for acts for which we went into the war. We spent billions of dollars because of the damages that were sustained by some of our citizens out of which these claims arise.

Mr. KEARNS. France was in an entirely different situation from us. This war was fought on French territory, and farm lands and buildings were destroyed, public and private. France had to reclaim that land in order to live. That was the reason why they should rehabilitate that farm land, so the French people could live. That was private land.

Mr. PEASLEE. Our claims are all exactly of the same nature. They are based on acts of the German Government in war time.

Mr. KEARNS. Yes; but the farm lands of France were destroyed and they had to rehabilitate that property in order that their own people might be able to live. That is the reason why France put in that money. Now, here is a private industry. Because of the hazard of the business it engaged in during the war it sustained some losses, while it was making a good deal of money. Now you want the United States Government to pay it what the Claims Commission found Germany owed it.

Mr. PEASLEE. France might have said there would be a business hazard in having a farm near the German border, but they did not. Mr. KEARNS. That was what this money I am talking about was spent for, and the money you were talking about.

Mr. PEASLEE. It was spent for the losses of their private citizens arising out of the war, which was fought for the whole people. Mr. KEARNS. For the rehabilitation of farm land in France. Mr. CAREW. I would like to hear you make the best argument you can along those lines, my friend.

Mr. PEASLEE. Going on to the second point, after the SpanishAmerican and Mexican Wars, we adopted treaties which provided. that there should be paid out of the Treasury of the United States the claims of our citizens against Spain and against Mexico. It is quite true that in both those treaties it was also provided that the United States was released of claims which the citizens of those countries might make against it, and it is also true there was certain territory ceded.

Mr. GARNER. You might put the reverse of that. In the treaties between those countries and the United States each government agreed to settle with its own nationals, and that those nationals would have no claims against the other countries.

Mr. PEASLEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARNER. That is not in this particular situation, so I do not think your illustration is analogous with the present situation.

Mr. PEASLEE. Mr. Garner, article 297 of the Versailles treaty, Annex 1, page 21, reads this way:

No claim or action shall be made or brought against the allied or associated powers or against any person acting on behalf of or under the direction of any legal authority or department of the government as such, a power by government or by any governmental nature whatever, in respect of any act or affirmation with regard to any property rights or interests during the war or the preparation for the war.

Mr. GARNER. The very fact of your having an award from the claims commission, when the Versailles treaty and the Berlin

treaty did not carry that provision into effect, the very fact that you have an award from the commission against the German Government is sufficient answer to that.

Mr. PEASLEE. But the United States was relieved of its liability to German citizens, just as it was relieved of its liability to Spanish citizens and to Mexican citizens, and I am frank to state that I do not see any distinction.

Mr. CAREW. How serious do you think that liability was?

Mr. PEASLEE. I do not know how serious it was with Spain or Mexico.

Mr. CAREW. How serious do you think it was with regard to Germany?

Mr. PEASLEE. I do not know.'

Mr. CAREW. How serious do you think a liability of the United States to a German national was at the end of the war?

Mr. PEASLEE. I do not know if international tribunals had been set up, what they might have adjudicated, sir; I do not know. That is entirely a matter of opinion.

Mr. CAREW. You do not think it would have been very serious, do you?

Mr. PEASLEE. They evidently considered it serious enough to put it in the treaty.

There is one more thing on which I should like to submit my personal views. You have pending before you bills which, as I read them, provide three things. They provide in the first place to restore the immediate use of the German property to the German citizens. They provide for paying immediately, or as soon as the amount can be determined, the German ship owners. But they provide for postponing to an indefinite and uncertain future time the payment of American citizens.

Now, gentlemen, I do not think that is a fair proposition, and I do not think the American public is behind that sort of a program, because, as I was saying before, these damages are part of the general burden of the war. We were not niggardly in reference to the war. The American taxpayer was not niggardly, in paying for other expenses of the war, and these are infinitesimal compared with them. France has declared the unity and solidarity of her people as to those damages, and I believe the American taxpayer will gladly take the same attitude.

Mr. GARNER. Would you mind giving the character or class of claims you represent?

Mr. PEASLEE. I will give you a list of them.

Mr. GARNER. I do not care about a list. I just wanted to know the general class of claimants you represent. Let the record show the class.

Mr. PEASLEE. They are principally a group of claims arising out of so-called acts of sabotage in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you wish to say, Mr. Peaslee?

Mr. PEASLEE. That is all, thank you. I should like to submit this letter for the record, if you care to have it.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be inserted in the record at this point. (The document referred to is as follows:)

PEASLEE, BRIGHAM & GENNERT,
New York, November 15, 1926.

Re American awards against Germany, and German seized property.

Hon. WILLIAM R. GREEN,

Chairman Ways and Means Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: An important question was raised by Mr. Hull at the last hearings of your committee (see vol. 3, p. 50) as to the action of other governments with respect to the property damage claims of their nationals against Germany. The facts on this point have not as yet been brought out before your committee, nor has sufficient mention been made of the action of the United States after the last two prior foreign wars in which it was engaged. As I am not certain whether it will be possible for me to appear before the committee, I am taking the liberty of submitting this data to you in this letter for incorporation in the record of the hearings, if you see fit to do so. (1) THE ACTION OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS IN PAYING THE CIVIL DAMAGE CLAIMS OF THEIR CITIZENS

France up until the end of 1924 had actually paid from its national Treasury in the form of cash or government bonds a total of about 61,000,000,000 francs for private property damages suffered by its citizens during the war. These amounts were paid at different times when the franc ranged in value from the present rate to a value of about 15 cents. The payments are conservatively estimated to be the equivalent of from three to five billions of dollars. These figures are exclusive of payments for pensions and for personal relief of soldiers and soldiers' families and was also exclusive of funds spent for the reconstruction of the public domains, railways, and roads. (Documents Parlementaire Chambres, annex 537, 1925, p. 2109.) These payments were in addition to the proceeds of liquidated German property in France, the separate figures for which are not before me at the present time.

In England the entire proceeds of the liquidation of the German property in Great Britain were applied to the payment of compensation for civil damages, amounting up to September 25, 1925, to £78,150,074, or the equivalent of about $376,809,000. (Fifth Annual Report of the Controller of the Clearing Office, 1925, p. 6.) This was in addition to the payments of £5,300,000 ($25,758,000) awarded by the Royal Commission out of the funds. Hence the total amount which Great Britain has employed up to the present time as compensation for civil property damage claims has been about £84,450,074, or the equivalent of about $400,000,000.

Italy also applied the proceeds of the liquidation of German property, which property was estimated at a value of 4,000,000,000 lire at the time of its sequestration in December, 1918, or the equivalent, on the basis of the value of the lira at that time, of about $600,000,000. (See F. R. Scholz, Privateigentum im Besetzten und Unbesetzten Feidesland, 1919, p. 272, and Berner Bund of December 8, 1918.) Italy also paid from the Government treasury for civil property damage claims up to August 20, 1925, approximately 919,000,000 lire or the equivalent at the rates of exchange current when payments were made of about $100,000,000. (Gazette Ufficiale del Regno d'Italia, August 20, 1925, No. 192.) Hence the total amount applied toward civil damage claims in Italy must have been about $700,000,000.

Belgium, according to a general résumé of M. G. Theunis, the then Belgian Minister of Finance, given to the Chambre des Representatives on October 22, 1924, had paid up to that date from the Government treasury for damages to private property, 8,172,900,000 francs. According to the value of the Belgian franc at the time these payments were made, this was the equivalent of about $500,000,000. This was exclusive of damages to public property and damages to persons. This item, according to my understanding, does not include the proceeds of the liquidation of German private property which were also applied to private damage claims.

The German estimates of the total value of the property of their nationals which was liquidated in foreign countries and applied to the payment of damage claims is 11,700,000,000 gold marks, or the equivalent of $2,925,000,000. (Le Temps, May 16, 1922, Economic Review, V. 659.)

If we estimate the value of the liquidated German property in England, France, Italy, and Belgium at only about half of this sum, or $1,500,000,000,

we then have as a conservative estimate of the total amounts which have already been paid by the four principal Allied Governments; i. e., France, England, Italy, and Belgium, for property damage claims analogous to the American Mixed Claims Commission awards, and which cover destruction of industrial plants and other properties and debts owing to their citizens from $5,000,000,000 to $7,000,000,000, of which sum from $3,500,000,000 to $5,500,000,000 represent direct payments of cash or the issuance of bonds by the Allied Governments from their treasuries in favor of their own citizens.

(2) THE ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE

MEXICAN WARS

SPANISH-AMERICAN AND

After the Spanish-American and Mexican Wars, which were the last two foreign wars in which the United States was engaged, the United States, notwithstanding the fact that it was victorious, agreed to assume and pay, and did assume and pay, the civil property damage claims of its own citizens against Spain and Mexico.

The treaty of peace between Spain and the United States concluded in Paris on December 19, 1898, provided in article VII, as follows:

"The United States will adjudicate and settle the claims of its citizens against Spain relinquished in this article."

The treaty between Mexico and the United States proclaimed February 2, 1845, provided in Article XIII:

The United States engage, moreover, to assume and pay to the claimants all the amounts now due them, and those hereafter to become due, by reason of the claims already liquidated and decided against the Mexican Republic. The United States do, furthermore, discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims of the citizens of the United States not heretofore decided against the Mexican Government, which may have arisen previously to the date of the signature of this treaty. The United States undertake to make satisfaction for same. To ascertain the validity and amount of these claims a board of commissioners shall be established.

Contrasted with this action of the allied governments and the action of the United States after prior wars, Congress has so far paid not one penny to any of its own citizens for their property damage claims arising out of the World War.

The pending bills propose (1) to restore the full immediate use of the balance of the German seized property to German citizens, over half of which has already been returned, (2) to pay immediately in cash to German citizens the value of the seized ships, but (3) to defer to some indefinite and uncertain time the payment of the damage awards in favor of American citizens.

The injustice of that proposal is obvious. It seems inconceivable that Congress will pass any measure which does not give as satisfactory imme diate relief for all American losses as it does for the German losses. The war was fought for all of the people of the United States, and the people as a whole should assume the special burdens which arose out of it. France in its "Law of War Damages" of April 17, 1919, declared as the opening sentence of the law providing for the compensation of her citizens as follows: "ARTICLE 1. The Republic proclaims the equal and united obligation of the whole French people with respect to the damages of the war."

This is an elementary principle which the United States has already applied in the last two foreign wars in which it was engaged.

The American people are anxious to find some way to avoid applying the German private property in the possession of the Alien Property Custodian to the payment of the damages sustained by American citizens, but public opinion will never support Congress in a bill which does not give just as immediate and prompt relief to American citizens for the losses which they sustained as it does to German citizens for their losses. As a matter of fact, the American losses were all sustained earlier in point of time than the German losses.

The only way to settle the matter satisfactorily is for our Government te assume the responsibility for the American losses, just as the allied govern ments have done and just as the United States has done after prior wars, and then collect the funds from the German Government later, if it can do so.

I beg to remain, very truly yours,

AMOS J. PEASLEE

P. S.-My interest in this matter is a twofold one:

(1) Our office represents a number of American claimants as well as several German property owners, although my action in thus addressing you is a voluntary one on my part without special mandate from any of those clients.

(2) As a former officer of the American Army who was attached to the American Peace Commission at Paris (but who dissented from some of the things done there), and as a present officer of the American branch of the International Law Association, I am keenly interested in observing the action of your committee on the problems involved in the pending bills.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Miner.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. MINER, PRESIDENT OF THE PFAUDLER COMPANY, ROCHESTER, N. Y.

Mr. MINER. Mr. Chairman and gentleman, I am here before you as a claimant to whom an award has been made by the Mixed Claims Commission. It seems to me it is of a nature that might well be disclosed.

We had in Germany a manufacturing plant, engaged in a certain form of enameled steel construction. This plant was seized by the general commanding the Fourteenth Army Corps in May, 1917. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the seizure, but one thing stands out which I want to impress upon your committee. Among the materials seized was a certain amount of steel-plate tonnage, which the German military authorities immediately used for war purposes-submarine hulls, gun shields, and the like.

That claim was presented before the Mixed Claims Commission, and was allowed as of date June 1, 1917. The claim has not been paid. I merely ask this committee to take into consideration the fact that as an American citizen it seems to me that such security as Americans may have in the way of property of the German Government or German citizens which is now in the hands of this Government should at least be retained until claims of American citizens like myself shall have been properly adjusted and paid.

Mr. CAREW. What is the amount of your claim?

Mr. MINER. $125,000.

Mr. GARNER. As I understand it, you differentiate between a claim originating in Germany for property taken over by the German people, such as we took over in this country, and claims of insurance companies and things of that kind? In other words, you think that property should have been taken over by our Government?

Mr. MINER. I should hardly care, Mr. Garner, to go into the exact niceties of that situation. I merely wish to impress upon your committee that there are claims of this sort, and that in considering the idea of returning the property of the German nationals the interest of Americans should be considered before that property is returned.

Mr. GARNER. I think, speaking for myself alone, that the committee ought to give thorough consideration to the class of claims allowed by the Mixed Claims Commission. I hope when Mr. Barton comes on there will be an entire classification of the claims. I think there is a difference between your claim, in good conscience, I will say, and those of an insurance company.