Mr. DEWALT. And she, in the contemplation of the act, is also an alien enemy because she has resided in alien territory, and, as you say, her citizenship is the citizenship of her husband.

Mr. SCHAFFER. I think it was the last determination that moved the Alien Property Custodian. I do not think he looked upon her as residing in Germany or being a permanent resident of Germany. I had the case up with Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Palmer so understood. Mr. DEWALT. I had this thought: It is to be hoped, of course, that Mrs. Hilprecht will not die before her husband. But suppose this property is now decreed to be hers and she, unfortunately, should die. Then, under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, how much of this property, which is personal property to a large extent, would go to her husband?

Mr. SCHAFFER. I do not think any of it. I suppose he would still be an alien enemy. Of course, his status would be changed. after Germany ceases to be an enemy of the United States by congressional action. Then his status would change because Germany would no longer be at war with us.

So far as the income she has under the trusts is concerned, those are declared trusts which pass the income at her death to her children and her grandchildren, and so far as the corpus of the property is concerned that is now possessed by her, and I think no alien_enemy could inherit it. The fact is that Prof. Hilprecht himself, I think I am fully justified in saying, wants to come back to the United States. He lived here since before 1888, and he was, as you yourself probably know, one of the most famous professors of the University of Pennsylvania. He was the professor who made the explorations at Babylon and Nippur, and he wants to come back here and live here-spend the rest of his life with Mrs. Hilprecht. Mr. DEWALT. I do not quite follow you in saying that under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania the mere fact that Prof. Hilprecht is an alien enemy would deprive him of the right of inheritance of a portion of her estate. I follow you this far, that if Mrs. Hilprecht should die to-day, or, say, die immediately after this property was restored to her, so far as his interest in the estate of Mrs. Hilprecht is concerned that the Alien Property Custodian would still have charge of and possession of any sums which would come to him under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania; but I do not quite follow you when you say that the mere fact that he is an alien enemy would deprive him of his right to a portion of her estate under the intestate laws of Pennsylvania.

Mr. SCHAFFER. I do not think it would, if you mean after the conclusion of peace with us. But, as I understand, the German courts' holding which, in fact, is in the case in Pennsylvania that involves the question as to the ownership of part of the Coleman ore banks at Lebanon, I think that precise question is in that case, and as I understand it, the holding is that Germany would recognize no right of an American to inherit through a German, and the same rule would apply to this proposition. But it is my impression, and I have so advised clients, that no alien enemy has any heritable qualities under the Pennsylvania act, just as I have advised clients that no enemy alien can hold real estate in Pennsylvania under the intestate laws of Pennsylvania.

Mr. JONES. She would have to be an enemy.

Mr. DEWALT. It may be that I am entirely at fault, but I know of no change under the inheritance acts in the State of Pennsylvania which would deprive the husband, although he was a German citizen, of the right of his share to the estate of his wife, except under the provisions of the alien custodian act.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Which would, of course, take it over.

Mr. DEWALT. It is merely in the nature of custody. The purpose of the alien custodian act was to keep from the alien enemy any property and prevent it getting into Germany, or the proceeds thereof getting into Germany.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DEWALT. Now, if Mrs. Hilprecht, after this property was restored to her under the provisions of this act, were to die, and Prof. Hilprecht was still in Germany, then the Alien Property Custodian would have the right of custody of his share in the estate. Mr. SCHAFFER. I think there is no question about that; yes, sir. Mr. DEWALT. But nevertheless the right of the property would be in this German citizen?

Mr. SCHAFFER. I do not know what the congressional policy will be, but I was taking it for granted that when the peace treaty is finally signed and the proper legislation from Congress follows it, the reciprocal rights of German citizens and American citizens will be defined in the treaty, and therefore it seemed to me that was a question that would arise at that time. What I meant to say was this, that at least until the time when this peace treaty is concluded between Germany and the United States he could not claim the property under our intestate laws.

Mr. JONES. Will it not work itself out? Suppose this bill becomes a law and she receives her property back and she should die, and then there is a status of peace declared, then whatever share of the estate would go to the husband would be determined by the alien custodian law.

Mr. SCHAFFER. Yes, sir.

Mr. JONES. If in the meantime peace is declared it will be regulated by the status of the relationship itself as it is determined under the peace treaty.

Mr. SCHAFFER. That is what I thought.

Mr. SIMS. In any private bill that is passed there can be a limitation put on it as to distribution. I simply throw that out as a suggestion, that it would be very easy to put any limitation upon it.

Mr. DEWALT. That was the thought in my mind. There are hundreds of cases of this kind, and this act would apply generally to all similar cases, and there might be circumstances arising in the nature of that which I submitted to you, and if this state of war should exist for a considerable time it might be that that situation would occur. I merely throw that out as a suggestion.

Mr. SCHAFFER. If the committee thinks that this matter could be handled better by means of a private bill, I have no objection to putting it in that form. My thought was-and I may not be informed about it at all-that there would be more difficulty in passing a private bill. Private bills are hard to pass under the best of conditions, and if there were a great many of these claims made it

might be that no private bills could be passed at all. It seems to me that an American woman circumstanced such as my client-it seems to me in such a case there might be a difference. It seems to me that an American woman who falls in love with a man from a foreign country who lives here and who expects to live here, and she expects to live here always, and she marries him in this country and continues to live here with him, considering the equities of the matter, a woman under those conditions ought not to lose her citizenship and ought not to be in the same category, at least, with a woman who marries a foreigner of any nation in his own country or goes to live with him in his own country. In other words, this man expected to always live here with her. He had lived here during the bulk of his life, and he expected to live here during the remainder of his life.

Mr. DEWALT. What is the intention of Prof. Hilprecht, to come back to this country to live?

Mr. SCHAFFER. Yes, sir; that is his intention.

Mr. BARKLEY. Was any property belonging to Mr. Hilprecht taken over?

Mr. SCHAFFER. Yes, sir; all he had was taken over.

Mr. BARKLEY. But it is not involved in this bill?

Mr. SCHAFFER. Not at all; and I believe he ought to work out his own salvation entirely separate from her. I may say to the Committee that Mrs. Hilprecht was the daughter of Samuel A. Crozer, who was a leading citizen in our part of the world. It is a very large family and no people could have been more patriotic. They have all been my clients for many years.

I am only endeavoring to work out a solution of her situation with the thought in my mind and with the thought in the family's mind that this money, in reality, before a great while, will pass to the children, because I think Mrs. Hilprecht is about 65 years of age. I think she was born in 1856. The thought in my mind and in the family's mind is that this property eventually is to go to her children and her children's children, and that the Government of the United States would not want to deprive them of their right of succession from their mother.

Mr. BARKLEY. Does the $500,000, being the aggregate value of the property, include all of that in trust, or some that is not in trust?

Mr. SCHAFFER. No, sir; the trusts could not be taken over so far as the corpus is concerned, because it goes to her children and grandchildren. It only includes the money she saved out of the income or what she acquired. Since the war broke out an uncle of her's has died, and she inherited $125,000 from her uncle.

Mr. DEWALT. The intèrest on this fund is in the hands of the Alien Property Custodian?

Mr. SCHAFFER. It is paid over to him as it accrues, every dollar of it.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS S. BUTLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, let me add my word to what the Attorney General has said concerning this family. He did say there was no family in our section of the State better known than the

Crozer family. They have always lived at Upland, where they established great works nearly two centuries ago. He said there was no doubt of the loyalty of every one of them. He spoke the truth when he spoke thus of this distinguished family.

They have not only worked, but they have given largely of what they produced to other people. They have endowed schools and contributed largely to institutions where helpless people are. They have themselves built institutions for people who are sick and unfortunate. One large institution is the Crozer Hospital, at Chester, endowed by members of this family, constructed and maintained entirely by the family. They have also endowed the Crozer Theological Seminary, a great Baptist institution, where young men may be educated without cost to themselves.

I want, moreover, to say there is no doubt about the unstinted and. generous loyalty of these people, who have lived in my part of the country for two centuries. I does seem to me that there ought to be some way provided by which Mrs. Hilprecht can have back her own money. As Mr. Schaffer has said, the fund itself is in trustgoes to her children and not to other people, so that not one dollar of it will go from this country.

Mr. JONES. What is your opinion as to putting this in the shape of a private bill?

Mr. BUTLER. Knowing what becomes of private bills, I suggest to you when you come to the graveyard gates that you go on by. Do not stop there.

Mr. SIMS. With no settled condition of peace existing now and nobody knowing when it will, it does not seem to me that the rights of this woman should be held up and that she should be made to suffer because Congress can not agree on what to do or when to do it, so far as a general proposition is concerned. If this were put in the form of a private bill it would not prevent a general law from being passed at the proper time, and why should we hold up a case like this, in view of the uncertainty and the probable delay in the enactment of a general law?

Mr. BARKLEY. Any one man can object to a private bill and it would go off the calendar.

Mr. BUTLER. The only question is whether or not they have jurisdiction.

The CHAIRMAN. It will have a privileged status if it can be reported and put on the calendar and brought up on Calendar Wednesday. Mr. BUTLER. It will have a privileged status, if there is the authority for its report from this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I think myself you are acting wisely in putting it in the form of a general bill.

Mr. BUTLER. We think so, and if the committee wishes and sees fit to cover other cases, we do not have any objection whatever. The purpose of this bill is to bring back to this American woman the income of the estate which belongs to her.

Again let me say I know these people very well! They have done much good and spent much money in charity, and it does appear to me that there can be no possible objection to this measure intended to benefit this American woman who has lived here all her life and will continue to live here while she does live.

And the last word I have to say is this, that no people in our part of the country have done more good with their benefactions than the Crozer family.

Mr. BARKLEY. Has the opinion of the Alien Property Custodian been obtained?

The CHAIRMAN. The Alien Property Custodian is here by a representative, and we will hear him on the bill before the hearings are concluded.

Mr. BUTLER, Mr. Chairman, may I make this request, that before you conclude this hearing you will hear Mr. Vail. After Members of Congress have been heard I should be very much indebted to you if you will hear Mr. Vail.

The CHAIRMAN. We can hear Mr. Vail now.

STATEMENT OF MR. R. R. VALE, MILFORD, DEL., OFFICE 1540 LAND TITLE BUILDING, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Mr. VALE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent here to-day the children of Adolphus Keppelmann, late a resident of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Keppelmann came to this country from Germany as a boy. Here he grew to maturity, here all his children were born, here all his children were educated, and here he died. He was respected and honored in his community, and left a large estate. One of those daughters——

Mr. MONTAGUE. He was not a naturalized citizen?

Mr. VALE. He was a naturalized citizen and uniformly voted and took an active interest in the affairs of his adopted country and his home community.

One of his daughters married a citizen of Switzerland. Two of his daughters married residents and citizens of Germany, and one married a citizen of Austria-Hungary. They have lived abroad, and when the war came on their desire was to return to the country of their birth, one of them has already returned to this country, and all of them will return to this country just as soon as they possibly can. Here their children will be educated and grow to manhood and womanhood.

I have assumed, gentlemen, that if there was a meritorious case this is of that character, such as was the case presented by the attorney general of the State of Pennsylvania. But I suggest, however, since there are hundreds of cases of American girls born in this country, and who married, through the dictates of love, foreigners, that if relief is to be given to them it should be predicated on some broad, general ground. May I suggest that it has no better basis or firmer foundation than that of citizenship, let the statute apply to girls born in America of parents either native born or naturalized. If this committee should desire to restrict the application of the statute it should provide that the citizenship be followed and supplemented, now that war has ended and peace is about to be declared, by a residence in this country and return to this country.

It is submitted there can be no general rule formulated but that will work hardships unless you base it on the broad ground of citizenship, born in this country. If that is to be a controlling concern, will you not by incorporating it into the general law meet every