Mr. MINER. I do not care to be placed in the position of advocating the priority of my claim as against any other claim.

The CHAIRMAN. Your proposition is simply this: That you are on exactly the same basis as that of Germans whose property was taken over by our Government, and if payment is made for that property it should be made for yours at the same time.

Mr. MINER. And adding also this comment: That if we have in this country any security for those claims, that security should be retained until payment has been made.

Mr. OLDFIELD. Have you any idea how many other claims there are of your class?

Mr. MINER. I can not give you figures, but you can readily understand that a number of American industries and corporations have been caught in the same situation. In my own city I know one corporation which had a considerable sum of money on deposit in German banks. That was seized and immediately confiscated. Mr. OLDFIELD. I thoroughly agree with you. I think you are entirely right in this matter.

Mr. MINER. I am not urging confiscation.

Mr. CAREW. How long were you in business in Germany?

Mr. MINER. From 1896, but with a plant establishment from 1907. Mr. WATSON. Does the $125,000 represent your original claim or the amount of the award?

Mr. MINER. The award.

Mr. WATSON. What was your original claim?

Mr. MINER. $130,536.71. There was some adjustment. The German Government was in accord with our view in regard to the claim and did all they could to expedite it.

Mr. WATSON. How much do you think your company lost?

Mr. MINER. Somewhere around three-quarters of a million dollars. Mr. CHINDBLOM. You had been conducting a profitable business over there?

Mr. MINER. Very; prior to that time.

Mr. WATSON. Are you conducting it now?

Mr. MINER. Yes, sir. We got the property back in 1920, and made what adjustment we could with the German Government on the basis of depreciated currency.

Mr. WATSON. About how many men do you employ?

Mr. MINER. Two hundred and fifty to three hundred. It is a plant equipped with everything in the way of labor-saving machinery. American methods are employed.

Mr. CAREW. What kind of a plant is it?

Mr. MINER. Enameled steel; various forms of large enameledsteel containers for chemical plants, breweries, oil refineries, sugar refineries.

Mr. OLDFIELD. Are you in the same business in this country?
Mr. MINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. OLDFIELD. With a plant at Rochester?

Mr. MINER. A plant at Rochester, and a plant at Elyria, Ohio; we also do quite a large export business.

Mr. OLDFIELD. Are you a native of this country?

Mr. RAINEY. I can vouch for that.

Mr. MINER. Quite so. My family have been landowners in Mr. Rainey's section for 100 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you have to say?

Mr. MINER. That is all.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Did the German Government turn back the plant intact?

Mr. MINER. No; the plant was torn all to pieces. When they seized the plant they made use of these materials for war purposes. Mr. CHINDBLOM. Åre the damages you are getting for profits lost? Mr. MINER. None whatsoever. May I answer that in detail, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. MINER. Ours was a plant covering 5 or 6 acres under roof, with grounds surrounding, a total of about 15 acres. It lies on the main traveled rail routes north and south, east and west, near the Rhine, 10 miles south of Mannheim and 6 miles west from Heidelberg.

The German Government removed the plant machinery and sold it or leased it to munition makers, and then filled up the buildings and the surrounding land with turbines, dynamos, generators, locomotives, and such heavy material as had been taken from the occupied regions in Belgium, northern France and northern Italy.

The plant was equipped with heavy traveling cranes, admirably adapted for moving heavy machinery.

The Germans placed several hundred Russian prisoners in the plant to move the material around, and with sufficient German soldiers to guard them.

This situation obtained until the armistice. Then, the Allies in that section of Germany, took possession of the plant, had the property identified, and required the German Government to repair it. When the repair work was finished and this material had been returned to the owners from whom it had been seized, our plant was returned to us, somewhere around the end of 1920.

The German Government paid us in depreciated currency for the damages occurring to the plant through that occupation.

When the German Government first seized the plant, in 1917, the military authorities placed therein a couple of German engineers, who made a careful survey and inventory of the property.

When the property was turned back to us these same engineers were again placed in the plant by the Government. As fast as repairs were finished we presented the bill for the same to these engineers, who certified to its correctness.

We were finally paid in depreciated currency for most of these items, but the question of steel was something we could not agree upon, because the steel which they seized from us in 1917 had cost somewhere between 140 and 160 marks per ton.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Gold marks?

Mr. MINER. Yes; gold marks.

When the time arrived for an adjustment of the claim indicated above, that same steel was worth 1,000 gold marks per ton, and I declined to take paper currency for it, requesting that they either pay us in steel or else in gold marks at the prevailing price per ton, so that we could replace the steel.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Do you think your experience is typical of that of the average American over there in Germany? Mr. MINER. I think so.

Mr. CAREW. When did they take the plant?

Mr. MINER. On the second day of May, 1917, and they returned it in the latter part of September, I think, 1920. The plant was practically shut down from the time the war broke out in Germany. I was in Germany at the time. Probably one reason they seized our plant so soon was that we refused to make war munitions from August, 1914, until the United States entered the war. We preferred to let our plant lie idle rather than make war munitions in Germany.

Mr. RAINEY. They have not paid you at all for the steel?
Mr. MINER. No, sir.

Mr. RAINEY. The reimbursement you reecived was for the plant damage?

Mr. MINER. The reimbursement was for the plant damage. Mr. RAINEY. And your entire claim is based upon the value of the steel?

Mr. MINER. Yes; which they took for war purposes.

Mr. KEARNS. Was the value placed at the time they were taken! Mr. MINER. The value was placed as all values were in Germany. It was of a period just prior to the outbreak of the war. All values were based upon an index of that date.

Mr. KEARNS. And you say steel was worth many times what it was worth then?

Mr. MINER. I said at the time they took it over. steel in Germany at the time of the armistice.

There was no

Mr. RAINEY. Do you expect any further reimbursement from Germany for the steel?

Mr. MINER. None whatsoever, unless this claim is not paid. Of course, we rest in the position of having the claim admitted by Germany, and an award made us by the Mixed Claims Commission, but we have not seen any money yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all you wish to say, Mr. Miner?
Mr. MINER. That is all, thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We have no more witnesses available to-day. The committee will adjourn until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4.05 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again on Wednesday, November 17, 1926, at 11 o'clock a. m.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, November 17, 1926.

The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., Hon. William R. Green (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to inquire of Doctor Arnold if he expects to be here to-morrow?

Mr. ARNOLD. No; I have made my arrangements so as to go away this evening.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I believe you are entitled to be heard, Doctor, because I think you were assigned for to-day some time ago. Mr. ARNOLD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And we will conform to the assignment and hear you now, then.

STATEMENT OF DR. ERNST H. ARNOLD, ON BEHALF OF THE STEUBEN SOCIETY OF AMERICA

The CHAIRMAN. Tell the committee whom you are.

Mr. ARNOLD. Ernst Herman Arnold.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. In what capacity do you appear here?

Mr. ARNOLD. I appear here for the Steuben Society of America, a patriotic society having for its object the participation of people of German origin in civic and political affairs.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Yes; I am familiar with it. Do you represent any claimants at all?

Mr. ARNOLD. I do not represent a materialistic claim either personally, or any member of the society. While some of them may have claims as American citizens, I do not know of them-we do not know of them. I am not here to represent any of them.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. You have no direct or personal interest?

Mr. ARNOLD. I have no personal, direct or indirect, materialistic interest. I am here to make an idealistic claim for our society in this matter.

Mr. GARNER. What society was that?

Mr. ARNOLD. The Steuben Society of America.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. It is named after

Mr. ARNOLD. It is named after Major General Steuben, who was one of the generals in the time of George Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. As we have a number of witnesses to hear to-day, I think we will expedite matters if the doctor be permitted to go along through his statement without interruption.

Mr. ARNOLD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am not here to tell you what to do in this matter. I would, on behalf of our society, urge you that you do something and do it quickly.

In our endeavor to interest the voter, the common, ordinary citizen, in civic and governmental affairs, we find it difficult to explain certain things to the mind untrained in political and judicial intricacies. We find that in this matter of the return of alien property there are two great differences which they can not unite in their minds, namely, the matter of theory and the matter of practice. The theory rests, I take it, for the return of the alien property, upon three distinct premises: (1) The Constitution, which, in Article V, provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation; (2) a treaty between the United States and Prussia for the protection of private property interests in the case of war; and (3) a proclamation by the State Department of the late President Wilson assuring the enemy property holders that the United States would not take advantage of the war as against their property. That is the theoretical crown upon which the matter should rest.

As a matter of fact, when the war broke out, the necessities of war took precedence over the law. Necessity knows no law and I take it that the necessities of war wiped out these three items for the time being and we find that the property was seized for several reasons. In the first place, it was seized so that it could not be used by the

20404-26-7

enemy, which is quite reasonable; in the second place, so as to protect it against abuses by the home citizenry.

As to the first time it is quite evident that such things as ships and radios, which might be used by the enemy, should be properly taken by a custodian. As to some other property, it is not quite so evident-how silk stockings, how crockery could be used by the enemy is, perhaps, not so easily explained. And yet such things, to my personal knowledge, were seized and held for a long, long

time.

The second one, that it needed protection against destruction in the heat of war: That may be so in the case of property that is conspicuous, but it could not be explained, once more, that that related to such things which are in the nature of inconspicuous things, such as patents, etc., that are fully protected by the Government agencies. However, whatever the contingencies of war were that made it necessary to seize for the protection of the country or of the property, did this follow when peace was made? The lawless necessities of war have ceased, and we could expect then that the declaration of the Constitution and treaty obligations and the proclamation of the President would be made good.

Now, I inquire what are the facts in practice, as far as the assurance of the President are concerned, that no advantage would be taken by this country. Has the seizure of patents not been taken advantage of to establish a chemical industry in this country? Has the withholding of ships for a good long time not been taken advantage of for the establishment of a merchant marine?

As to the constitutional item, the Constitution promises compensation for public use. We have not only had no just compensation for public use but, very likely, as in the case of the patents which were sold for a ridiculous sum, no unjust compensation for private use, because that came not.

Now it may be argued these things have not been taken permanently but they have simply been taken into custody-that they have not been sequestered. But I submit to you that the holdding of them for eight years of time now is dividing a man from his property, and that a custody which might simply be regarded in the way of a receivership or in the way of a conservator of the property, after all, is not giving the people the use of their property. If my property is in the hands of a receiver, I may get a fair return from it, but I have not the use of it for my own purposes.

The proposed return of the alien property upon the satisfaction of American claims, as proposed in some of the bills that were before the last Congress, put the affair off for from 40 to 80 years. Now it is unfortunate that it involves not only the German property but also a great deal of the American property. You practically confiscate, at the same time you keep from proper use, the property of Americans for the same length of time. I submit to you that that is, for all practical purposes, confiscation.

Now there has been a difference made between large and small properties. The properties up to $10,000 have been returned, I think, and paid in full; but all the larger ones have not been. I wonder whether justice will say " Yes and amen" to such a division.