Charles Edward Rhetts 1910-1970 m. Ruth Fisher 1910-1990

s/o John Edward Rhetts 1863-1967 m.1 Anna C. Williams 1863-1899; m.2 Nellie Bowman 1867-1927; m.3 Effie D Maupin 1883-1959

1910 Jan 4 — JE Rhetts, Effie and Edith moved to Columbus from Salem, IN.

1910 May 21 — Birth Record #2219 living at 410-1/2 Washington St, Columbus, Bartholomew, IN (according to 9 Apr 1910 Census) [Charles Edward RHETTS was born on May 21, 1910, in Columbus, IN, the only child of John Edward and Effie D. [Bartholomew, IN Birth Index, doc] He married Ruth FISHER on April 9, 1938, in Chicago, IL. They had three children during their marriage. He died on November 9, 1971, in Westminster, England, at the age of 61, and was buried in District Of Columbia County, District of Columbia.] [SSN 352-07-2688; doc] [Two most important legal cases in Rhetts' career were: 1) John S. Service vs. Dulles et al (U.S. State Department), 1951-1957; argued before U.S. Supreme Court, 1955-57; 2) Aktiebolaget Bofors Gun Company vs. U.S, argued before U.S. Court of Claims, 1953-1957]

1910 May 28 –
Salem Leader: “Mr & Mrs Wm Maupin left [Salem] Wednesday morning for Columbus to see their new grandson, little Charles Edward Rhetts [born May 21].” (doc)

1910 Sep 1 – family moved back to Salem from Columbus to 109 N High Street

1913 Feb 21 –
Salem Leader: “Charles Edward Rhetts, little son of Dr. J. E. Rhetts, was severly burned Sunday about the face. The little fellow had a narrow escape in saving one of his eyes.” (doc)

1913 Jun 11 –
Salem Democrat: “Little Katherine Gray Taub Entertains: Katherine Gray Taub entertained fourteen of her playmates, last Wednesday afternoon, at a party. The little tots were lovely in their party clothes and had a good time playing from four to six. They were given small sea shore buckets, as favors, which were filled with peanuts and popcorn. Ice cream and caramel cake were served on the lawn, and just before going home, several pictures were taken of the little folks. The guests were: Mary Hobbs, Charles Edward Rhetts, Margaret Kelley, Lucy McCowen, Randolph Hagen, Pauline Hobbs, Edna Rudder, James Tucker, Nadine Smith, Marjory Jane Hall, Morris Kelley, Lewis Standish, Helen Stout, Winburn Smith, Katherine Gray Taub. (doc)

1913 Oct 8 –
Salem Democrat: “On Saturday afternoon, Oct. 4, at the Christian Church, occurred the wedding of Miss Ellen Neal, daughter of Mr and Mrs James Burr Neal, to Louis Hervey Williamson, of Indianapolis. … Those of the bridal party were: ushers, Misses Helen Shanks, Rowena Baner, Rudy Graves, and Frances Coombs; ring-bearer, Charles Edward Rhetts; best man, Robert Williamson, Maid-of-honor, Mary C. Mitchell.” (doc)

1913 abt — CER sitting in yard, inscribed on back: “Birth but had whooping cough and could not have any children with me …” (photo)

1916 Apr 19 –
Salem Democrat: “Most people may not be able to see the similarity between the handsome mugs of Dr. J.E. Rhetts and Atty. W. O. Marks, but a little tot approached Marks last week with the query “Say, are you the father of Charles Edward Rhetts?” (doc)

1920 Jan 9 – Census Washington, Washington, IN as living at 109 N High St, Salem, IN and attending school as of 9/1/1919. Also listed John Edward Rhetts, his father age 56 and mother Effie Maupin age 36, step-sister Edith Mae age 31. Census record indicates all could read and write. [Edward J Rhetts 56 [50]; Effie D Rhetts 36; Edith Rhetts 31; Charles E Rhetts 9] (doc)

1920 Jun 23 –
Salem Democrat: “Miss Edith Rhetts [age 32], accompanied by Master Charles Edward Rhetts [age 10], was in Bloomington Friday, making arrangements for her course in music at I.U. this summer.” (doc)

1920 Jun 30 –
Salem Democrat: “Master Charles Edward Rhetts went to Bloomington Wednesday to stay until Friday with his sister Miss Edith Rhetts, who is giving a weeks course of appreciation at the University.” (doc)

1921 Jun 27 –
Salem Democrat: “Charles Edward Rhetts accompanied Miss Edith Rhetts to Chicago, Saturday, where he will spend about two weeks with friends. Miss Rhetts will be doing work at the Northwestern University for about two weeks.” (doc)

1921 Sep 28 –
Salem Democrat: “Birthday Party: Little Miss Josephine Berkey, daughter of Mr and Mrs W. C. Berkey, was given a party Saturday afternoon at their home on East Walnut Street, in honor of her 12th birthday. About fifty of her young friends were entertained from three o’clock to five. Mrs. F.B. Neal assisted Mrs. Berkey in entertaining. Refreshments were brick ice cream and cakes. The guests were Robert and Martha Zink, Charles Edward Rhetts [age 11], Charles and Elinor McClintock ….” (doc)

1922 May 31 –
Salem Democrat: “Charles Edward Rhetts [age 12], young son of Dr. and Mrs. J. E. Rhetts and Cosby Whitted, son of Rev. and Mrs. C. S. Whitted while enjoying a drive Friday morning with the Shetland pony belonging to the Holloway boys had quite a “spill” from the cart in which they were riding — the accident occurring on N. Bain St. Both received quite a shock—Cosby getting some bruises and Charles Edward a badly cut knee. Several stitches had to be taken in dressing the injured knee.” (doc)

1922 Dec 22 –
Salem Republican Leader: “Christmas Party Grade School: A splendid program that was well organized throughout was presented the patrons of the school and other visitors at the Grade auditorium, Wednesday afternoon. It was pronounced by the large crowd attending to be the best they had ever witnessed there. The Christmas season is always one of much interest to the school children and Salem teachers have always fostered this spirit with numerous kinds of entertainments at both buildings to some of which visitors have always been invited. The various rooms at the Grade building were very beautiful decorated and four young men, Masters Robert Lee Peden, Charles Edward Rhetts [age 12], Russell Chaney and Willis Tatlock, acted as well trained ushers showing the visitors the various pretty rooms and finding them seats in the auditorium.” (doc)

1925 — listed in Salem High School Yearbook (doc)

1927 – graduated from Salem High School (Editor in Chief Lyon-3; Cub Staff-2; Chairman 7th Dist. I.H.S.P.A.; Class B. B. 1-2-3; Winner County Oratorical Contest)

1928-1931 — Dartmouth College (A.B., graduated with Cum Laude in Economics, Phi Beta Kappa; SAE fraternity; degree granted in June in absentia)

1929 Nov 29 – attended the 21st Interfraternity Conference in New York City representing Sigma Alpha Epsilon (was featured debater with Collier H Young, Dartmouth ’30 on topic of “The Alumnus-An Asset or a Liability”)

1929 — listed in Dartmouth College Aegis Yearbook (doc)

1930 Apr 9 — listed in 1930 Census as living at 109 N High St, Salem, IN and not attending school as of 9/1/1929. Also listed John Edward age 66 (age at 1st marriage 22), his father, and Effie Maupin, his mother age 47 (age at 1st marriage 23). There were also 3 roomers living in house — Wilhelm Lommell age 24, a telegraph operator; Alvin E. Gessell, age 25, a dentist; and Ralph Miller, age 23, a public school teacher. House at 109 N High Street valued at $6,000. Census indicated that there was a radio in the house. [J E Rhetts 66; Effie Rhetts 47; Edward Rhetts 19; William Lommell 24; Alvin E Gessell 25; Ralph Miller 23] (doc)

1931 Jan 31 — Passport #338192 issued (109 N High St, Salem, IN) Occupation: Student/single [1 April 1931 – Visa British Consulate Detroit MI – travelling to Great Britain; 1 April 1931 – paid two pounds for Consular Service; 23 April 1931 – Immigration stamp at Southampton; 18 Jun 1931 – Transit stamp for departure at Cherbourg; 19 Jun 1931 – Visa de Transit for passage at the French border; 21 Jun 1931 – Entry stamp at Swiss border; 1 Sept 1931 – Entry stamp at German border; 8 Sept 1931 – Visa at German border] (doc)

1931 Apr 24 – member of the American Universities Debating Team which debated at Swansea University College, Swansea, Wales (
Western Mail & South Wales News, April 25 1931) and other locations; other team members included Bob Howells, HC Williams, DH Thomas, M O’Connor, Nanci Llewellyn John, R Williams, and R Griffiths. (doc)

1931 Jul 27 – listed on passenger list on
SS Westernland departing Cherbourg and arriving NY; returned to US from European debating tour (doc)

1934 — LL.B., Harvard Law School; admitted to the bar in Michigan, IL, and D.C.

1934-35 — Counsel, National Recovery Administration (Samuel Williams was chairman; Philip Francis Maguire [b. 1905] was a lawyer at NRA and later was an anonymous asst to War Production Board boss Donald Nelson)

1935-37 — Resettlement Adminstrn. (later called Farm Security Admin; Rexford G. Tugwell, Director; Tugwell later served as Governor of Puerto Rico; Tugwell’s ideas on urban planning lead to construction of Greenbelt, Maryland in 1937, with prefabricated houses made by General Housing Inc, owned by Howard Fisher, architect)

1935 Nov 9 – Walter Lowrie Fisher, father-in-law, died in Chicago, IL; in addition to having served as Secretary of the Interior from 1911 to 1913, Walter was the principal lawyer in the case between Norway and the U.S. Government before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Le Hague regarding the take over of cargo ships partly constructed in U.S. shipyards under contracts to Norway. Edward B. Burling, law partner of Dean Atcheson, was the principal lawyer representing Norway and Walter Fisher was hired to handle the principal argument before the Court. On 13 October 1922 the United States was ordered to pay to Norway in settlement of claims made by Norwegian ship owners as a result of the requisition of ships under construction in US shipyards at the time of the US declaration of war against Germany in 1917

1937 — traveled to Chicago to investigate Chicago labor riot and the Memorial Day Massacre of 1937 that took place during the “Little Steele Strike” which was called by the Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC) of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) against Little Steel Company; met Ruth Fisher

1937-38 — private practice, Chicago at Pam & Hurd, 231 South LaSalle St. [CE Rhetts (1947): “In 1937, after a little over two years of government service, I was employed by the Chicago law firm of Pam & Hurd. This firm has a large corporate practice and does an extensive financial practice. For about a year and a half I worked largely on financial matters. These ranged from the handling of more or less routine registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission through more complex stock issues with accompanying registration problems under the Securities Act of 1933 and the blue sky laws of the various states, to drafting of bond indentures and the handling of the various problems, legal and other, incident to the issuance of mortgage bonds. In this work, I was, of course a junior, usually to Mr. Andrew Dallstream.”]

1938 Mar 30 —
Chicago Tribune: “Fisher-Rhetts Nuptial Take Place April 9: The date for the marriage of Miss Ruth Fisher and Charles Edward Rhetts, whose engagement was announced earlier this month, has been set for April 9. The wedding will take place at the home of he bride’s mother, Mrs. Walter L. Fisher, in Hubbard Woods. The ceremony, at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, and the reception following are to be small, with only the families and a few intimate friends present. Miss Margaret Fisher will be her sister’s only attendant, and James Rowe of Washington, DC, will attend Mr. Rhetts. Miss Fisher’s brother and sister-in-law, Mr. and Mrs Walter T. Fisher, will give a bridal dinner on the eve of the wedding at their Hubbard Woods home. The Laird Bells will entertain next Tuesday, and Mr. and Mrs. Ernest S. Ballard, whose daughter, Miss Susan Ballard, will become the bride of Stewart Boal on April 20, will give a dinner on Thursday, April 7. Mr. Rhetts will take his bride to Mexico for a month’s honeymoon. Upon their return they will be at home at 1065 Fisher Lane, Hubbard Woods, in an apartment above the barn on Mrs. Fisher’s property.” (doc)

1938 Apr 9 – married Ruth Fisher; ceremony was at 4pm at 1060 Sheridan Road, Hubbard Woods, IL, home of Ruth’s mother Mabel Taylor Fisher

1938 Apr-May – honeymoon in Acapulco, Mexico (doc)

1938-39 — counsel, power div., Fed. Emergency Adminstrn. Public Works. — Rhetts [1947]: “In August of 1938 I was asked to return to Washington to undertake some special work on behalf of the Power Division of the FEA of Public Works. This consisted in representing PWA in connection with a re-financing program of certain public power districts in Nebraska that were proposing to issue through New York investment bankers additional bonds (up to approximately $90 millions) for the purchase of the privately owned power companies in Nebraska. This work involved extensive negotiations with the power districts and their bankers and their bankers’ lawyers, the drafting of complex indentures designed to control the relationship between the proposed new bonds and the bonds already held by PWA, as well as to establish their respective claims on the revenues of the issuer.”

1939 Jan 1-1941 — asso. solicitor, U.S. Dept. Labor (Gerard Reilly was Solicitor; Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor; Francis Biddle was Chairman of NLRB, 1934 to 1939) — Rhetts [1947]: “Although I had intended to return to private practice upon the completion of the [PWA] project (which was suddenly frustrated one day before the closing date) I did not do so and on Jan 1 1939 became Associate Solicitor of Labor. In the Labor Dept. my work was of a varied character. The then Solicitor of Labor, Mr. Gerard D. Reilly, and I worked very closely together and our work consisted partly of non-legal policy matters — advice to the Secretary of Labor on a variety of problems — and partly the formulation of legal policy in such matters as the drafting of legislation, executive orders, the analysis and formulation of Departmental policy on pending legislation and the presentation of Departmental views before the various committees of Congress. As an example of this latter I recall the extensive testimony that I gave before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the then pending Administrative Law Bills which, as you will recall, were quite complex and which vitally affected the operations of the Dept. These bills ultimately evolved into the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. During the first part of my service in the Dept of Labor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was a part of the Dept. and a considerable portion of my time, both in office work and in litigation, was devoted to legal problems involving this Service. One case of considerable importance at the time was Bata Shoe Company v. Perkins, 33 F. Supp. 508 (DCDC 1940) in which I represented the Secretary of Labor in the litigation brought by the Bata Company. We won the case in the District Court and it was not appealed. During a period of many months I was engaged almost exclusively in litigation brought by a number of steel companies to enjoin the enforcement of certain wage determinations made under the Walsh Healy Act (the so-called Public Contracts Act). I was in charge of this litigation for the Dept., prepared the various pleadings, motions, and briefs in the lower courts, argued the case in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and wrote a large portion of the brief in the Supreme Court where the case was argued and won for the government by the Solicitor General. Lukens Steele Co. et al v. Perkins, 310 U.S. 113. (My name does not appear of counsel in the reports of the case in the Supreme Court as I was not a member of the bar of that Court, although my junior on the case was). During the latter part of my two and one-half years in the Dept. the Solicitor’s office assumed the work formerly carried on by the General Counsel of the Wage and Hours Administration and the legal problems and litigation arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act thereafter occupied much of my time.”

1939 Mar 23 – lived at 1641 35th St NW, Washington DC (according to
76th Congressional Directory)

1939 — listed in
Official Register of the U.S., p143, 268. (doc)

1940 — Federal Census 1641 35th St, NW, Washington, DC lists CER 29 College 7yrs, lived in DC in Apr 1935; and Ruth 29 College 5yrs, lived in Palo Alto, CA in Apr 1935. (doc)

1940 – bought farm at 346 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA

1940 — listed in
Official Register of the U.S., p157, 262. (doc)

1940-41 – Spec. Counsel, Advisory Committee, Council of National Defense (James H. Rowe was Assistant to Attorney General Francis Biddle in 1941; his area of responsibility included Congressional affairs, talent hunting and patronage matters)

1941 Aug-1942 — exec. asst., dir. of materials, Requirements Division, War Production Bd. (William Loren “Bill” Batt, native of Salem, IN, Vice Chairman International Supply (b. 1916, SKF and American Bosch; ran for Congress, 16th District PA, in 1946), Donald Nelson Chairman (Sears Roebuck))—Rhetts [1947]: “In August of 1941 I left the Dept of Labor to become Executive Assistant to. Mr W. L. Batt, who was Director of Materials in the War Production Board and later Chairman of the Requirements Committee. Here my work consisted in rendering general assistance to Mr Batt on all kinds of substantive problems involved in the development of adequate supplies of, and production facilities for, materials required in the prosecution of the war program, as well as handling most of the administrative problems incident to the supervision of an organization of more than one thousand employees. In the fall of 1941 Mr Batt was a member of the first U.S.-U.K. mission to Russia (the Beaverbrook-Harriman Mission) and in consequence I became deeply involved in foreign supply problems and especially Russian supply problems. I represented the United States in the negotiations with the Russian representatives for the so-called Second Russian Protocol (the agreement governing in great detail the various items and quantities of materials which this Government supplied to the Soviet Union). My responsibility did not include finished munitions or war but covered everything else — from power plants, aluminum rolling mills and complete tire factories to thousands of tons of steel, aluminum, chemicals and other raw materials and finished manufactured products. These negotiations—in which I had not one opposite number but all seven members of the Soviet Supply Mission—were of a very difficult character and extended over several months. Because of their complexity and range and outcome, I mention them in particular here as part of my experiences in which I take more than ordinary satisfaction. Later I was made Director of the Foreign Division of the War Production Board which was established to handle all foreign supply matters.” Note: In 1941, Lord Beaverbrook headed the British delegation to Moscow with American counterpart Averell Harriman, special envoy to Europe and coordinator of the Lend-Lease program. This made Beaverbrook the first senior British politician to meet Soviet leader Joseph Stalin since Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. Much impressed by Stalin and the sacrifice of the Soviet people, he returned to London determined to persuade Churchill to launch a second front in Europe to help draw German resources away from the Eastern Front to aid the Soviets. Churchill was not to be persuaded and this led Beaverbrook to resign as Minister of War Production in 1942.

1941 — listed in
Official Register of the U.S., p170, 287. (doc)

1942 Jan 16 – War Production Board established (General William “Wild Bill” Donovan, director; Fisher Howe served as Donovan’s special assistant; Joseph L Weiner [b. 1902] was Deputy Director of civilian supply; Julius Albert Krug [b. 1908], director of WPB power section and in 1942 was director of the raw materials allocation section [Purp”])

1942 — dir. foreign div., War Production Bd.

1942 Jul 8 – John Edward Rhetts, son, born in Washington, DC

1942 Aug 10 —
Time Magazine: “Roll Of Honor—C. Edward Rhetts, 32, is a lanky Indiana youngster who went to Washington from Harvard law school, is now executive assistant to WPB's Bill Batt. Ed Rhetts has never yet made the headlines -— but if Russian soldiers knew his name, they would give him prayerful thanks every day. His job is to get WPB's Lend-Lease aid on to Russia-bound ships; Russians who come to the U.S. to get non-military help such as locomotives and machine tools knock first on Harry Hopkins' door, then wind up talking to Rhetts. He wangles the goods off U.S. production lines, fights the Army to get clearance, gets the goods to the docks. In a city noted for men afraid to run with the ball unless they have a legal release from the White House, Ed Rhetts has been a notable and youthful exception. There were many other names on Washington's wartime roll of honor. Many of them were career men, to whom war came as the logical great opportunity of public service. Others were business and professional men whom war had yanked up by the roots, transplanted to strange new soil. Each in his own way has worked long and diligently to bring victory closer.” (doc)

1942-44 — spl. asst. to atty. gen., U.S. Dept. Justice (coordinating litigation involving internal security) (Francis Biddle was Attorney General 26 Aug 1941 to 26 Jun 1945)

1943 – Office of Foreign Economic Coordination, US Dept of State (Henry Richardson Labouisse, Director)

1944 Mar 4 — Date of Precedence, US Navy (doc)

1944 Mar 23 — Pay Entry Base, US Navy (doc)

1944 — Served as lt. (j.g.) USNR —Rhetts [1947]: After a period of service in the Navy assigned to the Office of Strategic Services, the Attorney General obtained my release for service as First Assistant in the War Division of the Dept of Justice in late 1944, and from September 1945 until its dissolution in early 1946 I was head of that Division.” [U.S. Military Register, LtJG-D Navy; doc]

1944-46 — 1st asst. War Div., U.S. Dept. Justice (The United States Department of Justice War Division was a subdivision of the DoJ created on May 19, 1942, with the purpose of congregating a number of war-related activities spread across the Department during that period. It consisted initially of the Special War Policies Unit, an Alien Property Unit, an Alien Enemy Control Unit and later included the War Frauds Unit, which originated as the Economic Section of the Antitrust Division. The War Division was abolished on December 28, 1945.) (Tom Clark, Attorney General, 27 Jun 1945 to 26 Jul 1949) [CE Rhetts (1947): “As First Assistant and later head of the War Division, I was responsible for the supervision of a staff of over 100 lawyers and an equivalent number of non-professional employees. The War Division, as its name implies, dealt with problems and functions primarily arising out of the war. We represented the Alien Property Custodian in all litigations arising from his activities. This involved some 1600 lawsuits of all kinds in State and Federal courts. We administered the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We had charge of the alien Enemy Control program throughout the country. This latter involved the establishment of local hearing boards, the determination of the policies to be pursued in the apprehension, detention and release of alien enemies, as well as a very considerable volume of litigation brought by alien enemies seeking release from detention. After the cessation of hostilities I also acted as Chairman of a Departmental Board of three which granted hearings to several hundred remaining German alien enemies who, because of their adherence to the Nazi government, were proposed to be repatriated to Germany. The War Division also represented the War Department in all litigation arising out of the impact of military law on the civilian populations. Examples of this type of litigation were cases arising from the exclusion of persons of Japanese descent from the West Coast area and the Hawaaian martial law cases in the Supreme Court. Although during this period my position was such that I could not personally carry on any single piece of litigation, I did manage to handle personally some appellate work. One such case was United States v. Steam Vessel Antoinetta, et. al. 153 F. (2nd) 138, cert. den. 388 U.S. 863, 864, which involved the Alien Property Custodian’s claim to some 27 Italian ships which were sabotaged in various U.S. ports during 1940. I argued and won these cases in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third District. Early in 1946 we dissolved the War Division and redistributed its remaining functions among the other Divisions of the Department. At the request of Attorney General Clark I went to Germany and established offices and an organization of lawyers, translators, investigators, etc. in Berlin and Frankfort to handle the collection of evidence in Europe and the preparation for trial of a number of important cases pending in the courts of this country. Upon my return to this country in the summer of 1946 I resigned from the Department of Justice and entered private practice here in Washington.”]

1944 Jun 13 — Military Permit of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Enter Germany for Justice Dept business: US Special Employee/Govt Official Passport/Special Passport #38475 issued (RFD #1, Falls Church, VA) Occupation: Government Employee Proceeding Abroad on Official Business: 13 Jun 1944 to 19 Oct 1946 — Military Entry Permit #478 Germany; 13 June 1944 to 13 Dec 1944 – India, Ceylon, and China – Official Business; Egypt, Iraq, Iran and other necessary countries en route; 24 Feb 1945 to 24 Feb 1946 – Mexico – Official Business; 24 Feb 1945 – Visa #476 Mexico; [8 May 1945 – V.E. Day]; 7 Jan 1946 to 13 June 1946 – Continent of Europe and British Isles and Necessary countries en route – Dept of Justice; 8 Jan 1946 – Visa #245 United Kingdom in transit to Germany; 8 Jan 1946 – Visa #38 France; 8 Jan 1946 – Visa #15 Sweden; 9 Jan 1946 – Military Permit #11867–to accompany Joint Chiefs of Staff to Germany; 9 Jan 1946 – Visa #284 Netherlands; 9 Jan 1946 – Visa #1269 Switzerland; 9 Jan 1946 – Visa #133 Italy; 24 Mar 1946 Departure Paris Orly; 26 March 1946 Immigration Arrival National Airport, Washington DC; [26 Mar 1946 — Paul born]; 17 April 1946 to 17 April 1947 #2936 Dept of State; 17 Apr 1946 to 17 April 1947 — Continent of Europe and British Isles and Necessary countries en route; 18 April 1946 Transit Visa United Kingdom #2745 for transit to Europe; 18 April 1946 Visa #2259 Switzerland

1944 — Dept of Justice Speclal Asst to Attorney General ID

1945 Feb 16 — CER listed on Draft Registration Card for John Lee Tippett, an employee of Southern Railway, located at 1710 N St NW, Washington, DC as “someone who will always know Tippett’s address.” (doc)

1945 Nov 3 – War Production Board abolished

1945 Nov 20 – Nuremburg Trials begin

1945 — acting asst. atty. gen., U.S. Dept. Justice (In 1945 James Rowe was technical advisor to the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg; Francis Biddle was the primary judge at Nuremberg)

1946 Mar 24 — CER arrived at Washington, DC (doc)

1946 Mar 26 –
Paul Fisher Rhetts, son, born in Washington, DC

1946 Mar 27– Employed in the Claims Division of the Dept of Justice (ID#A-5840

1946 Apr 19-Jun 19 — Joint Chiefs of Staff Military Permit # 12812 for Germany – Official Business For Dept of Justice: 20 May 1946 Immigration Arrival London; 23 May 1946 American Embassy London Permit to travel to France, Italy and Spain; 23 May 1946 Visa #84 Portugal; 11 June 1946 $150 Travelers Checks cashed in Lucerne, Switzerland; 11 June 1946 $50 Travelers Checks cashed in Lucerne, Switzerland; 11 June 1946 $100 Travelers Checks cashed in Lucerne, Switzerland; 13 June 1946 Visa #771 France (doc)

1946 May 16 — listed in U.S. Subject Index to Correspondence and Case Files of the Immigration and Naturalization Services, INS#56241/248 re France Free French Legation & Embassy of Greece, Roll#15. (doc)

1946 Jun 6 –
Harlingen (TX) Valley Morning Star: “Evidence Justifies Seizing German Assets In America: Berlin (UP) American investigators combing the ruins of Germany have obtained evidence justifying seizure of hidden Nazi assets in the United States, some of the cases involving ’several hundred million dollars,’ it was announced Wednesday. Assistant US Solicitor General Harold Judson and eight other lawyer-sleuths have searched all four zones of occupied Germany for records to defend the Government’s case against American and neutral claimants to the funds. Their job is to prove that the money and property was still under German control when confiscated by the alien property custodian. No details of the evidence were announced but Judson said much time had been spent on cases involving certain Standard Oil Co. holdings which were seized as being controlled by the huge I.G. Farben trust. Judson is a former Los Angeles attorney who handled the Government’s case in the supreme court appeal of Lieut, Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, conqueror of Singapore, Bataan and Corregidor who was hanged as a war criminal. Charles Edward Rhetts of Washington and his legal team have been working on the cases for four months. Rhetts said, and immediately granted every application for permission to search for information in the Russian zone, his investigators dug out documents showing that the German patent companies in some cases kept in close contact with the American and neutral assignees, which he said was “just as damaging evidence” as though the transfer had not been made. Judson’s agents, however, will be able to bring good news to some Germans. His investigators are busy locating German heirs to more than 200 estates left to them by persons who died in the United States during the war. The estates have been held by the alien property custodian.” (doc)

1946 Jun 7 –
San Bernardino (CA) County Sun: “Evidence Found Of Hidden Nazi Assets In US: American investigators combing the ruins of Germany have obtained evidence justifying seizure of hidden Nazi assets in the United States, some of the cases involving ’several hundred million dollars,’ it was announced Wednesday. Assistant US Solicitor General Harold Judson and eight other lawyer-sleuths have searched all four zones of occupied Germany for records to defend the Government’s case against American and neutral claimants to the funds. Their job is to prove that the money and property was still under German control when confiscated by the alien property custodian. No details of the evidence were announced but Judson said much time had been spent on cases involving certain Standard Oil Co. holdings which were seized as being controlled by the huge I.G. Farben trust. Judson is a former Los Angeles attorney who handled the Government’s case in the supreme court appeal of Lieut, Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, conqueror of Singapore, Bataan and Corregidor who was hanged as a war criminal. Charles Edward Rhetts of Washington and his legal team have been working on the cases for four months. Rhetts said the Germans were “very clever” in their efforts to conceal their holdings in the United States by transferring property to American citizens or neutrals. Russian occupation authorities gave “excellent cooperation” Rhetts said, and immediately granted every application for permission to search for information in the Russian zone. Rhetts said investigators dug out documents showing that the German parent companies in some cases kept in close contact with the American and neutral assignees, which he said was “just as damaging evidence” as though the transfer had not been made. Judson’s agents, however, will be able to bring good news to some Germans. His investigators are busy locating German heirs to more than 200 estates left to them by persons who died in the United States during the war. The estates have been held by the alien property custodian. (doc)

1946 Jun 18 — CER arrived on TWA to NY from Gander (doc); 2
nd document same date: CER arrived NYC from Athens Greece and lists his residence as Falls Church, VA (doc)

1946 Oct 1 – Nuremberg Trials end

1946 — Dept of Justice Claim Division ID

1946 — dir. U.S. Dept. of Justice Mission in Europe

1946-56 — gen. practice law, Washington; Reilly, Rhetts & Ruckleshaus [CE Rhetts (1947): “My practice for the last year has been varied though largely involving matters of federal regulation or other governmental matters. I have handled some matters before the Civil Aeronautics Board; I have represented the SKF Industries of Sweden in a matter involving their German properties. I also represent the Bofors firm of Sweden in a matter arising out of contracts entered into between that company and the United States Navy Department in 1941 under which this Government acquired certain rights to manufacture and use Bofors guns during the war. This is a rather complex matter involving the Navy, War, State and Justice Departments.”]

1947 — CER in uniform (O-2 rank: single bar pin on lapel and shoulder board with one star and two stripes (one thin and one broader) holding son Paul (photo)

1948 Feb 16 – Colonial Hardwood Flooring Co v. International Union United Furniture Workers of America et al. Civ. No. 3804 (76 F Supp. 493), District Court, District of Maryland. Gerard Reilly and Charles Rhetts for defendants. Motion to dismiss Union from the case was overruled.

1949 — listed in
Indianapolis City Directory under Ruckleshaus, Reilly & Rhetts (doc)

1950 May 8 – Abigail Victoria Ruth Rhetts, daughter, born in Washington, DC

1951 Sep 9 — CER arrived in Boston on
SS Nova Scotia from Halifax with RFR (doc)

1951 Dec 13 — listed on Associated Press Name Card Index to AP Stories (doc)

1952 Apr 7 – Camp v. Herzog et al, CER for plaintiff, DC District Court (NLRB case 104 F Supp 134)

1952 Jan 7 — US Passport #538736 issued (Office=1401 K St NW, DC; Home= 346 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA) Occupation lawyer [28 Jan 1952 – Passport Control entry stamp Rhein-Main-Flughafen; 11 Jun 1952 – Sweden entry stamp; 17 Jun 1952 – Swedish Bank stamp 150 Pounds; 18 Jun 1952 — Sweden exit stamp; 18 Jun 1952 — Immigration London Airport; 26 Jun 1952 – Exit stamp Prestwick England; 30 Sept 1952 – Entry stamp Monte Chiasso; 3 Oct 1952 – Exit stamp Sweden; 10 Oct 1952 – Entry stamp Sweden; 13 Oct 1952 – Exit stamp Sweden; 13 Oct 1952 – Entry stamp London Airport; 17 Oct 1952 – Purchase Tax, London; 19 Oct 1952 — Entry stamp London Airport; 17 Jan 1953 – Entry stamp London Airport; 21 Jan 1953 — Entry stamp London Airport; 21 Jan 1953 – Entry stamp Bromma; 28 Jan 1953 – Exit stamp Bromma; 28 Jan 1953 – Entry stamp Germany; 29 Jan 1953 – Passport control stamp Germany; 18 Sept 1953 – Swedish Bank Stamp 100 Pounds; 20 Sept 1953 – Entry stamp Germany; 24 Sept 1953 – Passport Control stamp Germany; 28 Sep 1953 – Austria entry stamp; 29 Jan 1953 – Entry stamp Northolt; 4 Feb 1953 – Entry stamp London Airport; 25 Jul 1953 – Entry Barajas; 1 Oct 1953 – entry stamp Zurich-Flugplatz; 6 Sept 1953 – Entry stamp London Airport; 12 Sept 1953 – Entry stamp London Airport; 14 Sept 1953 – Entry Gotenborg; 20 Sept 1953 — Exit Bromma; 22 Sept 1953 – Entry permit Berlin; 24 Sept 1953 — Exit stamp Austria; 29 Sept 1953 – exit stamp Brenner-Strasse; 3 Oct 1953 – Exit London; 23 Oct 1953 – Entry London Airport] [19 May 1955 – Passport Renewal; 18 Jun 1955 – Entry Bromma; 24 Jun 1955 – Exit stamp Malmo-B; 24 Jun 1955 – Entry Kabehaven; 25 Jun 1955 – Exit Kestrap; 5 Jul 1955 – Exit London Airport; 27 Jul 1955 – Entry London Airport; 25 Jun 1955 – Entry London Airport; 27 Jul 1955 – Exit Barajas; 22 Aug 1955 — Exit London Airport; 23 Aug 1955 – Entry NY USA] (doc)

1952 Jun 26 — CER arrived in NY from Prestwick, Scotland on SAS (doc)

1952 Oct 3 — CER arrived on PanAm in NY from London (doc)

1952 Oct 19 — CER arrived on PanAm in NY from London (doc)

1952 Oct 20 — CER arrived on PanAm in NY from London (doc)

1953-1955 Jul 28 – Service v. Dulles, et al. (DC DC, CA #4967-52.); CER for plaintiff before U.S. Supreme Court against Loyalty Review Bd., Civil Service Comm., and Secy. of State; Joseph Rauh also served as counsel to Service

1953-1957 Jul 12 — Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States No. 206-53. 153 F. Supp. 397; CER for plaintiff before U.S. Court of Claims

1953 Feb 5 — CER arrived on BOA to NY from London (doc)

1953 Aug 18 – Mabel Taylor Fisher, mother-in-law, died in Winnetka, IL; cremated and kept in Margaret Fisher’s home in Chicago, IL, then moved to family plot at Hanover Presbyterian Cemetery in 1990 (Death Register-doc) (Find a Grave)

1953 Oct 4 — CER arrived on PanAm in NY from London (doc)

1954 – purchased 2620 Foxhall Rd, Washington, DC

1955 Aug 22 — CER arrived on PanAm in NY from London (doc)

1955 —
Washington Star: CER at Uline Arena, Washington, DC (doc)

1955 — listed in
Indianapolis City Directory under Ruckleshaus, Reilly & Rhetts (doc)

1956 — listed in
Indianapolis City Directory under Ruckleshaus, Reilly & Rhetts (doc)

1956 – moved to 303 East Walnut Street, Salem, IN (served as Salem City attorney, and later Washington County Attorney)

1956-60 – Gen. practice law, Salem, IN

1957 Apr 1957 — US Passport #452250 issued [3 Jul 1957 – Entry London; 4 Aug 1957 – Exit London; 7 Aug 1957 – Exit Malmo; 7 Aug 1957 – Entry London; 10 Aug 1957 – Exit London; 11 Aug 1957 – Entry Detriot, MI; 14 Aug 1958 – Entry Orly; 16 Aug 1958 – Exit Orly; 23 Aug 1958 – Exit Bromma; 24 Aug 1958 – Enter Zurich; 25 Aug 1958 – Exit Zurich; 25 Aug 1958 – Enter London; 28 Aug 1958 – Exit London; 29 Aug 1958 – Entry NY; 20 Sept 1958 – Enter Orly; 20 Sept 1958 – Enter Lisboa; 20 Sept 1958 – Exit Lisboa; 24 Sept 1958 – Entry Zurich; 24 Sept 1958 – Exit Bromma; 2 Oct 1958 – Enter Malpensa; 5 Oct 1958 – Enter Suisse; 12 Oct 1958 – Exit London; 13 Oct 1958 – Entry NY; 16 Oct 1958 – Entry Geneve, Suisse; 10 Jan 1961 – Passport renewal] (doc)

1958 – ran for Congress, Ninth District, IN; lost to incumbent Earl Wilson (1941-59, 61-65)

1958 Feb 24 – “Rhetts Is Candidate For Ninth District Congressman In Democratic Primary: Edward Rhetts, attorney for the City of Salem and county attorney of Washington County has officially announced his candidacy for the nomination for Ninth District Congressman in the Democratic Primary on May 6. He is endorsed by the Washington County Democratic Central Committee. Rhetts has been an active Democrat for 25 years and has had over 12 years in the service of the federal government, holding high legal and administrative posts in eight important Federal departments and agencies during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Rhetts resigned from the government service 12 years ago to return to the general practice of law in Washington D.C. and in IN. For 10 years he practiced before the Federal District and Circuit Courts of Appeals and in the United States Supreme Court. Since 1956, he has practiced in his home town of Salem. He is the son of Dr. and Mrs. J.E. Rhetts, Salem, and was born in Columbus IN on May 21, 1910, where his father was then practicing dentistry. Shortly after Rhetts’ birth, the Rhetts family returned to their home in Salem, where he grew up and attended the public grade and high schools. Upon graduation from Salem High School, Rhetts received a scholarship to Dartmouth College where he was graduated with honors in 1931. He attended the Howard Law School and graduated in 1934. Rhetts supplemented scholarship aid with work in restaurants in order to finance his education. In the fall of 1956, Rhetts served as the personal advance representative for the Democratic Presidential nominee in IN and Kentucky. Rhetts married the former Ruth Fisher, in 1938, whose grandfather, Dr. Daniel Webster Fisher, was president of Hanover College at Hanover IN for 29 years. They have two sons, John, 16, and Paul, 12 years old and an eight-years-old daughter, Abigail. Rhetts is a member of the Bar Associations of Orange-Washington counties, IN, INpolis, District of Columbia, and American Bar Associations. He is also a member of the Rotary and Elks Clubs. Rhetts is Judge Advocate of the Cecil Grimes Post, American Legion, and is a member of the official board of the Weir Memorial Methodist Church of Salem.” (doc)

1958 Feb 27 –
Pd. Pol. Adv. Brown County (Nashville, IN) Democrat: “Rhetts Files for Congress: Edward Rhetts, Salem City Attorney and County Attorney of Washington County has officially announced his candidacy for the nomination for 9th District Congressman in the Democratic Primary on May 6th. He is endorsed by the Washington County Democratic Central Committee. Ed Rhetts has been an active Democrat for 25 years. He has had over 12 years in the service of the federal government, holding high legal and administrative posts in eight important federal departments and agencies during the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Rhetts resigned from the government service 12 years ago to return to the general practice of law in Washington D.C. and in IN and for 10 years practiced before the Federal District and Circuit Courts of Appeals and in the United States Supreme Court. Since 1956 he has practiced in his home town of Salem. Ed Rhetts is the son of Dr. and Mrs. J.E. Rhetts of Salem. He was born in Columbus IN on May 21, 1910, where his father was then practicing dentistry. A short time after Ed’s birth, the Rhetts family returned to their home in Salem where Ed grew up and attended the public grade and high schools. Upon graduation from Salem High School, Ed received a scholarship to Dartmouth College from which he was graduated with honors in 1931. After college, he attended the Harvard Law School from which he was graduated in 1934. In both college and law school Rhetts supplemented scholarship aid with work in restaurants in order to finance his education. In the Fall of 1956, Rhetts served as the personal advance representative for the Democratic Presidential nominee in IN and Kentucky. In 1938 Rhetts married Ruth Fisher whose grandfather, Dr. Daniel Webster Fisher, was president of Hanover College at Hanover IN for 29 years. They have two sons, John, 16, and Paul, 12 years old and a daughter, Abigail, 8 years old. Rhetts is a member of the Orange-Washington County, IN, Indianapolis, District of Columbia and American Bar Associations and of the Rotary and Elks Clubs. He is Judge Advocate of the Cecil Grimes Post of the American Legion and is a member of the Official Board of the Weir Memorial Methodist Church of Salem.” (doc)

1959 Apr 11 –
Laurel (MS) Leader-Call: “Really Opposed to Senator Humphrey: Montgomery, Ala (AP) — Mrs Betty Frink, Alabama’s secretary of state, declares that the possible election of Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn) as president would “set civilization back a thousand years in the South.” Mrs. Frink replied to a letter from a Washington attorney, Charles Edward Rhetts, who said he is trying to get Humphrey to seek the Democratic nomination. “I hope Mr. Humphrey will never become the Democratic candidate, or anyone with the views of Mr. Humphrey toward the South,” said Mrs. Frink in her reply to Rhetts.” (doc)

1959 Apr 16 –
Laurel (MS) Leader-Call: “Jackson, Miss. (AP)— Atty Gen. Joe Patterson said he has rejected a feeler by a Washington DC lawyer seeking support for Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn) as a presidential candidate next year. Patterson said yesterday the letter came from Charles Edward Rhetts. The attorney general replied to Rhetts that he preferred to be classified as a conservative rather than a self-styled liberal and couldn’t become enthusiastic over Humphrey.” (doc)

1959 Jun 29 – Effie Maupin Rhetts, mother, died at Norton Infirmary, Louisville, KY [KY Death Index; KY Certificate of Death #59-14796] (doc); buried at Crown Hill Cemetery, Salem, Washington, IN, 1
st Addn, Sec B, Lot 175, Row 8. (doc) Grave (photo) {Effie was listed as a member of Weir Memorial Methodist Church, Business and Professional Women, rented a number of apartments. Her funeral was at Dawalt Chapel, with Rev. James Hogue of Presbyterian Church officiating.] (doc)

1960-62 — gen. practice law, Washington (James Rowe graduated from Harvard Law in either 1933 or 1934 and served as Assistant Attorney General during WWII]) was manager of the 1960 Lyndon Johnson campaign for President; Ed Rhetts was an advisor to the campaign; after the West Virginia primary, Rhetts and Rowe switched their efforts in support of John F Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson ticket)

1961 Jan 20 — served as director of transportation for the 1961 Inaugural for John F Kennedy; it snowed 8” and temperatures of 20° on the evening before and caused huge problems for the parade and gala balls as well as the President’s speech on the steps of the Capitol.

1961 Apr 25 – Wilmurt B. Linker, Appellant v. Charles Edward Rhetts, Appellee, No. 16103, US. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit; Warner Garner for appellee. Suit to recover a portion of Bofors fee paid to Rhetts. Rhetts collected $4M for Bofors from other litigation. Affirmed that Appellant had not right to share of fee received by Rhetts.

1961 Aug 8 — US Passport #B448881 Issued (2620 Foxhall Rd NW, DC) [26 Aug 1961 – Arrive Washington DC; 4 Sep 1961 – Arrive London; 6 Oct 1961 – Arrive London; 15 Oct 1961 – Arrive NY; 13 May 1965 – Arrive London; 15 Aug 1965 – Depart London; 15 Aug 1965 – Arrive Geneve; 10 Nov 1965 – Arrive Columbia; 10 Nov 1965 – Arrive Bogota; 22 Nov 1965 – Leave Bogota] (doc)

1962 Jun 20 — Associated Press Card Index (#83.13-103) on CER (doc)

1962 Jul 10 — US Diplomatic Passport # X008851 issued (2620 Foxhall Rd NW, DC) Occupation: Ambassador to Liberia [12 Jul 1962 – Visa Liberia; 12 Jul 1962 – Visa Sierra Leone; 13 Jul 1962 – Visa Cote d’Ivoire; 17 Jul 1962 – Arrive London; 20 Jul 1962 – Leave London; 21 Jul 1962 – Arrive Dakar; 27 Jul 1962 – Arrive Lungi; 28 Jul 1962 – Leave Lungi; 30 Jul 1962 – Visa Republic de Guinee; 1 Oct 1962 – Arrive Cote d’Ivoire; 4 Oct 1962 – Multiple Visa Liberia for 4 Oct 1962 to 4 Oct 1963; 7 Oct 1962 – Visa for Mali; 11 Oct 1962 – Visa Senegal; 9 May 1963 – depart for USA; 15 May 1963 – Entry NY; 7 Jun 1963 – Passport Office Washington; 10 Sep 1963 – Arrive Nigeria; 11 Sep 1963 – Arrival Monrovia; 16 Sep 1963 – Visa Cote d’Ivoire; 16 Sep 1963 – Multiple Visa for Liberia 16 Sep 1963 to 16 Sep 1964; 22 Sep 1963 – Depart Nigeria; 23 Sep 1963 – Arrive London; 1 Oct 1963 – Arrive London; 1 Oct 1963 – Arrive Geneve, Suisse; 26 Feb 1964 – Visa Cote d’Ivoire; 26 Feb 1964 – Depart for Abidjan Cote d’Ivoire; 4 Mar 1964 – Depart Liberia for Bamako Mali; 8 Mar 1964 – Arrive Bamako Mali; 13 Mar 1964 – Depart Bamako Mali; 1 Apr 1964 – Depart Liberia for Ghana; 4 Jun 1964 – Depart Liberia for USA; 12 Jun 1964 – Enter NY; 22 Jun 1964 – Passport Office Washington DC; 3 Aug 1964 – Visa Cote d’Ivoire; 3 Aug 1964 – Depart Liberia for Abidjan; 9 Aug 1964 – Depart Liberia for Abidjan; 20 Sep 1964 – Arrive Johannesburg South Africa; 28 Sep 1964 – Visa at British Embassy Monrovia for trip to Kenya; 28 Sep 1964 – Depart Liberia for USA; 1 Oct 1964 – Arrive Geneve; 7 Oct 1964 – Permit to travel to Uganda; 12 Oct 1964 – Passport Control Nairobi Kenya; 18 Oct 1964 – Arrive London; 27 Oct 1964 – Depart London] (doc)

1962 Jul 2 – confirmed by US Senate for appointment as Ambassador to Liberia (doc)

1962 Jul 2 —
Charleston Daily Mail: “Nominees Get Senate Okay - The Senate, by unanimous voice vote, has approved the nomination of William H. Orrick, Jr., of California, to be deputy under secretary of state. Also by voice vote yesterday, it confirmed the following: Charles Edward Rhetts, of IN, to be ambassador to Liberia.” (doc)

1962 Jul 5 – appointment as Ambassador

1962 Jul 13 — CER met with President JF Kennedy in the Oval Office at 12.42pm (3 photos taken at the event)

1962 Jul 30 — U.S. State Dept. Bulletin Index, Vol. XLVII, No. 1205 lists CER. (doc)

1962 Aug 7 – presented credentials in Monrovia

1962 Aug 24 –
Kittanning (PA) Leader-Times: “Inside Washington by Henry Cathcart: This November’s elections will be of more than usual importance because of their bearing on the 1964 presidential race. … JUST REWARD: Charles Edward Rhetts, Washington attorney, recently was named U.S. ambassador to Liberia. He was quite proud of the appointment and took pleasure in reading a number of congratulatory letters he received. One has him a bit puzzled, however. A kindly old lady who knew him and his family, wrote: “I have read about your appointment as ambassador to Siberia. And I’m sure you deserve it.” (doc)

1962 Oct —
Culman Times Democrat: “Forgetful Relatives- Despite the strong ties of heritage binding the two countries, the United States has “acted possibly like a forgetful relative” toward Liberia in the past. According to U.S. Ambassador Charles Edward Rhetts.” (doc)

1962-64 — U.S. Ambassador to Liberia

1963 — LL.D., Honorary degree bestowed by Cuttington College (Liberia)

1963 Jul – 100th birthday party in Monrovia for Dr. John Edward Rhetts, Ed’s father.

1964 Sep 30 – termination of mission to Liberia

1964 Nov 25 — Dubuque (IA) Telegraph-Herald: “President Johnson picked new ambassadors to Laos and Liberia…” (doc)

1964-71 — gen. practice law, Washington

1965 Mar 15 – Edith Mae Rhetts Tilton, half-sister, died in Detroit, MI

1966 May 24 — US Passport #G574363 Issued (4816 Dexter Terrace NW, DC) [20 Jan 1967 – Visa for travel to Liberia; Courtesy granted on instructions, verbal, from Ambassador Peal; 27 Sep 1967 – Arrive Southampton; 6 Oct 1967 – Arrive NY; 9 Oct 1967 – Depart London; 31 Dec 1967 – Arrive Liberia; 11 Jan 1968 – Visa for Cote d’Ivoire; 13 Jan 1968 – Depart Liberia for Ivory Coast; 21 Jan 1968 – Arrive Ouagadaugou; 31 Jan 1968 – Depart Mali; 3 Feb 1968 – Arrive London; 3 Feb 1968 – Arrive Bourget France; 5 Feb 1968 – Visa for travel to Guinee; 9 Feb 1968 – Depart London; 9 Feb 1968 – Arrive Washington DC] CER and RFR attended inaugural events for President William Vacanarat Shadrach Tubman (1944-1971) for his 4
th term as president of Liberia along with a State Dept delegration which included Melvyn and Helen Gahagan Douglas. (doc)

1967 Apr 26 – John Edward Rhetts, father, died in Washington, DC

1971 Nov 9 – died in London, England

1971 Nov 14 – US Dept of Veterans Affairs Death Index File (SSN 352-07-2688; Navy) (doc)

1971 Nov 15 – cremated in London, England

1971 Nov – Social Security Death Index (SSN 352-07-2688; issued before 1951) (doc)

1971 Nov — obit (doc)

1971 — England Death Index (doc)

1971 — Report of Citizens Abroad (doc)

1979 – Ruth Rhetts donates Francis Bacon painting to National Gallery in honor of Charles E Rhetts on behalf of John, Paul and Abby.

1981 – CER listed over 30 times in
John Service: State Department Duty in China. (doc)

1983 — Mentioned in Smith, Bradley F.
The Shadow Warriors: OSS and the Origins of the CIA. New York: Basic Books, 1983. (doc)

1989 – 2620 Foxhall Rd sold; house torn down in about 2000 and replaced by new structure that has 10 beds, 9 baths, and approximately 12,740 square feet. The property has a lot size of 2.8 acres and was built in 2006 (according to; current owner is Eugene Ludwig (according to

1990 Jan 1 – Ruth Fisher Rhetts died in Columbia, MD

Who’s Who in America — Volume 5, 1969-1973 (doc)
A.B., Dartmouth Coll., 1931, LL.B., Harvard, 1934; LL.D., Cuttington College (Liberia), 1963.
Counsel, NRA, 1934-35
Resettlement Adminstrn., 1935-37;
private practice, Chicago, 1937-38;
counsel, power div., Fed. Emergency Adminstrn. Public Works, 1938-39;
asso. solicitor, U.S. Dept. Labor, 1939-41;
exec. asst., dir. of materials, War Production Bd., 1941-42, dir. foreign div., 1942;
spl. asst. to atty. gen., U.S. Dept. Justice, 1942-44;
1st asst. War Div., U.S. Dept. Justice, 1944-46;
dir. U.S. Dept. of Justice Mission in Europe, 1946;
acting asst. atty. gen., 1945;
gen. practice law, Washington, 1946-56, 60-62, 64-71, Salem, Ind., 1956-60;
U.S. ambassador to Liberia, 1962-64.
Served as lt. (j.g.) USNR, 1944.
Mem. Phi Beta Kappa.

John S. Service: The Papers of John Stewart Service and Charles Edward Rhetts at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Missouri, document John S. Service's experiences with loyalty hearings, his dismissal from the U.S. Foreign Service, and the various court cases that ensued. Following his involvement in the Amerasia incident of 1945, Service underwent a series of investigations by the State Department, all of which pronounced Service to be a loyal U.S. Government employee. Accusations from Senator Joseph McCarthy, however, incited another hearing before the Loyalty Review Board in 1951. The Review Board ruled there was reasonable doubt concerning Service's loyalty and he was subsequently discharged in late 1951. Following this action, Service and Rhetts appealed the State Department's decision to dismiss Service in Service v. Bingham, et al. (also entitled Service v. Dulles, et al.). The men fought for Service's eventual reinstatement into the Foreign Service with back pay and benefits. In 1957, Service was reinstated as a Foreign Service officer as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Service v. Dulles, et al. Service was one of a number of so-called "China hands" State Department officials who were experts on China and the Far East -— who saw their careers ruined during the 1950s by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his cohorts. McCarthy targeted Service and several of his coworkers, including John Carter Vincent, O. Edmund Clubb, and John Paton Davies, for criticism and investigation. McCarthy charged that Service and other State Department officials had effectively "lost" China to the communists, either through incompetence or, more ominously, through sympathy with the communist cause. The case against Service centered on the 1945 Amerasia scandal. In that year, FBI agents raided the offices of the magazine Amerasia and found classified government documents concerning America's policy in China. Service was implicated because he had given de-classified background information to the magazine's editor. A grand jury, a House subcommittee, and the State Department's Loyalty Board subsequently cleared him. In 1950, however, McCarthy singled out Service as one of what he called "the 205 known communists" in the Department of State. In short order, Service's case was reviewed once again, and this time he was dismissed. Service declared that the decision was "a surprise, a shock, and an injustice." Senator McCarthy exclaimed, "Good, good, good!" The Papers of Service and Rhetts thoroughly document the men's legal activities during Service's loyalty investigations and the appeals process. During this time, Service and Rhetts accumulated many materials pertaining to the Service case, including correspondence, legal and government documents, newspaper clippings, memoranda, press releases, transcripts, printed material (primarily articles and editorials), handwritten notes, telegrams, transcripts of Service's hearings and court cases, and various publications. The collection includes correspondence with prominent liberals such as Edward F. Prichard, Jr. and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. (who assisted Service and Rhetts in their legal efforts), and information concerning donations to a fund that was established to help pay Service's legal expenses. The majority of the correspondence and legal documents are carbon copies of originals. The collection spans the period from Service's involvement in the Amerasia case in 1945; through Senator McCarthy's original accusation of Service's disloyalty in 1950, basing his claim on evidence from the Amerasia incident to infer that Service was pro-communist; through Service's retirement from the Foreign Service in 1963. Most of the documentation, however, falls between 1950 and 1957, detailing the loyalty hearings and the Service v. Dulles, et al. appeals case. The collection measures 1.6 linear feet (approximately 3,200 pages). The entire collection is organized into one series, a Subject File, which is arranged alphabetically according to folder title. One of the most notable features of this collection is the high concentration of newspaper clippings concerning the Service case as well as documents connected to Service and Rhetts's legal activities. The newspaper clippings, gathered as the Service case progressed, are useful in understanding public reaction to the Amerasia incident, Service's loyalty hearings, and the rash of communist accusations associated with McCarthyism. The bulk of these newspaper clippings date from 1950 and 1951. Similarly, the collection contains a good deal of relevant legal and government documents, including transcripts of Service's 1951 hearing before the Loyalty Review Board and the later appeals case, Service v. Dulles, et al. before the Supreme Court. Additionally, Service and Rhetts collected and compiled all pertinent sections of the Congressional Record, which can be found in several locations within the collection. As a result, much of the official documentation of the Service proceedings is centralized and easily accessible. Other information relating to the Service case or Senator McCarthy's accusations of communism in the U.S. government can be found in other collections at the Truman Library. General information on McCarthyism is located in a Student Research File entitled President Truman's Confrontation with McCarthyism. The Confidential File of the White House Central Files of the Harry S. Truman Papers contains information on Truman's creation of the Loyalty Review Board itself. Information pertaining more particularly to Service and the Loyalty Review Board can be found in the oral history interviews of Arthur S. Flaming, Donald Hansen, Walter H. Judd, Stephen J. Spingarn, and Dr. Arthur N. Young.

Aktiebolaget Bofors Gun Company: In 1941 Bofors and the United States had concluded a contract for the manufacture of the 40mm Bofors for "the United States' use" However the US was soon producing guns for other nations, most prominently the United Kingdom. So near the end of 1941 Bofors wrote to the Lend Lease Administrator of the United States, Harry L Hopkins to point out that the guns manufactured by the US should only be used by the US. They received this reply from the White House dated January 21, 1942: Quote-Sir: I have your letter of December 30 telling me to tell the Army and the Navy to stop manufacturing Bofors guns for the use of the United Nations in the defeat of Germany and Japan. I can only say that if I had a client who asked me to do what you are asking your [sic] Government to do I should tell them to jump in the lake. Very truly yours Signed Harry L Hopkins. Bofors let the matter drop. However, after World War Two when the US started disposing of their excess equipment (including Bofors guns) at rock bottom prices and flooding the market, Bofors took their case the US Court of Claims and a verdict was found in their favour on July 12 1957.

NO. 206-53.
153 F.Supp. 397 (1957)
United States Court of Claims.
July 12, 1957.
Mr. C. E. Rhetts, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff. Messrs. Lawrence J. Latto and Richard T. Conway, Washington, D. C., were on the briefs.
Mr. Kendall M. Barnes, Washington, D. C., with whom was Mr. Asst. Atty. Gen. George Cochran Doub, for defendant.
Mr. Thomas J. Lydon, South Portland, Me., on the brief.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges.
MADDEN, Judge.
The plaintiff sues for damages for an alleged breach of contract by the United States. It made a contract with the United States on June 21, 1941, licensing the United States to "make, use and have made in the United States" a type of 40 mm. anti-aircraft gun which the plaintiff had developed. It claims that its contract, properly interpreted, contained an agreement on the part of the United States not to export such guns
and thus compete with the plaintiff's interest in selling guns, or licenses to manufacture them, to other countries.
As we have said, the contract was made in 1941. The exporting of the guns by the United States began in 1942 and has apparently continued down to recent years. The plaintiff's original petition was filed on May 15, 1953. The Government says that the cause of action is barred by our six-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff says that, in any event, its cause of action for such export of guns as occurred not more than six years before the filing of the petition is not barred. We think the plaintiff is right. The agreement not to export, if we conclude that there was such an agreement, was without limit of time, and each act of violation, whenever it occurred, would constitute a violation of the agreement. There would be no way to measure, at any given time, the total damages which might result from violations then past and those which might occur in the future, and thus include them all in one suit.
The contract contained an agreement to arbitrate disputes which might arise under it. The instant dispute as to the meaning of the contract arose in 1942. Not until May 23, 1947 did the plaintiff request arbitration. That request was promptly rejected by a letter from the General Counsel of the Navy Department "in view of the absence of authority of an executive agency of the Government to consent to the resolution of disputes by arbitration." The plaintiff says that its right to sue did not arise until its request for arbitration had been rejected, and that its suit filed within six years after that rejection is effective for all breaches of the contract, whenever they occurred.
The Government says that the running of the statute of limitations was not affected by the arbitration provision. We think the Government is right. The arbitration agreement is a provision for extrajudicial resolution of disputes, analagous to administrative remedies which are often available. A party may be barred from suit for failure to exhaust such remedies, but normally, the statute of limitations runs while he is pursuing them. In the case of arbitration agreements, with no time limit, it would be intolerable that a party should prevent the statute of limitations from even beginning to run, merely by delaying his request for arbitration.
The plaintiff says that the Government's refusal, in 1947, to arbitrate was a breach of contract, and that the instant suit includes that breach and is therefore timely, since it was filed within six years after that refusal. Whether the agreement to arbitrate was invalid, as the General Counsel of the Navy Department wrote, or not, we do not decide. See George J. Grant Construction Co. v. United States, 109 F.Supp. 245, 124 Ct.Cl. 202. Even if valid, we think its breach does not give rise to a cause of action against the United States. In the absence of special circumstances such as that one has been misled, to his damage, by the repudiation of an agreement to arbitrate, the only effective judicial remedy for such a refusal is a decree for specific performance. That remedy is not available against the United States, since it has not consented to such suits. A suit for damages for the violation of an agreement to arbitrate can, in the absence of the special circumstances above referred to, result in no more than the award of nominal damages, since a court cannot know what arbitrators would have decided, if there had been arbitration. The cases in this court in which contracting officers have failed to make decisions entrusted to them by Government contracts are not in point. The court decides those cases on their merits, not as it surmises that the contracting officer would have decided them, if he had decided them. The plaintiff must seek the contracting officer's decision in order to exhaust his available extrajudicial remedy. But his recovery here, if any, is based on the substantive provisions of the contract, and not on the refusal to arbitrate.
Our conclusion then is that the plaintiff's suit is not barred by the Statute of Limitations, 28 U.S.C.A. ß 2501, but recovery, if any, may be had only for violations of the alleged agreement which occurred not more than six years before the filing of the petition.
We now consider the contentions of the parties as to whether there was, in fact, an agreement by the United States that it would not export Bofors type guns.
The wording of the contract as signed was agreed upon after preliminary events and negotiations, which will be described only briefly in this opinion. American Army officers witnessed a demonstration of the Bofors gun at the plaintiff's plant in 1937. In that year the plaintiff was asked by our military attaché in Berlin to quote prices on a quantity of the guns and ammunition. The plaintiff suggested that our War Department purchase a license to manufacture the guns in the United States. The War Department advised the plaintiff in 1938 that it did not care to do that. In the fall of 1939 the Bofors gun was called to the attention of the Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance of our Navy, by a person who had seen the gun fired in Sweden. In 1940, that official decided to obtain one of the guns, with ammunition, for testing purposes. In 1940 a gun was purchased, for $40,000, and 3,000 rounds of ammunition at $10 each. The contract provided that it did not grant to the United States a license to manufacture the gun or have it manufactured, and that the gun would be used only for testing purposes. The gun was so used in October 1940.
In August 1940, two officers of the Bureau of Ordnance of the Navy were sent to the West Indies to witness the firing of Bofors guns on a Dutch ship. They made a favorable report on the gun, but an unfavorable report on its firecontrol system. Following the report of these officers, and the test-firing of the purchased gun, the Bureau of Ordnance of the Navy decided, in effect, to adopt the Bofors gun in place of the 1.1 inch gun which had been developed by the Navy itself, and initiated procedures looking toward the manufacture of the Bofors gun. It obtained from Dutch authorities prints of drawings of the gun. These prints were made from drawings furnished by the plaintiff to the Government of the Netherlands before the German occupation. The set of prints so obtained was virtually complete, and from them the Navy was able to undertake the manufacture of the gun.
The drawings needed some changes, to adapt them for mass production, and such changes were made. The Bureau of Ordnance was not satisfied with the plaintiff's mount for the gun, and a drastically different mount was developed. In 1941 a contractor began to manufacture the guns for the Navy. Early in 1941 the Navy obtained from a British source some drawings of the Bofors gun. It made no use of these drawings because its reworking of the prints it had obtained from the Dutch gave it all the material it needed.
In 1940 the British suggested to our Army that it cause Bofors guns to be manufactured in the United States for the Army. The Army was already procuring, on a quantity basis, another gun developed by itself, but when the Navy adopted the Bofors gun, the Army did likewise. It obtained a complete set of blueprints of the gun from a company in Canada which was manufacturing the gun for the British. These were based upon drawings which had been furnished to the British Government by the plaintiff. Contracts were made early in 1941 with American manufacturers for the manufacture of Bofors guns for the United States on a quantity basis.
On January 10, 1941, while our military authorities were in the process of arranging for the manufacture of the Bofors gun, the Bureau of Ordnance of the Navy requested our naval attachÈ in Sweden to find out what the plaintiff would charge for a license to have the Bofors gun manufactured in the United States "for use by United States forces only." The plaintiff sent a Captain Linden
to Stockholm to confer with our naval attaché. After conferences, Linden returned to Bofors and came back to Stockholm with a draft of a proposed contract. This draft said "this license to be used exclusively for the requirements of the Navy of the United States of America." Our naval attaché suggested that the draft be changed because the Army might also desire to use the gun. Linden agreed that the change would be made. Our naval attaché advised the Navy Department that the cost of a license, with drawings and the services of a production expert and a design engineer would be $600,000.
Exchanges of messages relating to price and time of performance and having no direct bearing on our problem took place. On June 3, 1941 the Navy Department authorized the naval attaché to purchase an "irrevocable non-exclusive license to make, have made, and use in the U. S." the Bofors gun, ammunition and mounting. The attaché prepared a draft which used the language quoted above and further stated that the gun with a specified mounting was to be for naval use, and the gun with a specified field carriage was for Army use. Conferences between the naval attaché and Linden occurred. Linden said that the plaintiff would insist on limiting the license to manufacture for the military forces of the United States. He suggested that the wording be changed to limit the use to the Army and Navy of the United States. The naval attaché said that there might be other organizations such as home defense units or air forces that would be interested in the guns.
About June 10 Linden submitted a proposed draft of contract which said that the license was to cover the manufacture of the material "in the United States for the United States forces." The naval attaché advised the Department of this language and of other terms of the proposed contract and asked if they were acceptable. The Department replied:
"* * * the terms stated are satisfactory except for the limitation as to use by United States forces. It is agreeable that license be limited to manufacture under United States contract and for United States use but not that such use be restricted to forces of the United States."
In a subsequent conference our naval attaché advised Linden that the expression "for the United States forces" used in the draft was not satisfactory to the Navy, and that it had particularly specified that the use of the material manufactured under the license was not to be restricted to the forces of the United States. He suggested that the phrase "for the United States use" be substituted. There was extended discussion of what the substituted expression would mean. Linden said that the export of Bofors guns manufactured in the United States could not be allowed, as it was the plaintiff's policy, in selling manufacturing rights, to limit such rights to the country purchasing them, except that the United Kingdom had acquired a manufacturing license for the entire British Empire.
After the conference the final draft of the contract was prepared by our naval attaché and it was signed on June 21, 1941 by him and by Linden, for their respective principals. It contained the expression "for the United States use." In the latter months of 1941 the United States began to supply other countries with Bofors guns, under its lend-lease program. It has, apparently, continued since that time to export these guns. The instant proceeding is, by the stipulation of the parties, limited to the question of the right of the plaintiff to recover, and hence no evidence has been taken on the question of the extent of the alleged violations.
From the above recital it will be noted that the Navy's first inquiry was about the cost of a license to manufacture "for use by United States forces only." The plaintiff's draft in response said
"exclusively for the requirements of the Navy." Our attaché said that the Army should be included, and the plaintiff's agent agreed. Then for many weeks the negotiations related only to other terms of the contract. Next came our attaché's draft using the expressions "for naval use" and "for Army use" with regard to the guns with their two kinds of accessories. Linden said the plaintiff would insist that the material be limited to the use of the military forces of the United States. Our attaché said it should also include home defense units, air forces, and other possible forces. Linden submitted a draft saying "for the United States forces." Our attaché submitted this to the Department, and received the reply which we have quoted. then the language suggested in the reply, i. e., "for the United States use" was inserted, but only after a discussion in which the plaintiff's agent made it plain that the plaintiff would not agree that the guns might be exported, and in which the agent of the United States expressed no opinion that the language used would permit export.
In no stage of the negotiation, except the final one, was there any intimation by the United States that it contemplated a license to do anything with the material manufactured, except to have it used by its armed forces. Its own first proposal was "for use by United States forces only." Its agent was made aware of the importance which the plaintiff attached to the matter of licensing the export of its guns. When the Department's last proposal reached our agent, it suggested language which was highly ambiguous. One needs only to read the briefs in this case to be convicted of that. The plaintiff's agent stated, in effect, that the plaintiff would not agree to it if it were to be interpreted to mean that the license permitted export. The Government's agent did not say that it did mean that. He had no instructions from his superiors as to what it had been written to mean.
In the circumstances, the meaning which the plaintiff attached to the language is controlling. If parties are at the signing of a contract, and one says that he will not sign except upon the understanding that the word white, when used in the contract, means black, and the other party says nothing, and they sign, probably white means white. But where one party says that the words "for the United States use," speaking of an implement of war, does not mean to him, "for use by any nation at all, if that use will redound to the benefit of the United States," he is properly putting his interpretation upon language which has no plain meaning, and the other party is, in all fairness, under a duty to express his views if they are different. The probability in the instant case is that our naval attaché had no clear idea of what his superiors meant by the language; there was nothing in his prior communications with them which enlightened him; the negotiations had been long and tedious; and the plaintiff's interpretation of the words, in the circumstances, was not unreasonable.
Our conclusion is that the United States did not, by the June 21, 1941 contract, obtain a license to export Bofors guns and that, in the circumstances, by necessary implication, it agreed that it would not export them.
The Government says that, because it made no use of the drawings received from the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot recover, regardless of the meaning of the contract. It is true that so much progress had been made toward the production of the Bofors gun from the data obtained from the Dutch and the British that no use was made of the drawings. The defendant suggests that it bought the license to ward off possible suits for patent infringement after the war. The plaintiff had no American patent on the gun, but it had such a patent on the field gun carriage. Also, there was a possibility that under an international convention, its Swedish patent might become retroactively effective in this country.
We think that one cannot, with full knowledge of the title of the licensor,
and of all relevant facts as to whether the license is necessary or valuable, make a contract for the license and then assert that the licensor had nothing to sell. The Government got what it principally desired, immunity from liability to the plaintiff for actions within the scope of the contract. It must therefore itself comply with the contract.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover, and a judgment to that effect will be entered. The amount of the judgment will be determined in further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38(c), 28 U.S.C.A.
It is so ordered. JONES, Chief Judge, and LARAMORE, WHITAKER and LITTLETON, Judges, concur.}