see, some of us who are a little familiar with the practices that existed in the island take so many of these things for granted. And people who have not been familiar with this problem over the years may wonder about some of the things that we take for granted. I would like to have either you or somebody on your committee staff prepare a little history of how land was transferred, how land was inherited, and passed through the families. Mr. PEREZ. Well, the American approach, Congressman, as compared to the customs you have here in land transactions the price is not affected in passing on a piece of land to one of my friends or one of my relatives, price is not the consideration, it is the relationship. Sometimes we have a land section on which the consideration would only be one pig, or one cow, or maybe less than $100 for a piece of land. But like I said, it is the relationship between these two persons that was the consideration rather than the material. Mr. SAYLOR. In other words, this family relationship is one of the things I think the record has to show, the fact that you transfer to your son, to a friend, or to somebody, a tract of land does not necessarily indicate its intrinsic value. Mr. PEREZ. That is correct. Mr. SAYLOR. If it were a stranger that came there you might demand a large sum of money, but for a friend, a relative, somebody you want to help, the price may be entirely different. Mr. PEREZ. That is correct. Mr. SAYLOR. And this is the custom in the island, it is a custom that existed under the military and a custom that still exists? Mr. PEREZ. That is correct. If I may add to that statement, our experience in Guam is that whenever land is to be transferred to an outsider, the price goes up, and it goes up and up every day, if it is to an outsider. But to one another, the consideration is lower, among the Guamanians themselves. Mr. SAYLOR. Senator, I think your statement is excellent. And I appreciate it very much. Mr. PEREZ. If I may quote the Congressman's statement back in 1957 when I appeared and discussed this matter with you informally, or unofficially, shall we say, you called the Navy officials, about four officers from the Navy Department at that time, and if I may quote you said: The Navy, through the swinging of their magic wand, got land whenever they wanted at a price they wanted to pay-something to that effect, Congressman, I can't very well quote it. Mr. BURTON. The time of gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired. Thank you very much, Senator. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. RUPPE. When was the law changed permitting the people of Guam to sell their land or to lease it for more than a period of 5 years; and at the time the law was changed, was the change in law supported by the people of your island? Mr. PEREZ. This was prior to 1951. In 1951, the Organic Act was passed. In 1950, that changed the whole picture. Mr. RUPPE. You mentioned that land has changed at rather high values today. Do you feel that the recent land sales are in any way indicative or should be a considering factor in determining the value of land back in the middle forties? Mr. PEREZ. No, not the recent land sales. I don't think that the recent sales should be the point of consideration, or the basic figures to be considered. But I think that the values of the land taken by the military from 1945 to 1957-we are recommending that the 1957 values as handed down by the District Court of Guam should be the basic figures, should be the basic consideration. Mr. RUPPE. The 1957 figures, some of which were developed by jury trial? Mr. PEREZ. That is correct. Mr. RUPPE. And that was the point in time when the first really equiteable determination of land value was made. Mr. PEREZ. That is correct. That was the time, you know, when the due process was instituted. So we feel that that would be Mr. RUPPE. You want your due from due process. Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. BURTON. The gentleman from Puerto Rico. Mr. CÓRDOVA. After the Organic Act went into effect in 1951, you did have a U.S. court in Guam which was not dominated by the Navy, is that right? Mr. PEREZ. Prior to 1951 or after? Mr. CÓRDOVA. After the Organic Act. Mr. PEREZ. Yes, we have a district court in Guam. Mr. CÓRDOVA. You didn't have a jury yet? Mr. PEREZ. No, not until 1957. Mr. CÓRDOVA. But in that period of time, you did have a court? Mr. CÓRDOVA. Did not the court give you a judicial determination of value in the condemnation proceedings, as distinguished from a Navy determination of value; it was not an independent determination? Mr. PEREZ. Well, it's a one-man opinion, it is a one-man decision. And we, the people of Guam, after having been granted citizenship, we assume the position that we are entitled to a trial by jury, and that a one-man decision, as you know, is not altogether American, shall I say. Mr. CÓRDOVA. Were the decisions of that one man as to land value any improvement on the Navy's decisions as to land value? Mr. PEREZ. Much more so. Every decision was much more than any of the negotiated or condemnations taken by the Navy. Mr. BURTON. Gentlemen, we are confronted with a dilemma. These witnesses have come 10,000 miles. We have two witnesses to go. If we get a quorum call, this will be a very unsatisfactory turn of events. Mr. PEREZ. Thank you very much. Mr. BURTON. Is Senator Adrian Sanchez here? Mr. WON PAT. No, sir. Mr. BURTON. Without objection, the statement of Senator Adrian Sanchez will be included in the record at this point. It is so ordered. (The statement of Senator Sanchez follows:) STATEMENT OF SENATOR ADRIAN C. SANCHEZ, MEMBER OF THE "SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL PROBLEMS," 11TH GUAM LEGISLATURE Gentlemen, my name is Adrian C. Sanchez, and I represent the people of Guam as a senator in the 11th Guam Legislature. Having served in World War II, the Korean conflict, and Vietnam, I am also a retired master chief petty officer in the U.S. Navy. I wish to thank you, gentlemen, for the opportunity to present these remarks in addition to the written report already entered into the record of this hearing. Today, we are discussing a topic of the utmost importance to the citizens of Guam. However, it is also important elsewhere for the reason that legal scholars and fair-minded people all over the world are greatly interested and take immediate notice when a mighty government, like that of the United States, inspects its own actions in a search for equity and with an eye to correcting earlier mistakes. This is what we are asking the United States Congress to do at this time. In this connection, I believe that the Committee's understanding of the situation, existing on Guam between July 21, 1944 and March 13, 1957, will be aided by my recounting for you a situation of which I have personal knowledge. Since the land takings case that I am about to discuss was culminated by a judgment entered in 1959, I realize that this case falls beyond the scope of the time frame discussed in the written report. Yet, it is hoped that by presenting the facts in my personal case, the Committee will be made aware of a situation which is all too typical of many of the land takings cases that are reported in detail at this hearing. My personal situation is significant in that, while I am a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, I was also the designated owner of a parcel of land for which my father, Simon A. Sanchez, was the owner of record. In the instant case, land was taken, in 1944, from my family without any notification, negotiation or offer of compensation of any kind. My father owned a little more than nine (9) hectares of land located in Dededo. (This area is roughly equal to 221⁄2 acres.) The land is situated in what is now known as the northern portion of Harmon Field, a military airstrip, constructed and used during and after World War II. This parcel contains a large amount of good sand and coral which is extremely valuable for construction purposes. In fact, it is the opinion of many persons that the best sand and coral in the Pacific can be found in this area. In 1944, after the island was secured, my family and I attempted to re-enter our property. At that time, my brother, Francisco, was also in active service with the United States Navy having the rank of First Class Petty Officer. As we approached our property with the idea in mind of harvesting our crops and building our new home, we were stopped by armed military police and informed that our property was now in a restricted area. The guards barred our entry and my family was told that future entries were forbidden. We were not allowed to harvest the many lemons, coconuts and avocados remaining on trees still standing on our property. Instead, we were told that construction of our planned home was out of the question. On several occasions shortly thereafter, I was personally chased out of the area and off of my father's property even though I was in uniform and in a military staff car at that time. I was informed that the area was restricted and that I would be subject to military disciplinary action if I entered the property again for any reason. In 1944, the military started stripping the land, removing many truckloads of sand and coral from the area for the construction of runways and other military installations in various parts of the island. My father was not informed by the military of the use of the land. His permission was not sought or granted nor was any leasehold taking mentioned at all. In 1959, the parcel was finally taken in fee but compensation was never paid for the removal of the vast quantities of sand and coral. Presently, the lot is still being stripped by a civilian construction company on the island, under permit from the Navy. While this account represents what might appear as a seemingly insignificant matter in a war-time situation, nevertheless, it describes a condition all too common on Guam during the wholesale land takings. I have personal knowledge of additional cases in which land owners, who happened to be pursuing military careers, were threatened with court martial proceedings when they refused to transfer their properties upon request for a pre-determined amount of compensation. I am also familiar with cases in which land was used without the owner's knowledge or consent. The written report of the Special Committee on Federal Problems of the Eleventh Guam Legislature discusses the fact that private attorneys were virtually non-existant on the island during most of the land takings in question. Civilian appraisers were likewise unavailable and no access to the Federal judiciary on appeal existed at the time. Military courts provided only a token remedy. This situation, combined with the security clearance requirement, effectively limited the alternatives available to private citizens who became the unfortunate victims of post-war expediency and Naval pragmatism in the land takings. The protection and preservation of an individual's rights when challenged by the awesome power of collective society, is one of the major propositions upon which American jurisprudence is based. On Guam, unfortunately, during the period of time in question, no procedures were established to guarantee “due process of law" and protect private land owners against arbitrary and capricious action. Instead, a severe limitation on the individual's access to information and to technical advice was imposed. The research, conducted in the preparation of this report, revealed an interesting situation. In the pre-Organic Act Codes of Guam, the Navy included Title IV, Eminent Domain, under "Special Proceedings of a Civil Nature." In looking at the section headings which appear at the beginning of Title IV, it was noticed that Section 1246 had the title, "Who may defend. What the answer may show." Throughout Title IV, the procedure is outlined for the acquisition of land by condemnation. The only piece of information which does not appear in the printed text of the title is the language contained in Section 1246. In other words, the government's right to acquire land and the requisite procedure for its acquisition is clearly spelled out but the remedies or alternatives available to private land owners is totally lacking. The result is clear. Even if land owners would have had civilian counsel at their disposal, their defense would have been greatly hampered by the omission of the necessary information in the Code. In conclusion, gentlemen, we must realize that under Japanese rule, there was no semblance of justice on Guam. The Navy, following re-occupation, provided at least the visual characteristics of a judical process which, however, turned out to provide little real protection. Throughout the period of time mentioned in the report, the agency of the U.S. Government desiring the land was also the agency deciding the value of the land. Under these circumstances, there was not the "due process of law" which we are led to believe is an inherent American right. Following my careful study of the material contained in the written report entitled. "Post-War Land Takings On Guam," I hereby verify, to the best of my knowledge, the authenticity of the facts as therein reported. Based on the experience of my family and my knowledge of the prevalent conditions in existence between 1944 and 1957, as set forth in the written report, I respectfully request favorable action by this Committee in line with the recommendations enumerated in the report referred to above. Thank you very much. Mr. BURTON. The Chair has discussed the matter with the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Congressman Saylor, and without objection the extract from the Hopkins committee report, containing those sections referred to in the Congressional Research Service report, will be included immediately following the Congressional Research Service document in the record. It is so ordered. (The Hopkins committee report referred to appears on p. 5.) Mr. BURTON. Senator Perez. Without objection, Senator, we will consider your prepared statement and insert it in the record. And that is so ordered. And we welcome any highlighting or supplementation you may choose to make with reference to your statement. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF SENATOR PEDRO D. PEREZ, MEMBER, 11TH GUAM LEGISLATURE, AND MEMBER, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL PROBLEMS Mr. PEREZ, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what we propose to do, to request the chairman and the subcommittee to make my presentation a matter of record with permission to highlight by making a short summary. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Pedro D. Perez, a member of the Guam 11th Legislature. And also a member of the Select Committee on Federal Problems, and I am accompanied by Mr. James Brooks, counsel for the minority, 11th Guam Legislature. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to extend my appreciation for having this opportunity to make a plea on behalf of the people of Guam for a problem that has long existed, specifically since the end of World War II. It is gratifying to be able to present our case to the highest court in the land, the U.S. Congress. And I am sure that this privilege will certainly increase the image of our Nation, particularly to our next door neighbor, the trust territories, with which we are having transactions hoping to resolve to our mutual advantage and to our Nation as well as to the trust territories. I would like to express the appreciation of the people of Guam for this opportunity. And in going over the presentations made before me, one thing that I would like to point out is the provision that was promulgated by our one time military governor, Willis Winter Bradley in 1932, when he put out an executive order to the effect that no private land be taken without a due process procedure. The question I raise at this moment is, why was this not exercised during the land takings during the post-war era? As far as I can determine, this executive order was issued in 1932 and remained in effect until the Organic Act, which automatically replaced all executive orders on Guam. That one particular requirement could have reduced, if not eliminated the problem that we have today. It is a point of interest to raise that this military governor, Willis Winter Bradley, who was then the Governor-Commandant of the Island, perhaps at the expense of his military career went ahead and became a Congressman from southern California. In connection with the presentation also this morning, I would like to point out two individual cases in which the committee was interested as examples of particular cases out of the 100-and-some cases listed in the report. There is one individual by the name of Jose Villagomez Martinez listed in the report-I happen to know him personallyfrom whom a very substantial area of land was taken for the use of |