1948.

Mr. H. A. Helb, Counselor of the Netherlands Embassy, over the telephone today stated that they were in receipt of a letter from Mr. Isbrandtsen² to the effect that the Department of State has requested the Company to negotiate a settlement of the claim with the Netherlands Embassy. Mr. Helb inquired whether the Department requested Mr. Isbrandtsen to take this action, as the Embassy had no previous information concerning the matter,

I informed Mr. Helb that the Department had previously requested the American Consulate General at Batavia to ascertain from the Netherlands authorities whether negotiations looking to a settlement of the claim could be resumed; that the Consulate General replied stating that Isbrandtsen should approach Mr. Van Hoogstraten³ on the occasion of his visit in December, 1947; that I informed the Embassy by telephone of the receipt of this telegram from Batavia and inquired where Mr. Van Hoogstraten could be reached; that the Embassy informed me that Van Hoogstraten could be reached in the Office of the Netherlands East Indies in New York; that I communicated this information to Mr. Isbrandtsen; that Mr. Isbrandtsen endeavored to approach Mr. Van Hoogstraten but was unable to do so during his visit in the United State; that upon the departure of Mr. Van Hoogstraten, the Consulate General at Batavia was informed of the embarrassment of the Department because of the unwillingness of Mr. Van Hoogstraten to receive Isbrandtsen; that the Consulate General later suggested that Isbrandtsen approach the Netherlands Embassy at Washington with the view to negotiating a settlement out of court, that the purport of this telegram was sent to Isbrandtsen on February 27, 1948, and that Mr. Isbrandtsen’s letter was probably written as a result of the Department’s letter conveying to him the suggestion of the Consulate General that he approach the Embassy.

Mr. Helb was of the opinion that there was nothing improper in Mr. Van Hoogstraten’s conduct in refusing to see Mr. Isbrandtsen, inasmuch as he had no authority to negotiate a settlement of the claim; that he was a very busy man during his visit here and was on the West Coast a greater part of the time. I told Mr. Helb that the Department, nevertheless, did feel embarrassed in view of the fact that the Consulate General must have obtained information concerning the resumption of negotiations from the authorities in the Netherlands East Indies.

Mr. Helb stated that the conduct of the Netherlands with respect to this matter was entirely proper; that the former offer of settlement was a reasonable one; and that Isbrandtsen Company should now seek redress in the Netherlands courts, which throughout their long history have a splendid reputation for administering justice. I suggested that, if the Netherlands authorities would renew their offer of settlement, the Department would be disposed to recommend its acceptance and thus terminate a matter which has been one of considerable concern to both governments. Mr. Helb stated that he had no authority to take any action in the matter and repeated his suggestion that Isbrandtsen should seek redress in the Netherlands courts.

I told him that it was the contention of Mr. Ryan,⁴ with which the Department was inclined to agree, that no adequate mode of redress was available in the Netherlands courts, either in the East Indies or in The Hague, for the adjudication of a claim of this character involving, as it would, the international validity of the Decree of January 28, 1947, which any Netherlands court would in all probability hold valid, and in view of the further fact that it was seemingly impossible in view of the unhappy relationship presently existing between the Indonesian Republicans and the Netherlands Government for the Company to obtain adequate documentary or testimonial evidence from Indonesian sources which would be regarded as admissible by the Netherlands. I asked Mr. Helb if he would furnish the Department with a memorandum indicating definitely that a remedy for this particular type of a claim was open to Isbrandtsen in the Netherlands courts, calling his attention to the fact that while the United States Court of Claims was open to claimants having claims against the United States, the jurisdiction of that court was exceedingly limited. I further told Mr. Helb that Mr. Ryan had obtained a legal opinion from a Netherlands law professor in New York who was familiar with the laws of the Netherlands, indicating that there was no legal remedy open to Isbrandtsen in the Netherlands courts.

I also informed Mr. Helb that the Rubber Development Corporation was now interested in the cargo of rubber because of the fact that Isbrandtsen allegedly sold the cargo to the Corporation f.o.b. Cheribon, and that the Corporation is in doubt as to whether title to the cargo passed to them or not. I told Mr. Helb that if the cargo has been sold to the Rubber Development Corporation, an agency of the United States, and if title has passed to the Corporation, the Department would then be obliged to present a claim on behalf of the Corporation against the Netherlands Government for the value of the cargo. Mr. Helb was apparently aware of the interest now manifested by the Rubber Development Corporation in the cargo of rubber but asserted that the rubber was destroyed by fire. With respect to this assertion, I informed Mr. Helb that the information in the possession of the Department indicated that only a small portion of the cargo of rubber had been destroyed by fire and that the remaining cargo was exported by the Netherlands agency controlling the export of rubber from the Netherlands Indies.

In conclusion I suggested to Mr. Helb that he use his efforts to effect a settlement of the claim, particularly in view of the fact that the Isbrandtsen Company seemingly violated no law of the Netherlands; that it succeeded in obtaining a valuable cargo from the Indonesians and transporting it to Batavia without expense to the Netherlands Government; that the Netherlands Government undoubtedly obtained a good price for the cargo and is now in possession of the proceeds derived from the sale of the cargo. I expressed the thought that the payment of a proper indemnity to Isbrandtsen Company would seem to be a simple and just procedure and would not cost the Netherlands Government anything inasmuch as the entire settlement money is obtainable from the cargo which Isbrandtsen Company made available to the Netherlands and which without the services of Isbrandtsen Company could not have obtained.⁵

1. For the case of the American ship Martin Behrman, see Department instruction dated June 23, 1947, to Batavia, Foreign Relations, 1947, vol. vi, p. 956, also, Department of State press release on March 21, 1947, Department of State Bulletin, April 20, 1947, p. 720.
2. Hans Isbrandtsen, President, Isbrandtsen Steamship Co., New York.
3. J. E. van Hoogstraten, Netherlands East Indies director of economic affairs.
4. James W. Ryan, attorney for Isbrandtsen Steamship Co., New York, and director of the company.
5. The Isbrandtsen Co., Inc., proceeded against the Netherlands East Indies Government et al. in the District Court for the Southern District of New York and on May 24, 1949, wrote the Department indicating that its claim bad been settled. (659d.006/5–2449)