meritorious case? Is the fact of place of marriage to be determinative? Let it be so. Many of them who here married would and immediately did go abroad and have there since resided. They may have married in Switzerland, or in any country, and should not now be penalized for having chosen the place of their marriage with so little foresight.

Nor can it be justified that they shall be born of American parents who likewise were born of American parents, for thus you would exclude from the operation of the law a girl born in this country of a Frenchman or of an Englishman, of those who were our allies in this late war. Thus you would exclude the children of allies without reason and accomplish no definite purpose by the exclusion.

It has occurred to me that there are certain acts already on the statute books which determine citizenship. There is no difference between or the rights resulting from citizenship however acquired. He who is born in this country has the same rights of citizenship as he who was naturalized. All are free and equal before the law, who are citizens, irrespective of the method by which they acquired citizenship. If it is deemed wise to restore to former citizens their rights in property of which a state of war alone has deprived them, it is suggested that no disinction should be made between those who were born in the United States of native-born parents and those born of naturalized parents, or of even unnaturalized parents. This because citizenship results from the fact of birth in the United States and not from the citizenship or alienage of the parents. If the Butler bill were to be amended by the interpolation of the phrase "That no woman born in the United States and who prior to April 6, 1917, shall have intermarried with a subject of the German Émpire, or a subject of the Empire of Austria-Hungary, shall be deemed to be held," and so forth, you have, gentlemen, no limitation resulting from either the fact of the place of marriage or of the nationality of the parents or of the manner in which the parent acquired citizenship; and you base the relief alone on the fact of citizenship in the United States at the time of the marriage.

The CHAIRMAN. The Winslow bill does not make such limitation as to place of marriage.

Mr. VALE. Mr. Chairman, I so observed in the Winslow bill that there is no limitation of that character; and the Winslow bill, as à matter of fact, is prepared on a broad general plan, and in truth has no exception other than "of American parents " to the citizenship of the United States.

Mr. DEWALT. Your amendment would also cut out a limitation as to birth?

Mr. VALE." Of citizens of the United States," let that be inserted, if in the wisdom of the committee it should be included after the phrase "born in the United States.

My suggestion in regard to that, Mr. Dewalt, is this: The term "citizens of the United States" covers two possibilities of acquiring that citizenship, birth, or naturalization. If, then, you say "born in the United States," without more, you accomplish that end. If, however, you say " born in the United States of American parents," then, of course, you restrict the means by which the citizenship of the parent may be acquired to the one method of birth, and deny a citizen born rights because the parent was not native born, even though

such parent was a naturalized citizen. But if you say "born in the United States or born of citizens of the United States " you make the act apply to all citizens irrespective of the fact of citizenship or alienage of the parents as well as to all citizens born of native born or naturalized citizens irrespective of the place of their birth.

So far as that clause is concerned, let me add, as I said in the beginning, that it should be broad as the last reading, for it should include, if any, all citizens born in the United States irrespective of the citizenship or nationality of the parents, as well as all citizens born of American parents irrespective of the place of their birth, and this because under the statutes of the United States the rights of American citizenship are so conferred. General statutes in a contingency of this kind, it would seem, should be evolved for the protection of all in similar condition and for the relief of all suffering similar hardship. But, if this committee in its wisdom adopts the method of a private bill, I am sure the clients represented by me can present as worthy a claim as probably those presented by any other. For, like the family of Mrs. Hilprecht, the Keppelmann family has been a family in the Oranges known for years for their generosity, and they have likewise been known for years for their devotion to American institutions. This results from the one particular fact that the young Adolphus came to this country to escape the tyranny which the Prussian Government was then seeking to inflict on its south German countrymen. When that revolt against Prussia failed and his hopes grew dim he came to this country to enjoy that freedom of action which his fatherland denied him. Tyranny and choice made him a worthy and respected American citizen. I am going to close my remarks to you with the statement which the honorable chairman suggested at the beginning, that you should not limit this general act "to children born of American parents who were likewise born in America."

The CHAIRMAN. When you revise your remarks you might include the amendment you suggest.

Mr. VALE. I will be glad to do so. Three suggestions as to the amendment of the Winslow bill (12884), are as follows:

First, strike out the words "of American parents," in lines 5 and 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "of citizen parents or born of citizens of the United States."

Or, second, strike out the words "of American parents" in said lines.

The objection to the last amendment is that it excludes children. born of American parents in foreign countries, even though the parents be there only on a visit. This objection could be overcome by the following amendment, which, it would seem, is preferable to the other two amendments.

Third, strike out the words " of American parents," in lines 5 and 6, and insert in lieu thereof the following: or born of citizens of the United States." By this amendment all women who were born as citizens of the United States under existing law would be included.

Mr. BARKLEY. How many of these daughters married German citizens?

Mr. VALE. Two.

178028-202

Mr. BARKLEY. How long ago?

Mr. VALE. I think probably the first one married 15 years ago.
Mr. BARKLEY. Prior to the death of the father?

Mr. VALE. Oh, yes; prior to the death of the father.

Mr. BARKLEY. All of these marriages were prior to the death of the father?

Mr. VALE. All of these marriages were prior to the death of the father.

Mr. BARKLEY. When did he die?

Mr. VALE. He died three years ago.

Mr. BARKLEY. That was prior to the passage of the alien property act?

Mr. VALE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARKLEY. Had there been any distribution of his estate among these children?

Mr. VALE. The estate was in process of distribution when war was declared and is now in process of distribution. As in the previous case, there were trusts for the benefit of two of the children, and as the result of that the Alien Property Custodian will be in the possession of the income from these trusts.

Now, prior to the declaration of war, the girls were just about to receive their distributive shares, and they created a banking firm in New York, known as Schulz & Ruckgaber, as attorneys in fact for the purpose of collecting those shares, and when the Alien Property Custodian requested that the shares be turned over to him, the banking firm took the position that the powers of attorney were valid and that those shares should first be turned over to them, and then they, in turn, would become the conduits for turning those shares over to the Alien Property Custodian. The question of the validity of those powers of attorney is now pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. As a matter of fact, as you gentlemen all realize, that question has always arisen during the progress and after every war this country has every had, and the Supreme Court of the United States up until the time of the enactment of the alien property act uniformly held that the powers of attorney were valid, so the question involved in this case is whether or not the alien property act has changed that law.

Mr. BARKLEY. Are the husbands of these girls still living?

Mr. VALE. Three of them are at the present time alive. One of those husbands is at the present time living in Abruzzi, Italy, and expects to come to this country in a short time. As a matter of fact, he is more an Italian subject than an Austrian subject.

Mr. BARKLEY. Then as a matter of fact your proposal would leave all these restrictions without reference to these young women who married men who afterwards became by operation of the circumstances of law, alien enemies, and they are, of course, alien enemies themselves. If you put the determination simply on the question of birth, you practically re-Americanize these women who have for 15 or 20 years been living in Germany and Austria as to the property which they have inherited from their father and which they could transfer to their adopted residence, do you not?

Mr. VAILE. No; as a matter of fact, my suggestion, so far as this particular case is concerned, is that they intend to come to this country and here live.

Mr. BARKLEY. That may be true, but so far as the record stands their intention has been indicated by their marriage and leaving the country to become alien citizens.

Mr. VALE. Yes.

Mr. BARKLEY. While they may intend to come back, there may be lots of aliens who have never been in this country who intend to come here after peace is declared, and we could hardly accept that as a criterion by which they could be judged.

Mr. VALE. If you wish to supplement the suggestion I have made by a declared intention to repatriate as a condition before the relief shall be granted-

Mr. BARKLEY (interposing). I am not offering that suggestion, but for all practical purposes these women are just as much alien enemies as if they had never been in the country. If we pass a law lifting the ban as to cases of that sort, we might as well repeal the whole act, it seems to me.

Mr. VALE. If the suggestion may be made, no; and with conviction, because you are simply giving back to an American girl her property, who practically, to all intents and purposes has repatriated herself. You say in effect to her we are not going in times of peace to take from you American property seized as a war measure and remand you in the assertion of your rights to your property to a hostile government of which you are a citizen only by a fiction of law. That is all that is said, except this, that the Government of the United States does not propose to permit the payment of governmental obligations with the individual property of American citizens. It has no effect on the other parts of the alien property act. This statute is not predicated, as you will recall, on the fact of alienage. On the contrary, it is based on the fact of residence within a territory described. In other words

Mr. BARKLEY (interposing). The effect of your suggestion would be that we would turn over to these women property which might be converted into money and that money taken to Germany or Austria and by them turned over to their husbands and never see the shores of the United States again. While it is derived from American property, it might all be taken to the country which is now our enemy in law.

Mr. VALE. That might happen under any possible contingency at the present time, whether the girl be alien or American born. That which permits the Government of the United States, and has permitted the Government of the United States, to take in custody the property of American girls or any citizens is the fact that the citizen was in Germany or in Austria at the time of the declaration of war. My property, were I there, would have been likewise taken. It is not because she was a citizen in contemplation of the law, or the legal fiction of law, a citizen of Germany, that the property was taken. It was the unfortunate fact that she at that time happened to be within the territorial limits of Germany or Austria.

Mr. JONES. Residing there?

Mr. VALE. Residing there or being there.

Mr. BARKLEY. That would apply to the case presented by the attorney general of Pennsylvania. But in your case, as I understand it, they had actually resided in those countries 15 or 20 years. That

was their home. They were, in fact-not by a legal fiction, but actually-citizens of Germany and Austria-Hungary.

Mr. VALE. What happened in our case was as in most of these cases. The marriage had taken place in America or Germany or Austria or England, and they have there resided, or they live in different parts of Europe or this country. In other words, there has been a divided residence. Take, for instance, the particular clients whom I represent. Some of the time they have lived in Germany, some of the time they have lived in Switzerland, some of the time they have lived in Italy, and some of the time they have lived in this country. There has hardly a summer gone by but that some have not spent some time at their old home, in the old homestead in the Orange Mountains. Mr. BARKLEY. That time they spent there as visitors.

Mr. VALE. It is true that in contemplation of law they were always citizens of Germany or Austria, but at heart they were always Americans.

I submit again that if any relief is to be given you must come back to the desire first to give and restore to American citizens those rights of which by the accident of war they have been deprived. There is no force in the suggestion made by the gentleman as to the possibility of American property going abroad. The alien-property act did not confiscate their property. Prior to the war the citizens' property went abroad, and war and its necessities alone demanded that the Government of the United States conserve and hold the property until the restoration of peace. Furthermore, that objection can readily be overcome by merely setting forth as a condition that they shall come back to America; that they shall by proper declaration say that they wish to repatriate themselves and become American citizens-but the wisdom of this may well be questioned.

Mr. SIMS. It was not my understanding that the alien property act was intended as an act of confiscation?

Mr: VALE. Not at all.

Mr. SIMS. But rather as an act of protection and preservation than otherwise, that the property might be saved to those whom it really belonged to.

Mr. VALE. I am going to dwell on that, as I said that it was an act not of confiscation, not of expropriation, but on the contrary that it was an act of sequestration, for the purpose of mere custody, so that those from whom it was taken and who are ultimately and properly entitled to it might be properly protected in their rights under a status of peace.

Mr. BARKLEY. Was not one of the objects also to keep this money which might come from this property from getting into the enemy's hands to be used against us in war?

Mr. VALE. In a state of war. That was the prime motive, but the war is over and

Mr. MONTAGUE (interposing). Not only that, but also to prevent the enemy from availing themselves of the credit attaching to the ownership of the property.

Mr. VALE. Yes, sir; but we are here considering legislation with war ended and peace restored.

Mr. DEWALT. You spoke of trusts being established; they will be for the children, I suppose.