Mr. PEASLEE. Because these figures are the amounts which were actually paid out of the treasury in the form of cash or bonds. They did not take into account the liquidated German property.

In England the entire proceeds of the liquidated German property were applied to the property damage claims and that was in excess of the amount paid by the royal commission, to which reference has been made in the hearings here.

Mr. GARNER. How much was the liquidation of the German property in England?

Mr. PEASLEE. That, sir, is given in the report of the comptroller of the clearing office up to September 25, 1925, as £78,150,074. Mr. GARNER. You say that entire amount has been paid out to individuals who had claims against Germany?

Mr. PEASLEE. It is my understanding, sir, that it has, and also that England made a separate treaty providing for the recovery of any

excess.

Mr. GARNER. I want to say that my understanding is and I think I have it from the very best authority, which will be produced later that England has expended less than $25,000,000, to be accurate, £5,000,000, in the payment of reparation claims, and that those claims have been confined to those who really needed the money. Mr. PEASLEE. The facts, as we understand them, are that that £78,150,074, includes the debts due the citizens of Great Britain, but such claims are also included in these Mixed Claims Commission awards.

Mr. GARNER. You are talking about the clearing-house system that was set up among the Allies?

Mr. PEASLEE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GARNER. I do not know anything about that. I am speaking of the money paid by the Government of Great Britain to their nationals, and the information I have that it is about £5,000,000 and that the money was paid to those who really needed it as an economic problem.

Mr. PEASLEE. There were some additional sums paid by the Royal Commission of $5,300,000.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Mr. Chairman, this leads me to this suggestion, if the gentleman will permit me, that when people appear before us and give facts it will be much more valuable to us to have the sources of their information in the record.

Mr. PEASLEE. I was about to suggest that I submit this letter for the record, which contains the references. I can leave it for the

record.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. If you will just put it into the record that will be

sufficient.

Mr. PEASLEE. I can give the references as I go along. The reference for the first figures was the Documents Parlementaire Chambres, of France, annex 537, 1925, page 2109. The second is the Fifth ual Report of the comptroller of the clearing office of Great Britain, 1925, page 6. you propose to submit all the papers and documents you have there? Mr. PEASLEE. This is a letter to the chairman of the committee. That is for you gentlemen to determine.

Italy applied the proceeds of the liquidation of German property, which was estimated at the time of its sequestration in December. 1918, at 4,000,000,000 lire, or the equivalent, on the basis of the value of the lira at that time, of about $600,000,000. Italy also paid from its Government treasury for civil property damage claims up to August 20, 1925, approximately 919,000,000 lire or the equivalent at the rate of exchange when these payments were made of about $100,000,000.

Belgium, according to a general résumé of its then Foreign Minister of Finance, up to October 22, 1924, had paid out of its 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 considerably in excess of $500,000,000.

The German estimates of the total value of its liquidated property in foreign countries, its enemy countries, was 11,700,000,000 gold marks, the equivalent of $2,925,000,000. That is taken from the Government's White Book, referred to in Le Temps, May 6, 1922, and Economic Review, volume 5, 659.

If we take as an estimate of what was liquidated by France, Great Britain, Italy, and Belgium half of that sum, or $1,500,000,000, that will give us figures for the total amounts which have been paid by the four principal allied governments, including both the liquidation of German property and out of the treasuries in cash or bonds, to be applied to similar damage claims, of somewhere between five and seven billion dollars, of which sum between three and a half and five and a half billion dollars, or the equivalent of that, represents direct payments of cash or government bonds for the benefit of their private citizens.

The second point to which I wanted to refer is the action of the United States after the Spanish-American War and the Mexican War.

The CHAIRMAN. Before you take that up, referring to these figures you have just introduced, that is not a matter before the committee.

Mr. PEASLEE. They have been called for once or twice in the hearings, and I thought they might be of interest.

Mr. GARNER. Your claimants take the position that this Government should pay outright from the Treasury the amounts of awards made by the commission?

Mr. PEASLEE. I do, sir; and I do for this reason: I take the position that whatever stated amount is required to be paid should be paid immediately, because, Mr. Garner, these claims which have been awarded by the Mixed Claims Commission represent the simmering down of a good many claims, and they represent the minimum of claims for damages which were borne by private citizens for the benefit of the entire country. This was a war fought for the people of the United States as a whole. The opening sentence of the French law of war damages that was passed in April, 1919, says:

The Republic proclaims the equal and united obligation of the whole French people with respect to the damages of the war.

Now, sir, I take that position perfectly squarely. A number of these claims arose during the period of neutrality, and they were

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 yleral 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,