Mr. SUTHERLAND. Yes. I think I have here a statement which shows all of the property held of the following nationalities:

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any suggestions to offer by way of amendments to the House bill?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I have not thought of any particular amendments. I passed upon one that Senator McLean had submitted to him by some one in his State, on yesterday I took the papers and studied them over, and also have had them studied by others, it being in regard to the claim of a German citizen who had been left property by a brother abroad, who had died over there before we got into the war. This man was entitled to money or the property, and the property was seized. He came within the class of persons proclaimed by President Wilson as being enemy. And yet certain other classes of aliens have had their property returned, but under the existing law we can not do that. I wrote to Senator McLean that I saw no objection to including that class in the bill. That is a minor matter. There would probably be several entitled to a return under such a provision as his constituent suggested.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no idea as to the amount of such claims?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. No; but it would not be very large. It might amount to several million dollars, all together, but it would not be very large.

Senator REED of Pennsylvania. Some of our citizens who have purchased alien property have been put to heavy expense in defending suits brought by enemy owners. Has any suggestion been made to you that the bill should include a provision for compensating them for their expense in defending their title?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. I have had no such suggestion made to me, but I would think it would be worthy of consideration.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I notice in the document referred to as the McCarl report a statement that a citizen of Germany acquired certain properties in the United States before the war, and that he went over to Germany and fought in the German Army, but afterwards returned to the United States, and that he had been paid something over $600,000 by the Alien Property Custodian. Do you know anything about that claim?

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. Skinner may be able to give you some facts about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Will Mr. Skinner look up the details of that? Mr. SUTHERLAND. Mr. Skinner gives me a statement here by which I see the claim referred to is in Senate Document 182, Sixty-ninth Congress, second session, on page 125:

The claim of Paul Haberland, trust 13928, claim 6665, was allowed on October 21, 1921, by assistant to the Attorney General Guy D. Goff, for $595,745.65. It appears that Paul Haberland, formerly president of the Garfield Worsted Mills, was taken from a steamer en route to Holland and interned by the French, as he was a reserve officer in the German Army; later exchanged as a prisoner through Switzerland and served in an auxiliary service

of the German Army. The Department of Justice gave the following reason for the allowance of the claim:

"The department is therefore allowing this claim upon the ground that this man was in the same position as a German citizen interned in the United States."

This claim was forwarded to the Department of Justice for allowance September 21, 1921, apparently with the claim for American Metals, as the question as to whether or not it was immediately allowed was the subject of telegrams between T. W. Miller and his secretary, F. H. Wilson.

The opinion of the Department of Justice, dated October 16, 1923, and signed H. M. Daugherty, recommends the allowance of claims of William Graupner, John H. Love, and Anton Schmid for the proceeds of certain Garfield stock amounting to $51,823.90.

The allowance as stated in this opinion rests entirely upon the evidence shown on the certificates that they were indorsed on March 30, 1916, by the original owner, Edward Lelwess, in the presence of Carl Schmieder, before a German notary.

I have here a statement of that interest, or of the unallocated interest, or interest on that interest, up to March 4, 1926, amounting to the total of $32,260,302.45.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will now stand in adjournment until 10 o'clock Thursday morning.

(Whereupon, at 12.15 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again Thursday, January 20, 1927, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

RETURN OF ALIEN PROPERTY

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1927

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment (the session set for Wednesday, January 19, having been postponed), at 10 o'clock a. m., in the committee room, Senate Office Building, Senator Reed Smoot presiding.

Present: Senators Smoot (chairman), McLean, Reed of Pennsylvania, Wadsworth, Jones of New Mexico, Bayard, and George.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN B. PARKER, UMPIRE OF THE MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND GERMANY

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Parker, what position do you hold in the Government service?

Mr. PARKER. In the Government service?

The CHAIRMAN. If you hold any, say so.

Mr. PARKER. I am umpire of the Mixed Claims Commission. I asked that question because it is not in the Government service. The CHAIRMAN. I did not know but that you held some other position.

Mr. PARKER. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you testify before the House committee? Mr. PARKER. I did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you say before that committee all that you desired to say in behalf of the pending measure?

Mr. PARKER. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be hypercritical or to bandy terms; but, occupying the position that I do as umpire of the commission, holding that appointment by the Government of the United States and the Government of Germany jointly, I could not with propriety say anything either in behalf of or against the measure; but I shall be more than glad to give to the committee any information as to facts which I possess.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Jones, have you any particular line of questions that you desire to ask?

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Just in brief way.

I should like to know what the commission did, if anything, toward promulgating the fact of its organization, and the time-limit for the filing of claims before the commission.

Mr. PARKER. The commission did nothing, Senator Jones. The commission sits as a court to hear cases brought before it in an orderly manner. I am advised that the Government of the United States, which was one of the parties before that tribunal, did broad

275

cast notice through the press and by writing numerous letters to everyone that had communicated with the department or that they had any reason to believe had any claim against Germany, that notices were given out in the usual way a number of times in conferences with the press; but that is a matter about which the American Government can better speak than I can.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. We have asked the Secretary of State to furnish us with anything the State Department has done regarding that matter, and I wanted to get a statement in the record as to whether or not the commission itself had done anything regarding that subject.

Mr. PARKER. You will readily appreciate, Senator Jones, that the commission, sitting as a judicial tribunal, could not with propriety advertise for litigants to come before it.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. I think that is probably a correct view to take of the matter.

Senator BAYARD. Did your commission feel itself precluded from taking any cognizance of the matter of extension of the six months' period after the Government had made its engagement with Germany, as appears from the record?

Mr. PARKER. May I answer that question by stating very briefly the status of the commission?

The commission, as you know, is composed of three members—a German commissioner, and American commissioner, and the umpire selected by agreement of the two Governments. It is constituted under an agreement between the two Governments of August 10, Under that agreement, the commission has jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims of the United States or its nationals against Germany falling within the terms of the treaty of Berlin. The two Governments had agreed that Germany, who was the defendant in this action, should have notice of all claims to be presented within six months after the first meeting of the commission. As a matter of fact, the commission did not meet for two months, approximately, after the agreement was signed.

That agreement between the two Governments was, in effect, a period of limitation so far as the commission was concerned. The commission, of course, had no voice in fixing its jurisdiction, which was fixed by the treaty of Berlin. It could neither add to nor take from that jurisdiction.

So far as the period of limitation is concerned which was agreed to between the two Governments, that was a matter which was binding on the commission.

Senator BAYARD. In other words, that was a rule under which the commission felt itself bound to proceed without any question?

Mr. PARKER. It had no voice, of course, in either making the agreement or making the treaty. It was constituted under the agreement, and its task was to apply the terms of the treaty of Berlin to the claims that were presented to it.

Senator BAYARD. And your commission took that stand notwithstanding the fact that the Berlin treaty provided that all claims might be submitted to your commission-I mean, regarding the period of limitation of filing claims?

Mr. PARKER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, do you mean--could your question be construed to mean-that those claims could be submitted at any time without any limit of time?

Senator BAYARD. My point is that the treaty in itself provides that all claims of American nationals may be presented before this commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator BAYARD. The agreement between Mr. Kellogg and the German ambassador here in Washington made a period of limitation of six months after the first meeting of the commission. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator BAYARD. The question has come up, because of the filing of claims since the expiration of that period, of the right of the American nationals to have determined their claims which had been filed since the expiration of that period; but the commission, as I understand from the commissioner, have taken the stand that they are precluded from entertaining any such claims because the rule was made before they commenced to operate, and they are bound by the rule. That is the substance of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with the commission, or do you think that the claims could be filed 10 years from now, we will say? Senator BAYARD. I merely wanted to know what position the commission took, and why. That was the substance of it.

Mr. PARKER. May I suggest that it is hardly accurate to say that we adopted a rule or followed the rule adopted by the two Governments. We were bound by the agreement of the two Governments. The commission, as you know, does not exist under the treaty of Berlin. It is a very different tribunal than any that is referred to or any that is provided for in the treaty of Versailles. The treaty of Berlin defines or prescribes what Germany shall pay for, but there is nothing in the treaty of Berlin which stipulates how much Germany shall pay.

Senator JONES of New Mexico. Or how it shall be ascertained. Mr. PARKER. Or how it shall be ascertained.

The CHAIRMAN. Or when it should be paid.

Mr. PARKER. Or when it should be paid. The commission has repeatedly held that it has nothing in the world to do with the payment of claims against Germany. That is a matter for the two Governments to deal with.

Senator BAYARD. It is merely a fact-finding commission?

Mr. PARKER. That is too narrow a definition, too. The treaty of Berlin prescribes, as I said a moment ago, what Germany shall pay for. The two Governments entered into an agreement providing for an international judicial tribunal to determine how much Germany should pay. Obviously, that requires a construction of the treaty to determine what claims fall within the terms of the treaty. That is the first task that confronts us when a claim is presented: Does it fall within the terms of the treaty of Berlin? Is Germany financially obligated to pay this claim? In that sense it was something more than a fact-finding commission, because it had to construe the treaty. Senator BAYARD. In other words, your commission, under the treaty of Berlin, had a right to pass upon the character of the claims as well as their validity?