is approximately $44,000,000 which, if you return it, will leave a balance remaining of about $273,000,000.

I have a statement of that here, Mr. Chairman, which I can insert in the record, giving the exact figures, if it meets with your approval.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be inserted.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

This bill will affect 30,368 trusts and $44,362,002.80 under the two classifications:

28,144 trusts less than $10,000..

2,224 trusts over $10,000...

Total.....

$22, 122, 002.80

22, 240,000.00

44, 362,002,80

STATUS OF PROPERTY ON TRUSTS LEDGERS AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1922.

Amount as shown in statement....

Deduct unadjusted and uncomplied demands as property not actually reduced to possession....

Deduct interest received on cash deposited in Treasury or in Treasury investments (this may be considered in computing the total amount of alien property, but is not pro-rated among the 30,000 trusts)....

Total amount of property credited to trust accounts...
Estimated amount required under Winslow bill.

Balance remaining....

$347, 310, 776.22

4,390, 640.06

342, 920, 136. 16

24, 591, 234. 26

318, 328, 901.90 44, 362, 002. 80

273, 966, 899. 10

Mr. MILLER. Now, gentlemen, if you pass this legislation it will leave in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian approximately $273,000,000. But bearing in mind the amount of money necessary when you were considering amendments to the trading with the enemy act in the previous Congress, and the amount afterwards drawn, I think I should call your attention to these facts here. The amendments to the trading with the enemy act, dated June 5, 1920, and January 26, 1921, I gather from the hearings which I read, at that time it was thought it would amount to $30,000,000 or $40,000,000pardon me for juggling millions around in that way, but that is the way it stretches. În reality, it has resulted in withdrawing almost $125,000,000. So I am calling this detail to your attention, because the other departments of the Government who are interested in this legislation, and from whom you will undoubedly hear, may ask the committee to consider very seriously what amount of property this is going to release, and whether it will impair the guarantee which we hold to such an extent as to make it approach a line where it would be unwise to return so much. I am here to tell the committee to-day, as a Government official who is charged with the responsibility of administering this act, and who, therefore, must know many details about it, that in my opinion you can pass the provisions of this bill and do a just, and righteous and proper act, and still have enough money held by your Alien Property Office to guarantee the total of American claims that may finally be adjudicated. And I want to reiterate again that when we say guarantee we do not mean, that we are to eventually confiscate a dollar of this property to pay claims. I am speaking here as one-and my office is made up of a lot of them-who had the privilege of going to France and meeting these people at the front, and I am not leaning in any way backwards in favor of the citizens of countries who were at war with us.

I do think that some legislation of this character should be passed by the present Congress in order to alleviate the hardships of thousands of people whose paltry property is being held by us, and which in the end will undoubtedly be returned to them, especially the small ones. I am not going to take the time of the committee to-day, unless they want to bring it out in questions, to describe to you the letters that we receive and the pathetic appeals that come to us. And if you saw some of the property we are holding belonging to these former enemy subjects you would wonder why the Government ever wanted to hold it a day longer and why we are put to the expense of administering it; because the smaller the property is the more trouble it is to administer, and it is not good business.

Now, I have referred to the $10,000 return. That is included in the committee print which you hold before you, in the provisions, on page 6, shown there as (5-a), (5-b), and (6-a). Those few paragraphs there, in our opinion, will accomplish the $10,000 return. All the italics in this committee print is the new legislation, and the bold type is the old legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. An interruption there.

Mr. MILLER. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. You will find in your books, members of the committee, two copies of this bill. One is the regular bill, and the other bill is italicized to show the new legislation which it is proposed to insert into section 9 of the trading with the enemy act. The italicized sections are not in the hands of any but members of the committee and perhaps Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. If I may refer generally to some of the sections of this bill, and to certain provisions. On the bottom of page 3, the italicized language has been suggested as under the law at present, for this reason: The appropriations of Congress only cover the office force of the Alien Property Custodian in Washington. Under the provisions of the trading with the enemy act and all precedents in connection therewith, in comptroller's decisions, and Attorney General decisions, past and present, the Alien Property Custodian is authorized, in the administration of these trusts, to use the money in these trusts for administrative purposes. In other words, if we have a piece of real estate and the taxes are due and the real estate at the present time is not earning enough money to pay the taxes, or to pay for improvements that municipal authorities direct and authorize, we can, if the trust has any money in the treasury, use the money for that purpose. If a suit is brought against the United States and the Alien Property Custodian, under the present law the funds are automatically frozen tight. In the meantime, if any taxes come due, the Alien Property Custodian is absolutely prevented from getting any money to attend to that property, or to handle it, and in a number of cases some properties have given us considerable thought and trouble and worry in order to handle the situation.

I have in mind a big proposition that was to be put up at auction, and probably knocked down for a song, because the funds were tied up in litigation. I had to do some hustling to get the money to take care of the property, as under the law of a guardian and common law trustee it was my duty to do, to protect the property. These are some of the reasons we have that provision in there.

On page 10 is another new provision, paragraph (dd). That refers to assignments. Since the armistice hundreds of Americans have come to us and asked us whether we would permit them to send some money over to their relatives or friends in Germany to see that they did not suffer from starvation and want, and that they will be protected in getting that money back out of the property of their relative or friend when it was returned to them. We have endeavored to tell them that if they want to go ahead and send money over to those friends we will endeavor to see that any assignment that is made from those people will be honored and recognized when this property is returned to them. That, broadly speaking, is the reason for (dd), and is to take care of those who provide for their friend.

Section 2, at the top of page 12, is self-explanatory. If refers to attorney's fees; attorneys for these claimants under this legislation, if it passes.

Section 3 on page 12 refers to those claimants, described briefly as follows: Any number of people came over from the former enemy countries to America and took out their naturalization papers, and were American citizens here and owned property. A number of them went back to their country for temporary sojourns, and when the great curtain of the European war fell on the Old World in 1914, if they happened to be in Germany or any of the other enemy countries, they had no means whatever of getting out. They were caught in a great human trap. Many of them neglected i comply with the law which required a registration every two years with the American consul in order to retain their citizenship.

Some of them have told us there was no American consul where they were, and they did not know they were to go to the Spanish consul, who was the official representative of America during the time when no American consul was at that place. And this class of claims arouse more resentment and questions from you Members of Congress, than any other. The question is, Why are we still holding the property belonging to American citizens? That is the reason for this section, and it will enable the Alien Property office and the Department of Justice to clear up a number of claims that are now in the twilight zone when it comes to differentiating between American citizens, or an American citizen and his claim.

I will ask that I be allowed to insert in the record a detailed explanation of the various citizens of enemy countries, and citizens of other parts of the globe that are included in the property that has been taken over, as well as German, Austrian, and Hungarian property. I could read this list, but it is something you perhaps all know. It is something I would like to have in the hearings, and if I may be permitted, I will place it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be placed in the record. Just hand it to the reporter (The statement referred to is as follows:)

25789-23-2

NATIONALITIES FROM WHOM PROPERTY WAS SEIZED.

"(A) German property also includes (1) citizens of Alsace and Lorraine, formerly a portion of the German Empire; (2) citizens of Poland, formerly a part of the German Empire; (3) citizens of Denmark residing in that portion of Schleswig Holstein formerly a portion of the German Empire.

"(B) Austria-Hungary also includes (1) citizens of the present Republic of Austria; (2) citizens of the present Republic of Hungary; (3) citizens of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes residing in territory formerly a part of the Austria-Hungary Empire; (4) citizens of the Kingdom of Italy residing in the territory formerly a part of the Austria-Hungary Empire; (5) citizens of Poland in parts of Galicia and Silesia; (6) citizens of Czechoslovakia, practically all of whom resided in territory formerly a part of the Austria-Hungary Empire; (7) citizens of Rumania residing in territory formerly a part of the Austria-Hungary Empire.

"(C) Others include citizens of Turkey, Bulgaria, and those Russians living in occupied territory taken over by the Germans or Austria-Hungary and property of citizens whose citizenship or nationality was never determined.

"(D) Interned enemies includes those interned enemies who after their release from custody departed for their homes in Europe and did not remain here to take advantage of that provision of the trading with the enemy act which provides for the return of property when upon their release they continued to reside in the United States.

(E) America includes the property reported as that of American citizens residing in enemy territory or in territory occupied by the enemy who are eligible as claimants upon proof of citizenship but whose property at that time had not been returned to them.

"Figures showing division of the property among the various nationals is difficult for accurate determination because the decision rests principally on a matter of residence, and until a claim is filed for the return of property it is impossible to determine the nationality of the enemy in whose name the property is held."

Mr. MILLER. Now, gentlemen, I thank you for your forbearance. I have endeavored in a few minutes, and briefly, to portray this act to you and give you an insight of how we are endeavoring to conduct the office and at the same time to show you why we are advocating the passage of the principles of this bill in this Congress if possible. The CHAIRMAN. You have evidently, I think, overlooked subsection (g), on page 11. This provision, as you know and I know, has been put in the bill in consequence of the interest of some of the other departments of the Government, and perhaps, while you are on that subject now, you might state to the committee what the purpose of that provision is and what it means, although there will be a representative of the War Department, and perhaps some other departments, who may speak on that provision later. This is, I realize, a matter which pertains particularly to the interests of departments other than your own.

Mr. MILLER. I passed that over, Mr. Chairman, in my discussion here on this measure, because I was only discussing that portion of your bill that had been suggested by the Alien Property Office. Since you have asked me the question, I will state that subsection (g), on page 11-may I ask the chairman, did he refer to the fact that other Government departments had suggested legislation of that character?

The CHAIRMAN. That section was put in at the behest of other Government depart

ments.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And for the purpose of protecting them in respect of the matters which are set forth in that paragraph.

act.

Mr. MILLER. There were thousands of patents, trade-marks, prints, labels, and copyrights seized by the Alien Property Custodian under the trading with the enemy A great number of them, as you know, were utilized by the War and Navy Departments during the war under a license or outright purchase. If the committee desires, I can obtain from my office and put into the record at this point the number of those patents and the sales prices, or the terms under which they were licensed. The CHAIRMAN. You might withhold that for a moment.

Mr. MILLER. Very well.

The CHAIRMAN. I have an amendment which the chair had in mind to suggest to the committee in due time which would affect that paragraph to the extent of adding the words "or seized by him," in addition to the words "conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to the Alien Property Custodian," making it read "conveyed, transferred, assigned, or delivered to the Alien Property Custodian, or seized by him." Mr. MILLER. That would be perfectly proper.

The CHAIRMAN. That would be following the language of the act and should be in that paragraph.

Mr. MILLER. Is it understood, Mr. Chairman, that the provisions of paragraph (g) on page 11 relates only to the $10,000 return?

The CHAIRMAN. I will ask the committee to consider as a further suggestion of amendment of that paragraph this statement:

Subsection (g) on page 11 is too broad. It provides that this section shall not apply to patents, trade-marks, etc., conveyed or delivered to the Alien Property Custodian. The effect of this would be to make the whole of section 9 of the trading with the enemy act inapplicable to such patents and trade-marks, and hence to deprive nonenemy claimants of the right to make claims for patents and trade-marks held by the Custodian. The provision was only intended to apply to the new matters contained in the bill-that is, the provisions of subsections (5-a), (5-b), and (6-a) on page 6 of the bill, granting enemy aliens the right to have returned property not in excess of $10,000. The bill should be appropriately amended to cure this defect.

And that will be suggested as a second amendment to that paragraph, in addition to the words ". or seized by him." Perhaps we can get information about that more directly from some other representatives of the Government, representing some other department, in due time.

Mr. MILLER. They you do not want me to dwell any longer on that?

The CHAIRMAN. Not particularly. Only I want to ask if you appreciate what that was driving at as affecting your holdings.

Mr. HAWES. Do I understand that Mr. Miller is to insert into the record a list of those patents, and their value?

Mr. MILLER. I can get from my office and insert in these hearings, Mr. Hawes, information relative to the patents, that the War Department and Navy Department took over. In Senate Document 181, in a report made by me last April, to the Senate, is a detailed description of every patent seized, and its disposition. Mr. HAWES. I would be glad if you would put it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. How large a record is that?

Mr. MILLER. Does the gentleman mean extracts from Senate Document 181, with reference to the War and Navy Department patents?

Mr. HAWES. I understood you to suggest that you had a list of those patents which you would insert, and were interrupted by the chairman, and it seems to me decision was not reached whether it should be inserted, or not.

Mr. MILLER. I can put in the record at that point some useful information for the committee, with reference to these War and Navy Department patents, which the Alien Property Custodian had assigned to them. But I really think it would make a very voluminous record, and would duplicate printing. That document is available, and I can give you the pages where it is available in that document. It is a matter of whether you want to put it in or not.

Mr. HAWES. How many pages would it occupy?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hawes, will you be satisfied with a reference to it at this point?

Mr. HAWES. Not entirely, Mr. Chairman. This whole evidence will be reviewed by Members of the House.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Hawes, it consists of 82 pages in my report of April 10, 1922, Senate Document 181.

Mr. HAWES. That is too long. Could you not make some sort of digest, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; I should be glad to do that, and will put it in here.

The CHAIRMAN. Put that in the record.

(The matter referred to was subsequently furnished by the witness, and is here printed in full, as follows:)

List of patents licensed or sold to the United States Government by the Alien Property Custodian, found on the following pages of Senate Document 181, Sixtyseventh Congress, dated April 20, 1922, being the report of the Alien Property Custodian, in response to Senate Resolution 191:

Pages 812 to 884, inclusive.

Pages 1007, 1031 to 1034, inclusive.

An abstract of all licenses and sales to the United States Government, covering patents which have been seized by the Alien Property Custodian, is herewith given: Nonexclusive licenses.-Number of patents, 5,785; date of license, December 20, 1920; consideration, $100,000.

Sales.-Number of patents, 105; date of sale, February 6, 1919; consideration, $1.690. The United States Government, represented by the Secretary of the Navy, reassigned three of these patents to the Alien Property Custodian, consideration being $105.

This sale now covers 102 patents, with a consideration of $1.585.

Number of patents, 12 sold, 72 licensed; date of sale and license, April 3, 1920; consideration, $2,000.

In addition thereto, abstracts from the records show that the Atlantic Communication Co., under date of February 5, 1919, assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, one contract dated February 21, 1913, including four patents and two applications.

The New York Patents Exploration Corporation assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, two patents, one of which does not appear to have been seized by the Alien Property Custodian.

In addition thereto, under date of February 26, 1921, the Chemical Foundation (Inc.), granted a nonexclusive license to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy, covering 160 patents, for the consideration of $1.

Mr. NEWTON. Mr. Miller, you were referring to, and have inserted in the record, the names of something like 120 ships that were seized, but of course not seized under the trading with the enemy act. Under just what law were they seized by the Government?

Mr. MILLER. They were seized, Mr. Newton, under presidential proclamations between the time war was declared, April 6, 1917, and the time the trading with the enemy act was passed, October 8, 1917.

Mr. NEWTON. Anticipating action by Congress later in the trading with the enemy act?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I am reminded that that matter was covered by a joint resolution of May 12, 1917.

Mr. NEWTON. Then just what is the status of those ships to-day? Do we account for them in any way, as we are now compelled to account for the property seized by the Alien Property Custodian?

Mr. MILLER. I am just giving you my personal opinion, Mr. Newton

Mr. NEWTON. I just wanted to get the general idea.

Mr. MILLER. In my opinion I should suppose our former enemies would bring up the question of our having those ships when it came to settling up finally, because they represent millions of dollars' worth of property. I merely called attention to the fact so that it may answer any inquiries made by other departments.

Mr. NEWTON. And that list includes the Leviathan and all those other very large ocean-going vessels?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; every one of them.

Mr. NEWTON. You mentioned that there was a sufficient amount of property on hand to take care of the American claims, in your judgment, after the provisions of this proposed act had been complied with?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. NEWTON. In estimating that did you take into consideration the value of these ships, or is that outside of the question of the ships?

Mr. MILLER. That is outside of that, sir. But they will amount to such an enormous sum that I thought it was only just and proper to call the attention of the committee to it, even though I have nothing to do with it officially.

Mr. DENISON. Mr. Miller, you have mentioned the reasons which impelled you to recommend the return of these claims that are in value below $10,000. Just what reason do you give for the recommendation for the repayment of $10,000 on the claims which are above that amount in value?

Mr. MILLER. Why, Mr. Denison, it occurred to us that the holders of property of the value of $10,000 and over could probably attack the act on the ground that the Act of Congress was discriminatory if we did not also include them in some of the benefits of it. It is a very hard proposition to draw a deadline and say that you, with $9,990, should get your property and that the other man with $10,100, should get nothing.

Mr. DENISON. It was just to meet a legal objection?

Mr. MILLER. Yes; and I think it is only proper and just that the larger trusts should be permitted to participate up to that limit. You know $10,000 is a lot of money over on the other side of the water right now.

Mr. DENISON. You spoke of certain assignments of interest by parties in Germany. Those assignments were not absolute assignments, were they, but merely conditional assignments?

Mr. MILLER. Merely conditional, because under the law to-day, Mr. Denison, none of these people in theory have any right to receive anything or to assent or dissent to anything that we do.

Mr. DENISON. They are merely conditioned upon final determination of the legal rights of the parties?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. It will not mean that a lot of people will buy up claims, because the administration of that provision rests with our office, under such rules and regulations as the President shall prescribe.