Mr. YOUNG. Yes, it is.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Is it necessary that that should be in order to enable her to get what division of it she is entitled to or the income from it?

Mr. YOUNG. It would seem to me, Mr. Wolverton, pretty hard to separate the two, although there might be some basis of distinction there, where the committee might feel that what has accruedMr. WOLVERTON. What is the property which is covered by the trust?

Mr. YOUNG. I think about a fifth of the property consists of United States Savings bonds and the rest is a rather tightly held family corporation involving real estate here in Chevy Chase and some out in California and Nevada.

Mr. WOLVERTON. So it relates entirely to property which might be designated United States property.

Mr. YOUNG. That is correct. It is all located within this country. Mr. WOLVERTON. What was there about this lady of whom you speak that would bring the property within the act so it could be taken over?

Mr. HALE. Will the gentleman yield?

Was there any other beneficiary under this will?

Mr. YOUNG. Not to my knowledge, but I am not thoroughly familiar with that aspect. I could find out and submit it for the committee's information if you desire.

The CHAIRMAN. Had she reacquired American citizenship at the time this property was taken over by the Alien Property Custodian?

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir, she had not. The property was taken over I understand in 1943, and she acquired American citizenship following the termination of World War II. They lived in East Germany.

Mr. WOLVERTON. What I have in mind is this: She had a certain right to income. She had no right to the original fund itself, you might say the corpus. Did they determine that because she had a right of income that that made the body of the trust, the corpus, subject to the act or only her income?

Mr. YOUNG. I would presume they felt because she had the right of income, she had some equity in the corpus and therefore the hide went with the tail.

Mr. WOLVERTON. It would seem to me a rather strained construction that because she was entitled to an income from a trust estate, that would bring the whole trust under the ban of the law. I don't readily subscribe to that.

Mr. YOUNG. Apparently she had a right to the corpus as well as the income, too.

Mr. WOLVERTON. That makes a different situation, you see.

Mr. YOUNG. Yes.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I assume that she just had a right of income and the remainder went beyond her. She is the final one, then. Her brother took an income and now she takes not merely the income but the corpus of the estate.

Mr. YOUNG. Apparently so, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other questions? Did you desire also to make any statement with reference to the other bill you mentioned, Mr. Young?

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir; I don't think I will make any statement at this time on that.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate your appearance. If you have a statement or care to file a statement on the other bill, you may do so. Mr. YOUNG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (Mr. Young's prepared paper follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFTON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, Representatives, I am very happy to appear here today in connection with one bill now before this subcommittee, and while I am fully aware of the enormity of the task before this subcommittee and the magnitude and complexity of the legislation which awaits your consideration and recommendations, I will address myself only to one aspect of the problem. That aspect is the return of American assets to American citizens.

To that end, I have recently introduced a bill, H. R. 10889, which seeks the return of United States assets to United States citizens. I have introduced this bill, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to me that in simple honesty we cannot, as a legislative body, maintain the proposition that property built up by the hard work, acumen, and diligence of citizens of the United States should be wrested from their sons, daughters, and other heirs by a law never meant to accomplish such an untoward thing.

1

The Trading With the Enemy Act has been described by the Supreme Court as "legislation of a makeshift patchwork" and while I do not for one moment doubt its necessity in time of war or national distress, let us not forget that it was enacted in haste, and like many other emergency measures, sometimes operates more severely and more harshly than its drafters intended it should. Let me give you an example which points up this whole matter. My own home State of Nevada is now the residence of Mrs. Friederike Strachwitz, the great granddaughter of former United States Senator Sharon and granddaughter of former United States Senator Francis Newlands, both of whom represented my home State in the Senate of the United States. The mother of Mrs. Strachwitz, who was the daughter of Senator Newlands and a citizen of the United States, married a German citizen, and a few months after the birth of Friederike, died an untimely death. The father of this child Friederike remarried a German citizen, and although Friederike spent much of her childhood in England, France, and the United States, she was nevertheless, simply by virtue of her birth, a citizen of Germany. And so, her property has been seized and kept from her by the administrators of this act. This property had been accumulated by Friederike's grandfather and greatgrandfather and passed on by them to her mother, from whom Friederike inherited it. The property was since before Friederike became of age, and is now held in trust for the benefit of Friederike by the Union Trust Co. of this very District of Columbia. The property consists in the main of tightly held family landholding corporations, one of which developed Chevy Chase in the outlying environs of the District, and others with interests in California and Nevada.

In January of 1943 this property was, as I said, vested by the Alien Property Custodian, acting under the Trading With the Enemy Act, since Mrs. Strachwitz was living in Eastern Germany with her husband and family at that time.

Although he has never reduced the corpus of this trust to his possession, the Alien Property Custodian has nevertheless been paid the quarterly avails thereof by the trustee, which avails now total some $450,000.

Shortly after the termination of World War II, in the course of which Mr. Strachwitz' property was confiscated by the Russians and is still held in Communist Poland, Mr. and Mrs. Strachwitz and their 2 sons and 4 daughters made their way with great hardship to this country, and were naturalized citizens of the United States in Reno.

Those two sons of Mrs. Strachwitz now wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of our Nation: Christian Strachwitz is a soldier in the Army of the United States, serving his country abroad, and Hubertus Strachwitz is a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, yet they are denied their expectancy in their mother's property.

1 Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U. S. 308, 72 S. Ct. 338, 96 L. Ed. 342.

Ironically enough, about one-fifth of the corpus of Mrs. Strachwitz's trust, which is still in the physical possession of the Union Trust Co., is in the form of United States Treasury bonds. Thus, the Government is in the anomalous position of borrowing money from Mrs. Strachwitz and then confiscating or attempting to confiscate the memorial of that loan which obligates the Government to repay her.

The bill which I have introduced seeks simply to extend the administrative relief hitherto available under section 32 of the act for citizens of other countries so that that same relief is available to citizens of the United States. This bill, which changes the present law only in that very minor respect, simply provides that a citizen of this Nation may now file with the Department of Justice for return of his vested property if at the date of enactment of the bill he or she is a citizen of the United States. Thus the bill provides a measure of relief for Mrs. Strachwitz and others in her class. There is already appropriated for the purpose of returns heretofore authorized under this particular subdivision of section 32 the sum of $9 million, and the Alien Property officer has advised me that at least half of that sum remains available to pay claims. Thus H. R. 10889 would require no additional appropriation, and its net effect, I repeat, is simply to make available to citizens of this Nation that same administrative relief which has been heretofore available to citizens of other nations who have been able to show the requisite political, racial, and religious discrimination. Surely, Mr. Chairman, naturalized citizens of this Nation are as much entitled to their property as are native-born citizens. We do not have and we never have had secondclass citizens in the United States.

So touched have I been by the plight of Mrs. Strachwitz that in July of 1954 I introduced a private bill for her relief, H. R. 7785. Senator Bible, of Nevada, has introduced a similar companion bill in the Senate. These bills were, of course, referred to the various executive agencies for their recommendations. Both the Department of Justice and the Department of State objected to the enactment of these private measures on the grounds that they would accord Mrs. Strachwitz a preference over others in her class. H. R. 10889 patently negatives the possibility of any such recommendation, since it treats equally all those in the class it contemplates, and that class is, I repeat, citizens of the United States.

I would like to point out also that if former citizens of Germany have been admitted to citizenship in this country, by that very fact they are absolved of any Nazi tinge or tendency since-and the Department of State can verify thisAmerican citizenship or entry into our Nation has been denied consistently and without qualification to former Nazis.

I am glad to say that a companion to H. R. 10889 has been introduced by Senator Bible, together with Senator Eastland. That bill is S. 3507, now before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I urge a favorable consideration of H. R. 10889, not alone for the benefit of Mrs. Strachwitz, but because the very fabric of our law and our society rests, in great measure, upon the preeminent regard and respect we, as a nation, have always had for the sanctity of private property. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other member of the House who may have come in who wishes to testify?

STATEMENT OF HON. DON HAYWORTH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to offer which would include Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. It has been taken up with the State Department. Should it be submitted it at this time for the record?

The CHAIRMAN. You may if you wish, Mr. Hayworth. Is that an amendment to the Trading With the Enemy Act or the War Claims Act?

Mr. HAYWORTH. To the Trading With the Enemy Act.

The CHAIRMAN. You may do so, Mr. Hayworth. (Mr. Hayworth's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. DON HAYWORTH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS, FROM THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in your consideration of H. R. 6730, a bill to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, I urge that the bill be amended to include American-owned property located in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, that was nationalized or sustained war damage.

In previous hearings on foreign-claims legislation before the various congressional committees, the question was raised more than once as to why the three Baltic countries had not been included in the specific bills then under consideration. Representatives of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and the Department of State indicated that it had been a matter of oversight, despite the fact that the Department of State has notations of the following claims against these countries, totaling some $2,500,000:

Although the oversight was noted, no remedy was adopted, and these three countries are still ignored in legislation currently before us.

On behalf of those Americans who have legitimate claims in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, may I solicit your aid in correcting this inequity in the law by amending H. R. 6730 to include the Baltic countries?

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 6730, 84TH CONGRESS

There is attached to this memorandum a series of five proposed amendments to the bill, H. R. 6730, "A bill to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended, and the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended." H. R. 6730 proposes to authorize the limited return of certain German and Japanese assets, or the proceeds thereof, to their former owners and at the same time authorize the payment of certain World War II claims of American citizens from funds made available by the Federal Republic of Germany.

The purpose of the first three amendments is to bring within the German claims portion of the bill certain war damage claims by American citizens of losses attributable to German action in the countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on an equal basis with similar claims for such losses occurring in Albania, Austria, and other central European countries as now provided for in the bill.

Amendment No. 4 would add to the bill provisions setting up a claims program based upon the nationalization or other taking of American-owned property in these three Baltic countries utilizing assets of these countries, presently blocked in the United States, for the payment of such claims. It necessarily authorizes the vesting of title or ownership of such assets in the United States Government, as well as their liquidation and transfer of the liquidated proceeds thereof into three separate claims funds for each country. Provision is also necessarily made for the permanent appropriation of such funds for the payment of the claims which would be authorized by the amendment.

Amendment No. 5 is merely a technical amendment to section 211 of the bill governing the making of payments by the Secretary of the Treasury which is required by the addition of the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian claims programs.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 6730, 84TH CONGRESS

Amendment No. 1

Page 21, line 10: Amend section 201 (a) to read as follows:

"(a) ‘Albania', 'Austria', 'Czechoslovakia', 'Estonia', 'Germany', 'Latvia', 'Lithuania', 'Greece', 'Poland', and 'Yugoslavia', when used in their respective geographical senses, mean the territorial limits of each such country in continental Europe as such limits existed on December 1, 1937."

Amendment No. 2

Page 22, line 24: After the word "Czechoslovakia," insert the word "Estonia,”. Amendment No. 8

Page 22, line 25: After the word "Greece," insert the words "Latvia, Lithuania,”.

Amendment No. 4

Page 26, line 12: Section 203 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

"(f) (1) Losses resulting from the nationalization, compulsory liquidation, or other taking, prior to the effective date of this title, of property of nationals of the United States in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

"(2) Any property which was blocked in accordance with Executive Order 8389 of April 10, 1940, as amended, and remains blocked on the effective date of this title, and which, as of July 10, 1940, was owned directly or indirectly by Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania or by any national thereof as defined in such Executive order, shall vest in accordance with the provisions of title II of the International Claims Settlement Act of 1949, as amended, as if such provisions were applicable to the vesting and liquidation of the assets of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

"(3) There are hereby created in the Treasury of the United States three funds to be known as the Estonian Claims Fund, the Latvian Claims Fund, and the Lithuanian Claims Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury shall cover into each of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Claims Funds, the funds attributable to the respective country or its nationals covered into the Treasury pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection. The Secretary shall deduct from each Claims Fund five per centum thereof as reimbursement to the Government of the United States for the expenses incurred by the Commission and by the Treasury Department in the administration of this subsection. Such deductions shall be made before any payment is made out of such funds under section 211. All amounts so deducted shall be covered into the Treasury to the credit of miscellaneous receipts and are hereby permanently appropriated for the making of payments authorized under section 211 of this title."

Amendment No. 5

Page 30, line 17: After the word "title," insert the following words: “and out of the sums covered respectively into the funds created pursuant to subsection (f) of section 203 of this title, after making the deductions provided for in paragraph (3) of such subsection,".

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be happy next to hear from the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Albert Rains, in support of his bill, H. R. 169. (H. R. 169 follows:)

[H. R. 169, 84th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To amend the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928 so that certain awards of the Mixed Claims Commission having a residual balance of $15,000 or less will be paid in full immediately, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (8) of section 4 (c) of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, as amended, is amended to read as follows: "(8) (A) To pay an amount equal to the difference between

"(i) the aggregate payments authorized by subsections (b) and (c) of section 2 in respect of each award of the Mixed Claims Commission (and each assignment of such an award) not yet fully paid, and

"(ii) the total of all amounts previously paid in respect of such award or assignment,