country and in Britain, particularly, for doing this at the wrong time politically-that it appeared that we were trying to buy Germans.

I must tell you that this was entirely a question of McCloy and his conscience before God and the carrying out of American justice as he saw it. He did what he was sure was right after all the advice he could get.

Mr. FLOOD. With reference to what?

Mr. BYROADE. The cases themselves.

Mr. FLOOD. These were cases tried before a constituted tribunal among the Allied groups, and that at this late date Mr. McCloy takes it upon himself to examine the records to determine at this late hour, by a careful, soul-searching examination of the transcript of the record, that the courts were in error?

Mr. BYROADE. No; it is not a question of deciding the courts were in error. It is a question of whether or not there is any legitimate basis for clemency in these cases. Many of them, of course, were not capital cases and they were serving out their time. Evidence produced afterward had to be all heard.

Regarding the death sentences, Mr. McCloy did review them and reduced some to life.

Mr. FLOOD. You are suggesting, then, the determination of these cases, of which we are both speaking, by Mr. McCloy was predicated solely and entirely upon his concept of exercising his right of clemency and had no political significance, purpose, or intent?

Mr. BYROADE. That is what I am saying. Of course, the decision is McCloy's by executive order. I do want to impress this upon you. I saw this and lived with him. There was not an iota of political thinking in this question. Mr. McCloy, of course, is a lawyer. These cases should have been handled a long time ago. As soon as these cases were decided he attempted to act. He feels that you

cannot do otherwise when lives are at stake.

Mr. FLOOD. And the necessity for his making a determination on the appeals of these cases was simply a circumstance with reference to the political developments?

Mr. BYROADE. That is absolutely correct. You see, the cases were stayed until a few months ago.

Mr. PRESTON. This subject is most interesting. I have been quite impressed with your summary of the situation over there. You do raise many questions in my mind, far too many for me to ask this afternoon.

Mr. CLEVENGER. I do not know that I have any questions. I visited that Nuremberg courtroom in 1947 when they were trying the cases. To an American it seemed like straining justice a bit. I am not an attorney. I was never greatly in sympathy with that hard peace concept. I think this mercy was well extended. I would be willing to bet that McCloy did it exactly the way that you say.

Mr. BYROADE. I would like very much to deliver to this committee the booklet that has been distributed, 1,000,000 copies in Germany, that gives each case and a general picture.

Mr. FLOOD. How do you account for the rather startling extent of public reaction, planned or otherwise, within Western Germany on this particular point when McCloy failed to grant complete pardon and amnesty to everyone and withheld action?

You will remember that after the first group there was rather violent and totally unexpected reaction within Western Germany because McCloy had not gone the full limit in all the others. I think that there were several death sentences that he did not commute.

Mr. BYROADE. Yes, seven.

Mr. FLOOD. After the first clemency was granted, he failed to extend clemency to these seven and there was some violent and rather surprising reaction in Western Germany.

Mr. BYROADE. My impression, being there at that time, was that that was not the case. I quite agree that you might have received that impression from the press here.

Mr. FLOOD. I got it entirely from the press.

Mr. BYROADE. I think the reaction was amazing in Germany as to the justice of McCloy's decision.

Now, there are many people there who feel these decisions were just who cannot, for political reasons perhaps say so publicly, but in general the Bundestag members were open in saying they thought McCloy bad been very just, and also the churchmen. As time goes on, small groups, with the sentences now stayed again, have an opportunity to organize and keep this aflame, but the initial and general reaction of the Germans, I think, was amazing-the fact that so many of them said these were just decisions.

Mr. FLOOD. What was the attitude from top to bottom of HICOG, in a general way?

Mr. BYROADE. Of our own people, I think it was very good. I think there were shades of opinion on one side or the other, but certainly I saw the top people over there, and they were all quite in accord with Mr. McCloy's decisions.

ADDITIONAL BUDGETARY REQUESTS

Mr. FLOOD. We will direct our attention to page 131 of the justifications, where you ask for an increase of $444,133 and an additional 60 employees.

I wish you would direct your attention to the increase for salary differentials, $118,390. Do you have a breakdown of that?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes; we do.

Mr. FLOOD. Is that dollarwise as well as by types, kinds, and categories of employees?

These are all national Germans, as I understand it?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes.

As far as the 60 are concerned, Mr. Chairman, they are all locals, Foreign Service locals, at the consulates.

Mr. FLOOD. How many consulates do you have in Germany?
Mr. KIMBALL. Seven.

Mr. FLOOD. Where are they?

Mr. KIMBALL. We have consulates at Bremen, which has a suboffice at Bremerhaven; Frankfurt, Munich, Stuttgart, Berlin, Düsseldorf, and Hamburg.

Mr. FLOOD. You have general administrative employees as well as the custodian staff?

REPLACEMENT OF OCCUPATION COSTS

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes. The background there, Mr. Chairman, is that because of the way in which the Army administered the occupation as a complete blanket before HICOG was set up, certain services were provided for these consulates which came out of the occupation cost. The Army just did it as part of its over-all administration. It was only when the HICOG was established officially in October 1949, about a year and a quarter ago, and the High Commission passed its commission law No. 2, which defined what was the occupation cost, that HICOG was able to establish the accounting records which enabled up to break apart these costs which have been established at the consul level and should not be charged to the German Government.

Now, of the amount we were just talking about, of the total $444,000 increase, $403,406 is attributable to occupation costs; that is, the replacement of occupation costs. Of that, just to make it clear, $78,355 represents the salary and differential cost of the 60 local employees we would take over.

Mr. FLOOD. What do you mean by "differential"? Do they have any hardships?

Mr. KIMBALL. No. It is just using the "salary and differential" standard language there.

ALLOWANCES

Mr. FLOOD. What is this $78,901 allowance for? What allowances do the 60 new locals' national employees get?

Mr. KIMBALL. On that, sir, that is not for the locals. What we have done is to obtain under the occupation costs certain facilities of our American personnel in the consulate, who have been getting some of their quarters furnished out of the occupation cost, which should be charged to allowances. This is American personnel on that particular item.

It is not proposed at this time, Mr. Chairman, that we pay allowances as such to these individuals. They will still continue to occupy requisitioned quarters requisitioned through the Army, but with reimbursement to the German Government.

Mr. FLOOD. You are not going to try to maintain the same level of residence for our Foreign Service people, as deserving as they might be, as the Occupation Branch did? You are not going to be throwing consulates all over the place, with each having a Foreign Service clerk? Mr. KIMBALL. I hope not, sir.

Mr. BYROADE. Sir, this is just a different accounting system. Last year this was carried under the occupation cost paid by the German Government. We have now been able to separate the logistic support. Mr. FLOOD. That is a very important distinction to make. I am glad you mentioned it.

Mr. BYROADE. Yes. Let me explain it a little more for you.

At the time the Army was in charge of this entire responsibility, they made no distinction between whether a telephone call was for the consul in Frankfurt or the military government or the Land Commissioner or something like that. In our opinion-and there is Allied agreement on it-this is not a justified cost of the Germans due to the unconditional surrender, the maintenance of our consulates.

The budget went in last year before we were able to separate this out in the field.

Mr. FLOOD. Colonel, I think you misunderstand what I think I misunderstand. I am very clear about the division between the two types of government and the fact that the occupation has become HICOG and that the State Department runs the show.

My problem is this: If the Army succeeded in getting the money for this operation from the economy of Germany, why does it appear in this budget and why must we pay for it at this time simply because the State Department is running it? You took off your uniform and You are in civvies. What difference does that make so far as the dollars are concerned?

Mr. BYROADE. It does not make a difference, but we would have made this decision last year if we had been physically able to. I am convinced that this is right, and I am convinced that it is necessary as we go further away from the end of the war and more and more toward normal conditions.

I would like to have this off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. FLOOD. I am not concerned at this moment with the reactions of the German viscera. I am trying so find out if this is going to cost us some money in the State Department to do the same thing, insofar as these 60 people are concerned, as it did in the Army. Mr. KIMBALL. The answer is "Yes," sir.

Mr. FLOOD. That is what I thought. Why? Why should we pay 60 people who a year ago were on the Army payroll, coming out of occupation funds?

Mr. WILBER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I think I can clarify it.
Mr. FLOOD. Good.

Mr. WILBER. Probably they should never have been on the Army payroll. It is a regular consulate activity. This Government, therefore, should underwrite the cost of operating our regular consulates. Mr. FLOOD. Do you mean that the Army made a good mistake? Mr. WILBER. Yes, if you want to put it that way. They did save us some money, but we feel that we are reaching the point where we have to make a distinction as to what should be true occupation cost and what we should underwrite as a regular operation of the Govern

ment.

Mr. KIMBALL. I think that states it very well.

Mr. FLOOD. Yes; I see it. It is very clear.

Mr. KIMBALL. On the allowances, sir, the salaries are for the 60 locals. The allowances are allowances which would be paid to the German Government for rent for the quarters which we requisition for consulate American employees.

Mr. FLOOD. Yes. If we accept the first premise, then the rest will fall down like tenpins.

Mr. KIMBALL. You are right, sir. The whole $403,000 goes on that basis.

FUTURE OCCUPATION COSTS

Mr. BYROADE. I might say, if we have time, this is one of the big problems we are going to have in Germany.

Mr. FLOOD. What do you mean by "this"?

Mr. BYROADE. The occupation-costs problem.

As the Allies all put additional troops into Germany, that plus German resources into their own defense contributions, if they decide

81707-51--15

to create units, will undoubtedly create a situation where the strain on Germany of producing the units themselves and supporting others will put their total contribution to defense very high, indeed, with respect to all other countries, and would create an impossible situation on their economy.

Mr. FLOOD. Are you suggesting that all the troops, if and when they are sent by the various allies to Europe, must be sent to Germany? Mr. BYROADE. No, but I am sure a great number of those troops will end up in Germany. Of course, that is General Eisenhower's decision.

I think I should like to have this off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. FLOOD. Are we acting with an abundance of caution; do you think, or should we? You, of course, feel that we should.

Mr. BYROADE. I do not think we are. We have not really done anything in this regard yet. I am talking about the problems that will face us in the future if the Germans come into defense and there are more troops.

Mr. FLOOD. Why is it such a serious problem?

Mr. BYROADE. Well, it could be an additional direct-dollar appro priation for the military in this country, as well as the French and British.

Mr. FLOOD. I mean, this division of costs we are giving now. Mr. BYROADE. This is a very small step in what I am speaking about.

Mr. FLOOD. It is a precedent. It is a very serious precedent. Mr. BYROADE. It is not a precedent when you cannot and could never justify the maintenance of our consulates as a part of the occupation regime which they are not and really never were. Mr. FLOOD. I think that is so.

Mr. KIMBALL. There is one thing that might clarify this.
Mr. FLOOD. You had better let it rest on that statement.

TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS

My attention is directed to the fact that on page 132 of the justi fications the last sentence of that page indicates the figure of $406,351, which differs from the $403,406 that you, my friend, gave me.

Mr. KIMBALL. Sir, it appears in two places on that page. It should be corrected in both places.

Mr. FLOOD. It is a typographical error on page 132 of the justi fications, and the figure there should be, as you indicated prior to this time, $403,406?

Mr. KIMBALL. Yes, sir.

POST BUILDING EXPENSES

Mr. FLOOD. You are increasing by $150,000 the post building expenses with seven consulates. How often do you paint the buildings in Germany?

Mr. KIMBALL. This, sir, is a dollar payment for rental of offices presently requisitioned for the consulates, plus fuel and repairs. In other words, up to now, as is true of the entire $403,000, these have been paid out of the occupation cost.