legatees or devisees, who are not enemies under the trading with the enemy act, in such proportions as they may be entitled to receive. Section 3, line 7: The language "upon the filing of any such application" would appear to restrict the right of the Presidential appointee to consider the question on its merits and determine the truth of the allegations of the application. Section 4, lines 20, 21, and 22: Section 9 of the trading with the enemy act as amended provides with reference to such litigation, that the Alien Property Custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, shall be made a party defendant. Some such provision would seem to be desirable here, as the procedure in its present form is so vague as to be almost indeterminable. Then in reference to House bill 12884, section 1, line 3, if the bill is to be extended to women who were subjects of countries which remained neutral during the World War, I suggest that this phrasing might be extended as well to those who were subjects of countries which were associated with the United States in the conduct of said war. وو Section 1, line 6: Persons born in the United States are citizens thereof, and the phrase "of American parents limitation you might wish to reconsider. The CHAIRMAN. That is in what section? The CHAIRMAN. Referring to American parents? appears to be a Mr. MORGAN. May I ask, Mr. Garvan, are you commenting upon the bill I introduced? The CHAIRMAN. No; he is commenting upon the Winslow bill now. Mr. MORGAN. Yes; I see. Mr. GARVAN. Section 1, line 6. As the United States did not enter the war until April, 1917, the date given, " July 28, 1914," might be advanced to that time. The CHAIRMAN. The Butler bill only went to April 6, 1917, but the Winslow bill goes to the beginning of the war itself. In your opinion, which would be the better date? Mr. GARVAN. The date that we went into the war. Section 1, line 8: The words "alien enemy" would be subject to the same comment as given with reference to the same wording found in H. R. 12651. Further, the words "shall be determined or held to be " might be interpreted to be in conflict with the past acts of the custodian, which were expressly within his province under section 7 (c) of the trading-with-the-enemy act. Section 2. This section, I believe, might be eliminated, as it will be necessary for the custodian or Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, to hold the property concerned, in any event, until application for the return thereof has been made and favorably passed upon. This feature seems amply covered by section 5. The CHAIRMAN. Section 5 of the Alien Property Custodian act or of this? Mr. GARVAN. Of this act. The CHAIRMAN. Of the bill? Sections 3 and 4: These sections might well be reconsidered with reference to the present wording of section 9 of the present act, and their wording and intent clarified along the lines of that section. Section 5, lines 12 to 25: The custodian should be authorized to hold the property claimed (except that it should not be sold or otherwise disposed of) until the claim in finally favorably passed upon, or, if the suit has been filed, until judgment has been entered. The present wording would imply that the custodian has to hold the property until it was ordered conveyed to the claimant, and makes no provision for the release of the effect of this section if the claim was disallowed, or suit for same otherwise terminated. Section 5, lines 25-6: It would appear from the wording in these lines, that the children of the decedent may make claim for the property whether they be enemy subjects or not. It may be that a different provision should be inserted with regard to them. The CHAIRMAN. Have you suggested the other provision? Mr. GARVAN. Well, I did not know whether you wished to have the children of American citizens, where they have become German citizens, come within the purview of your bill. Mr. JONES. Let me see if I understand your position: In the first place, you think section 9 might be amended so as to broaden the definition of persons affected under it to answer the whole purpose? Mr. GARVAN. Yes. Mr. JONES. If, however, the committee is of the opinion that one of these bills or a similar bill should be passed, the suggestion that you have made could be embodied in the bill? Mr. GARVAN. It would make it simpler and easier for us. Mr. JONES. Then there are two alternatives: Amend section 9 or modify these bills in harmony with your suggestion? Mr. GARVAN. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. That is your thought? Mr. GARVAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you a draft of the amendment to section 9? Mr. GARVAN. Yes; I have embodied that in a letter, Mr. Chairman, and I thought I brought it along with me, but I find I did not. I will give it to you during the day, and I will have Mr. Stellwagen stay here, whom I have specially assigned for some months to put himself in a position to assist congressional committees on any subject, and he will work with you and do anything you want him to do to assist you. Mr. JONES. Can we get copies of these suggestions? The CHAIRMAN. You can leave a copy with the stenographer, so it can be incorporated in the hearings. (The paper referred to follows:) IN RE H. R. 12651. Section 1, line 9: The phrase “alien enemy" here used might be well changed to read " enemy or ally of enemy as defined in the trading-with-the-enemy act." This phrase would have a definite unambigous meaning because of the definition of those terms under the trading-with-the-enemy act, which the phrase "alien enemy "would not possess. Such a change would also render unnecessary the succeeding phrase as a result of the war," etc. 66 Section 2, lines 4 to 9, inclusive: This phraseology beginning with the words "shall be held" might be construed as a legislative declaration that the holding of such property even prior to this enactment of legislation, was unlawful. Further, it would be necessary for the custodian or Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, to continue, in any event, to hold the property until application for its return had been filed and passed upon. Section 2, line 20: It is to be noted that the proposed restoration of property is limited solely to the married woman or her authorized attorney. Your committee may also desire to consider the advisability of providing that if the woman in question be deceased the property may be restored to any of her heirs or distributees, legatees, or devisees who are not enemies under the tradingwith-the-enemy act, in such proportions as they may be entitled to receive. Section 3, line 7: The language " upon the filing of any such application' would appear to restrict the right of the presidential appointee to consider the question on its merits and determine the truth of the allegations of the application. Section 4, lines 20, 21, and 22: Section 9 of the trading-with-the-enemy act, as amended, provides with reference to such litigation, that the alien property custodian or the Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, shall be made a party defendant. Some such provision would seem to be desirable here, as the procedure in its present form is so vague as to be almost indeterminable. There is no provision for the discharge of the custodian in this bill. IN RE H. R. 12884. Section 1, line 3: If the bill is to be extended to women who were subjects of countries which remained neutral during the World War, this phrasing might be extended as well to those who were subjects of countries which were associated with the United States in the conduct of said war. Section 1, line 6: Persons born in the United States are citizens thereof, and the phrase "of American parents" appears to be a limitation you might wish to reconsider. Section 1, line 6: As the United States did not enter the war until April, 1917, the date given, "July 28, 1914" might be advanced to that time. Section 1, line 8: The words " alien enemy " would be subject to the same comment as given with reference to the same wording found in H. R. 12651. Further, the words "shall be determined or held to be" might be interpreted to be in conflict with the past acts of the custodian, which were expressly within his province under section 7 (c) of the trading-with-the-enemy act. Section 2: This section might be eliminated, as it will be necessary for the custodian or Treasurer of the United States, as the case may be, hold the property concerned, in any event, until application for the return thereof has been made and favorably passed upon. This feature seems amply covered by section 5. Sections 3 and 4: These sections might well be reconsidered with reference to the present wording of section 9 of the present act, and their wording and intent clarified along the lines of that section. Section 5, lines 13 to 25: The custodian should be authorized to hold the property claimed (except that it should not be sold or otherwise disposed of) until the claim is finally favorably passed upon, or, if suit has been filed, until judgment has been entered. The present wording would imply that the custodian had to hold the property until it was ordered conveyed to the claimant, and makes no provision for the release of the effect of this section if the claim was disallowed, or suit for same otherwise terminated. Section 5, lines 25-26: It would appear from the wording in these lines, that the children of the decedent may make claim for the property whether they be enemy subjects or not. It may be that a different provision should be inserted with regard to them. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Ludlow ask the Alien Property Custodian a question here? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Give your name. Mr. BENJAMIN H. LUDLOW, of Philadelphia. I would like to ask Mr. Garvan, Mr. Chairman, through you, whether of the two alternatives, it would not be better to have one of these bills amended as Mr. Jones suggested might be done, with the amendments he suggests, rather than to take in section 9, because under the proposed resolution, which may be debated in Congress in the next week or 10 days, or in any future action on the Alien Property Custodian act, changes might be so made in that act as to strike down the act and the efficacy of any action under it, and with it might go section 9; whereas such a bill as was introduced by Congressman Winslow or Congressman Butler, as revised to contain Mr. Garvan's suggestions, would stand on its own feet regardless of what might happen to the Alien Property Custodian act. I simply throw that out as a suggestion and would like to ask Mr. Garvan whether that might be better, in view of the present circumstances. The CHAIRMAN. The House, I understand, is to consider a resolution, declaring a date of peace with Germany, from to-day. Mr. JONES. From yesterday. The CHAIRMAN. The rule is to be brought in to-day. I would like to ask Mr. Garvan what possible effect the adoption of such a resolution, if signed by the President, would have on this situation? Mr. GARVAN. Well, I do not feel offhand-of course, this is subject to correction when I get back and go over the subject-that it would affect it. I will write to the committee. This property was all taken under the act of Congress, and the act itself specifically refers the disposition of this property to the further action of Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The act so states. Mr. GARVAN. The act so states. Of course, it might have an effect— the treaty provides many provisions in reference to this property, and Germany admitted the regularity of the acts of the American Government-it might involve all these properties in tremendous litigation, but I would assume that any resolution that was introduced would possibly do something toward taking care of our relations with Germany. I do not assume that they would just leave the whole ques tion open. The CHAIRMAN. This affects a comparatively small amount of property in your possession, and the disposition of the balance of the property in your possession would have to await further action of Congress, pursuant to the original act. Mr. GARVAN. Yes, sir. Of course, it would be quite a large amount. The CHAIRMAN. Have you any notion as to how much would be affected by either of these bills? Mr. GARVAN. No, sir; but there are some quite large estates there. The CHAIRMAN. You can not give an estimate? Mr. GARVAN. It would be very difficult for me to do so. There are several quite large ones. I know that the Countess Gladys Szechenyi estate alone amounts to a great many millions. She was Miss Vanderbilt, who married Count Laszlo. Then there is Senator Marcus Daly's daughter-ex-Senator. There are a great many of those estates, and they are quite large. I had hoped that I would be able to come before you with the entire subject of the disposition of the entire property, but, as I say, I have no objection to your legislating for more particularly distressing cases at any time. have prepared the facts in reference to the cases which have been mentioned before you gentlemen, and I am quite willing to give you those facts, and I am quite sure that they have been honestly and sincerely stated by the people representing them. I do not think there is any question of the patriotism of any of those claimants; 178028-20-4 I that they are dangerous, or enemies to the country, or anything of that kind, but I have the Keppelmanns, Margarette de Steurs Oberndorff, Rittler, Schleubeck, Wackwitz, and Hilprecht cases-I have all the facts which our records show in reference to those properties. The CHAIRMAN. Could you leave that memorandum with the stenographer, so it can be incorporated as part of your hearing? Mr. GARVAN. I can leave it, but I do not know whether you will want to insert it in the record or not, because it is making public the private affairs of these people. But I will leave it for the committee's use. The CHAIRMAN. It will be considered by the committee in executive session. If it has anything of a confidential nature in it, we will not make it public. Mr. GARVAN. I will submit it to the people representing these people, so if they think anything is misstated there they can correct it. But I have no objection to the specific character of any of these cases. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Garvan a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MORGAN. Have you read the statement made by some of us here as to Mrs. Hilprecht, Mr. Garvan? Mr. GARVAN. I read the digest of it. Mr. MORGAN. Well, is it in accordance with the history of the facts? Mr. GARVAN. I think so. Mr. MORGAN. I only wanted you to know the facts. Mr. GARVAN. At any rate, there were no facts developed objectionable to Mrs. Hilprecht's case as an individual. But there are a great many hardships in connection with this property. For instance, we have no power to return property of the people who are now in Alsace-Lorraine, although they have become allies of this country. We have no power to return the property of Poles, who have now become an independent nation, which we recognize as a friendly nation, and we have no power to return the property of individuals in Germany who are American citizens, who are ill and unable to leave the country, and we have no power to return the property of Czecho-Slovaks. So that I am very anxious for legislation and I would like to see it comprehensive. We sent word to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that we would be glad to place the whole matter before them at any time, and they informed us that they did not think it expedient to take it up until the question of the treaty was out of the way. But, as I say, I have no objection to any relief that could be granted in any line. The CHAIRMAN. Is it your opinion that as to the larger question that ought to be deferred until the treaty is practically settled? Mr. GARVAN. Well, it is not my opinion; that was the opinion of the chairman of the Senate committee. The CHAIRMAN. And do you concur in that opinion? Mr. GARVAN. I think the whole thing ought to be legislated on together, because there are a great number of claims by American citizens. There comes a question as to what your policy is going to be, as to whether you are going to return any or all of this property, and whether it is to be held as security for the payment of American claims, which I have no jurisdiction of. Of course, I only know that they have been filed with the Secretary of State's office to a very large amount. |