Mr. COLLIER. What year?

Mr. BONYNGE. 1922; and the time expired on April 9, 1923. Of ourse, you gentlemen understand that we can not extend that time, or can Congress. It can only be done by a modification of the xisting agreement of both Governments, the Government of Gernany and that of the United States. There is no legislation that can lo that.

Mr. COLLIER. This limitation was the result of an agreement between the commissions?

Mr. BONYNGE. No; between the two Governments, by an exchange of notes, prior to the execution of the agreement of August 10, 1922, providing for the creation of this commission.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Before the commission was created-in fact, before there had been any discussion as to the manner in which these laims might considered, a large number of people wrote letters to he State Department

Mr. BONYNGE (interposing). Thousands.

Mr. CHINDBLOM (continuing). And they wrote to Congressmen and Senators, and they, in turn, transmitted these letters to the State Department.

Mr. BONYNGE. Thousands of them.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. My understanding is that when the commission was created, the State Department, or your commission, notified every person who had in any way communicated with the State Department.

Mr. BONYNGE. Absolutely; and that is why we have so many of these claims in the unknown-address file, of people who thought they had claims. Wherever there was a letter of any kind sent to the Department of State indicating that a party thought they had a claim those letters were turned over to the agency, which communicated immediately by telegraph in many cases to them when the time was expiring, telling them that if they had a claim they should file it before April 9, 1923.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. I personally recall getting answers from the State Department to the effect that while they had no machinery for the claims they would advise me when machinery was set up. They had a file in the State Department for that particular purpose. Mr. BONYNGE. They had a regular form letter.

Mr. COLLIER. Do you know of any large claims that are in this category?

Mr. BONYNGE. No; I do not think any of them are very large. The statement that I made showed that most of them were for bonds. Mr. HAWLEY. A number were on account of depreciation of the mark.

Mr. BONYNGE. Marks and bonds, and some estates-half a million in estates. Then there are some for bank deposits, bonds, debts, requisitions, war damages, and submarine warfare, of which there is $211,000, a total that I have figured of $3,772,000.

Mr. COLLIER. Most of my correspondence has been on bonds. So you say that the estimated amount is between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000?

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand, the commission did not consider that it had jurisdiction of any claims made on bonds or for depreciation of the mark.

Mr. BONYNGE. Oh, yes; on bonds under certain circumstances. The bonds that matured and the interest that matured on bonds during the period of belligerency come within the jurisdiction of the commission as debts, which are those valorized. In case the bonds were in Germany during the time the exceptional war mea-ures of Germany were in effect and it can be shown that damage resulted from the exceptional war measures, the claimant is entitled not to the face value of the bonds but to such damages as he can establish in accordance with the rules of the commission resulted from the application of the exceptional war measure to his bonds. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that; but there was a certain class of bonds that I did not have an opportunity to describe, where a person had purchased German bonds

Mr. BONYNGE (interposing). Most people where they filed a claim for bonds filed a claim for what they paid for the bonds, and they expected the Government of the United States to get an award for them for the amount paid by them for the bonds. There is no authority for that in the treaty at all. If the bond matured, it became a debt the same as any other debt, and they get an award for that debt. If the exceptional war measures resulted in damages to their bonds, then they get not the value of the bonds but the damages that they establish resulted from the application of the exceptional war measure, and that damage is measured by the difference between the value of the bond at the time the exceptional war measure was applied to it and the time when the exceptional war measure was repealed. The loss between those two times, if they establish it was due to the exceptional war measure, they get by way of damages.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me put a concrete case to you, so that we will understand the procedure of the commission. Assuming that a person, before the United States got into the war, had purchased German bonds, and that was the basis of his claim, what action did the commission take with reference to such a case as that?

Mr. BONYNGE. In the first place, we would find out whether the bond matured before July 2, 1921, and all the interest coupons there were on the bonds that matured before that time that had not been paid. If the bond matured, he had to file his bond with us, and on all coupons that matured up to July 2, 1921, he got an award for them valorized. If the bond had not matured, then we ascertained whether or not the bonds were in Germany during the time the exceptional war measures of Germany were in effect. If they were in Germany during that time, all such bonds were said to have been subjected to the exceptional war measures of Germany, but the fact that they were so subjected did not necessarily entitle a claimant to an award. He would then have to prove that damage resulted to him by reason of the exceptional war measures.

The Anglo-German Arbitral Tribunal held that a claimant would have to establish, in order to prove damages, that he made some effort to get his bonds out of Germany, for the purpose of sale and exchange, and was prevented from so doing by the exceptional war

measures.

We have liberalized that rule, and have provided that if from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the reasonable inference to be drawn by the commission is that he would have withdrawn his bonds for sale or exchange but for the exceptional war measure, then he is entitled to an award for the damages that he sustained by reason of the exceptional war measure. Mr. CHINDBLOM. A very liberal rule.

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes, it is; and yet it has not resulted in a very large number of awards, because in most of the cases the evidence hows that they would have left their bonds in Germany anyway. The CHAIRMAN. Assume that instead of purchasing the bonds they purchased marks and then made a claim for damages.

Mr. BONYNGE. No award has been made for marks, but if he deposited his marks in a bank before April 6, 1917, he would be entitled to an award for his bank balance valorized into dollars.

Mr. WATSON. Have you a statement of the amount of German bonds held in America?

Mr. BONYNGE. No.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Did you get many claims for bonds purchased after the declaration of war with Germany but before we got into the war?

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes; a large number of them.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. When were they usually due?

Mr. BONYNGE. The peculiar characteristic of the German bond is that it has no absolute due date. It may be called by the German Government after a certain period of time, but it goes on indefinitely if the German Government does not call it.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. So they did not fall due during the war? Mr. BONYNGE. No; except a few bonds of private corporations. Mr. COLLIER. Here is another concrete case brought to my attention. Before the war an American citizen bought $40,000 of German bonds. They never matured during the war period at all. As I understand it, he had them brought over, and he could not do anything over here.

Mr. BONYNGE. If he had them brought here they were not subjected to the exceptional war measures of Germany. We can not do anything for him except with respect to coupons on those bonds that matured, and we can give him an award on those.

Mr. COLLIER. And you can not give him any award for the depreciation in the value of that bond?

Mr. BONYNGE. No, sir. Many of the claimants seem to think that if they can show that they sustained a loss as a result of the war that they are entitled to an award, and I am not surprised that some of them come to that conclusion, because there is one section of the treaty that provides that Germany admits its responsibility for the war and for all the losses as a consequence of the war, but another section of the treaty provides that the allied and associated powers, recognizing that the German resources are not sufficient to meet all the losses that arise as a consequence of the war, they should be liable for certain losses; and then there is specified the kind of losses that they should be liable for, and when a claimant files a claim he not only has to prove he has sustained a loss, but he has to prove

that the sustained loss is such a loss as Germany has to pay for unde the Berlin treaty.

It is very difficult to make some claimants and some of their a torneys understand that, and after living with that treaty as I have for three or four years, I can understand their difficulty, because the longer I go over this treaty of peace the more I think the treat of peace in some respects is like the peace of God, "It passeth al understanding."

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Are you speaking now of the treaty of Versailles which in part is incorporated into the treaty of Berlin?

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I find that most of them who purchased wr bonds think they are entitled to the principal.

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes, they want back all they paid for then, wo interest.

The CHAIRMAN. That is something that the commission has neve recognized?

Mr. BONYNGE. No, sir.

Mr. COLLIER. If a man in this country bought German bonds af Germany entered the war, you never recognized those at all? Mr. BONYNGE. Oh, yes or do you mean after we entered t war?

Mr. COLLIER. Before we entered the war.

Mr. BONYNGE. Oh, yes.

Mr. COLLIER. And after Germany entered the war, and you did: on the presumption

Mr. BONYNGE (interposing). We have recognized them to the extent of any coupons that matured, or, if they were bonds that we detained in Germany by exceptional war measures, and the claimants can show that he would have taken those bonds out or exchanged them, except for the exceptional war measures or facts or circumstances from which this inference may be drawn, then we give hir such damages as he proves resulted from the exceptional war meas

ures.

Mr. COLLIER. Though at the time he had knowledge of the fac that the war was going on?

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes. But we were neutrals then. Is there any thing else the committee desires?

Mr. HAWLEY. In your action on the bonds you followed the un versal rule that a corporation or a government or a municipality o any other government agency authorized to issue bonds does, that does not guarantee the value at any time except at the due date! Mr. BONYNGE. That is all. I thank you, sir.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Just one more question. My recollection is the those war bonds did not provide for payment in gold marks. Mr. BONYNGE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the general provision?

Mr. BONYNGE. Payable in marks.

The CHAIRMAN. Just payable in marks?

Mr. BONYNGE. Yes.

(The statements referred to by Mr. Bonynge are as follows:)