I have been asked to make a statement in reference to the AustriaHungarian claims. It is impossible for me to give you any estimate as to what those claims will amount to. Under the agreement between Austria-Hungary and the United States, the time for filing claims does not expire until January 25, 1927, so that, of course, it is quite impossible for me to tell how much they will amount to. Mr. NEWTON. Can you not give an approximation of the claims now filed? Mr. BONYNGE. I can give an approximation of the amount of the claims now filed, probably, but that would be a very small indication of what they will ultimately be because the time has not expired. Mr. HADLEY. And it would therefore be misleading? Mr. BONYNGE. Yes. Mr. MAPES. When you were giving the number of claims that had been filed and the number that have been disposed of by the Mixed Claims Commission you also gave those that have been determined, that were dismissed, and the number still pending. It seemed to me that there were two thousand or three thousand or so left and that you did not tell us just what the status of those was. Mr. BONYNGE. I think it will figure out. I have not figured it up, but it ought to figure out correctly. The apparent discrepancy is due to the fact that one award frequently covered a number of listed claims. This is also true as to the dismissals. One order of dismissal frequently covered a number of listed claims. There were also found some duplications of claims resulting in consolidations. Mr. MAPES. In looking over your remarks, will you see if that is so? Mr. BONYNGE. Yes. Mr. NEWTON. I would like to have an approximation in here. The war ended about seven or eight years ago. The State Department received a good many claims of American claimants against Austria. Austria never seized American property as Germany did, and the question is going to arise here as to what disposition we are going to make of Austria, and I think we ought to have what evidence the Government agencies have as to the extent of those claims. Mr. BONYNGE. It would be very difficult to give you any estimate, because in many of the cases no amount is even stated. Mr. HAWLEY. The Chair is compelled, so far as our side of the committee is concerned, to rule that that is not mentioned in the bill. Mr. HADLEY. I think it is confusing to involve that in this bill. Mr. HAWLEY. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Bonynge. If the committee should later on find that it needs further information, it will be available I assume? Mr. BONYNGE. Yes. STATEMENT OF IRA LLOYD LETTS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. HAWLEY. The committee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Mr. Letts, Assistant Attorney General. I suppose, Mr. Letts, the letter of the clerk of the committee indicated to you the evidence we desired you to present to the committee. Mr. LETTS. Only in a most general way, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAWLEY. Then you may proceed in your own way, and when you have made your statement the members of the committee will ask such questions as they may desire. Mr. LETTS. The letter of the clerk indicated only your desire that the Attorney General have a representative here. I think it did say who was "familiar with the existing law." While I do not profess full familiarity in regard to the law, I will be glad to answer any questions the committee wishes to ask. Mr. HAWLEY. Have you any general statement you desire to make? Mr. LETTS. I think it is fair to say that the Department of Justice is fully sympathetic toward the idea of the return of this property to its former owners, but we have no formal statement or argument in respect to the bill that we desire to present. Mr. GARNER. This is what I want to know, Mr. Letts. You say the Department of Justice is in favor of returning this property. I have tried to get, up to this time, an expression of the administration's position here on this matter. I was told that the State Department, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department have all conferred relative to this legislation. Undoubtedly it has been discussed in the Cabinet, discussed with the President. Are you authorized to speak for him? Mr. LETTS. I am not. Mr. GARNER. Then I want the Attorney General, or the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of the Treasury, or somebody who can speak for him. It is useless to send a fellow here who does not know anything about that part of it, and you do not know. I am not reflecting on your intellect: I am only saying you do not know about that part of it, and I think that is something we ought to know. Let that go in the record for what it is worth. Mr. OLDFIELD. Will you put in the record a list of all of these cases growing out of the Alien Property Custodian's business, with the names of the attorneys in the case and the fees received? you get that together and put it in the record? Can Mr. LETTS. I am afraid, sir, we could not. I could get for you a list of all the attorneys who have been on the roll of special assistants to the Attorney General, who have directly acted under the direction of the Attorney General. Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Oldfield desires, if I understand his request, a list of the attorneys who have appeared in behalf of the claimants, and a list of the attorneys in your office, who have acted on these claims. Mr. LETTS. I gathered from his question that what Mr. Oldfield desires is a list of the attorneys who have participated in the various cases on behalf of the Alien Property Custodian from time to time, and who have been paid compensation from that office? Mr. OLDFIELD. And the amount. Mr. LETTS. That record, I think, would be available from the books of the Alien Property Custodian. Our department would have no record of that kind. Mr. OLDFIELD. Is there anyone here from the Alien Property Custodian's office? Mr. HAWLEY. Not this morning. A representative of the Alien Property Custodian's office was before the committee yesterday. Mr. OLDFIELD. You say you can furnish part of that information? Mr. LETTS. We can furnish this part: There is in the Department of Justice a sort of special unit that is giving all its time to the work in connection with alien property matters. There is one litigation attorney, Mr. Stanley, who receives, I think, a salary of $6,500. Mr. OLDFIELD. Is that former Senator Stanley? Mr. LETTS. No; he is a younger man who has beeu in the department, I think, about five years, and who appears in behalf of the Alien Property Custodian in the courts all over the eastern half of the United States, in connection with various claims, dealing with all sorts of questions that arise under the administration of the act, which have found their way into the courts. Then there are also four attorneys-I think the number has ranged from four to six-in the department whose work has been entirely in connection with the applications on the various claims under section 9 of the trading with the enemy act, applications of people who file claims for the return of their property. I think it appears from a statement made in the Attorney General's report that during the past year there were about 162 such claims dealt with and allowed, in the department. Mr. OLDFIELD. Will you put all the information you have in the record? Mr. LETTS. I will gladly compile that information and give it to you. Hon. WILLIS C. HAWLEY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., April 10, 1926. Chairman subcommittee, Committee on Ways and Means, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: In compliance with your request when before your committee holding hearings upon House bill 10820, relative to the payment of awards of the Mixed Claims Commission and the return of alien property, I beg to advise you that the records of this department do not show the expenditures in connection with the prosecution of the chemical foundation case. appears that the expenses incident to this litigation were paid by the Alien Property Custodian, and a statement in regard thereto can presumably be obtained by your committee from that source. It I was also requested to submit a list of the attorneys of this department who are engaged upon alien property matters and who are paid by the Alien Property Custodian. The list of attorneys at present so employed, together with their respective salaries is as follows: E. N. Cherrington, in charge of the alien property unit of this division $6,500 Dean Hill Stanley, litigation attorney. T. E. Rhodes J. Forrest McCutcheon George H. Webb, jr Eugene C. Bulleit Leo Morrissey---. 6, 500 4, 500 4,000 2,500 3,600 4,000 Although the personnel engaged in the work of this unit has from time to time changed through resignations and new appointments, substantially the number of attorneys indicated above with substantially the same salaries reflect the situation which has existed for some time in the past. In addition to the above there have been occasional employments by the Alien Property Custodian of attorneys to handle specific matters, and in order to give such attorneys the necessary standing to appear and prosecute the cases in court on behalf of the United States, they having been designated as special assistants to the Attorney General in connection with the specific matter in hand. An up-to-date statement of such attorneys whose work has not been completed can, I believe, be furnished by the custodian, If there be any further information desired by your committee which we are able to supply, please call upon us. Very truly yours, IRA LLOYD LETTS, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. GARNER. The Undersecretary of the Treasury, Mr. Winston, when he was before the committee stated that the Treasury Department had consulted with the Department of Justice concerning the drafting of this bill, and that you could tell me, or tell the committee, as to what the legal effect of the Berlin treaty is. Will you kindly inform the committee as to that matter, and tell us what the construction of that treaty is by your department? Mr. LETTS. Do you mean, Mr. Garner, in respect to the status of this property with which you are dealing? Mr. GARNER. Yes. Mr. LETTS. As to whether it is sequestered or confiscated? Mr. GARNER. I know it is not confiscated; it is in the possession of the Alien Property Custodian. Under that treaty, what legal powers has Congress to deal with that property? Mr. LETTS. My impression, Mr. Garner, is this, that we overemphasize the importance of those treaties in respect to the status of this property. In my judgment, the status of the property must largely be ascertained by an interpretation of the act of Congress, the trading with the enemy act and its amendments, together with the Constitution, rather than by looking to the treaty of Versailles or the treaty of Berlin. For example, as we look at the treaty we are aware that the treaty of Versailles was never ratified by the United States. When we come to the treaty of Berlin, there are some four or five sections of that treaty which are sections of the treaty of Versailles, adopted by reference. There is also in the treaty of Berlin, in detail, a portion of the KnoxPorter resolution, so-called. No one can reconcile the specific provisions of the portions of the Knox-Porter resolution adopted in the treaty of Berlin with one or two of the sections of the treaty of Versailles which are adopted by reference. I think a fair import of the detailed part of the treaty of Berlin is that this property is simply to be held in a state of sequestration until such time as Congress chooses to release it. Mr. GARNER. Do I understand you to say you can not reconcile provisions of the treaty of Berlin, or it is hard to do so, relative to the Knox-Porter resolution and the Versailles treaty? Mr. LETTS. It is difficult for me to do so. Mr. GARNER. Do you mean to say the diplomats failed to make clear what they intended to do in that treaty? Mr. LETTS. I would not say that; I mean it is difficult for me to reconcile the reservation in the United States Government of the full power that was intended to be given under one of the clauses of the treaty of Versailles with the apparently limited power in the United States Government as expressed in the Knox-Porter resolution? Mr. MILLS. That was not the only provision selected out of the treaty of Versailles. Mr. LETTS. There were several. Mr. MILLS. There was an omnibus provision in which the United States reserved to itself the rights it would have required, had they ratified the treaty of Versailles, and then it went on to name more specifically a certain number of sections; is not that the case? Mr. LETTS. That is the case. tains Versailles. Mr. NEWTON. Section 4, article 297, paragraph b, annex 4, conexpress reservation to the various parties to the treaty of Mr. LETTS. Those are the ones to which I refer. That refers by adoption, and then there is the more detailed statement as set out in the body of the treaty incorporating the Knox-Porter resolution. Mr. GARNER. Would you say, Mr. Attorney General, that we had by the Berlin treaty reserved all the rights that America would have had had it adopted the Versailles treaty? Either we have or we have not. Mr. LETTS. Frankly, I ought not to presume to interpret these treaties Mr. GARNER (interposing). Somebody has got to interpret them. You are here representing the legal department, the Department of Justice. Somebody has got to interpret the treaties. I am simply calling on the highest authority that Congress has to advise it in a legal way. Mr. LETTS. You cut short my statement at a comma rather than a period. Mr. GARNER. I will let you go to the period. Mr. LETTS. My opinion in regard to the effect of the treaty of Berlin, so far as this property is concerned, read in relation to the treaty of Versailles, is this, that while the treaty of Berlin did specitically reserve the rights reserved in the treaty of Versailles, it declared on the part of this Government an intention not to exercise that reservation to the full extent. I think that is a fair reconciliation of the two read together. Mr. GARNER. You neither answer yes or no. Mr. MILLS. May I suggest that you read to Mr. Garner the specific provision reserving those rights? Mr. GARNER. If I understood Mr. Letts correctly, Mr. Mills brought out the point, and he agreed to it, that all American rights under the Versailles treaty were reserved in the Berlin treaty, and that they still exist. Mr. MILLS. But the Attorney General has gone ahead to say that by reason of the preamble there was a clear declaration on the part of the United States that so far as this property was concerned we would not exercise those rights. Mr. GARNER. But we still have those rights, have we? Mr. LETTS. I can not answer that question in that way, Mr. Garner. If the Government in a treaty reserved rights under a specific clause of another treaty, and then declares it will not exercise them in certain respects to the fullest extent, it is clear to my mind we have not a moral right Mr. GARNER (interposing). I am not asking you about the moral right. Mr. LETTS. What the legal rights might be, I submit, is an arguable question, that only the court of last resort could determine with finality. Mr. GARNER. You, or your department, are the last resort, as far as we are concerned. I am asking you as to the legal effect, whether |