were kept over there. They were almost as much a part of your armed forces as the veteran. These people were deliberately cut off from information that was being handed out to the American nationals in Japan and China, and Hawaii.

The people that you mentioned in Hawaii could have gotten out of there. They knew about it. But the reason they did not warn the people of the Philippines is very apparent. They wanted those people to be there, to sustain the morale of the Filipinos. They were awarded by the War Department certain ribbons for their fortitude and courage in connection with their contribution toward the success of the Philippine campaign.

I say they occupy a sort of semimilitary status.

Mr. HESELTON. I am not questioning the legitimacy of the claims of the people who are mentioned in the bill. But I am trying to get your view of Mr. Cutler's comment that the bills do seem to exclude other American nationals who suffered similar injuries elsewhere. Now, if I understood your reply correctly, you have no objection: to broadening the bill

Mr. McGowan. No.

Mr. HESELTON. To include those.

Mr. McGOWAN. No objection whatsoever.

Mr. HASELTON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. I am very sympathetic to seeing that something is done speedily for the clients you represent, but I confess that I am becoming more confused as the questioning goes on. Maybe my questions will further confuse the record. But I hope not. It is your contention that you have a claim against this $100,000,000 of assets taken from the Japs, but after all, is it not a fact that that $100,000,000 of assets belongs to the United States Government right now? Mr. McGowAN. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. What difference is there against a claim against that $100,000,000 and a claim against the Treasury? It is a part of the Treasury, as a matter of fact, is it not?

Mr. McGowan. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. Why should you be satisfied, or represent to the committee that you would be satisfied with a pro rata adjustment? If this is a just claim, and in my opinion it is, then why should you not come in with a claim and ask that your claim be paid out of the Treasury?

Mr. MCGOWAN. The reason is that if Japanese assets are not sufficient to pay these people, then use German assets.

Mr. MILLER. Why involve it with anybody's assets, other than the Treasury assets, if the German assets and Japanese assets that have been taken over belong to the Treasury?

I do not see why you put these claims against any particular assets. of the United States. That is what is confusing me.

Mr. McGowAN. We desire Japanese assets be earmarked to pay these claims because of the superior equities of our claims against the Japanese.

Mr. MILLER. Why not avoid that by not getting involved in it at all? Come in with a claim, a claim that I certainly think is legitimate, from what I have learned about it, and the fact that there was a reason for those people being there.

I am wondering if on top of page 6 when you say "for political reasons" do you mean political reasons or was it military reasons? Mr. MCGOWAN. Military security.

Mr. MILLER. There was no politics involved?

Mr. MCGOWAN. All military.

Mr. MILLER. Would it not be better in the record to have that word "military"

Mr. MCGOWAN. That is an extract from Mr. Grew's statement. Mr. MILLER. I am sorry; you are correct. I missed that point. Do I understand in the questioning that has taken place, it is not your contention that your claims are on the same basis exactly as the claims of servicemen of the armed forces?

Mr. MCGOWAN. No. The position that I take is pretty close to them because they occupied a semimilitary status, that is these internees did, They have ribbons awarded to them by the War Department for their fortitude and courage, and possess military ribbons awarded to them by the Philippine Government for having so materially contributed to the success of the Philippine campaign.

Mr. MILLER. I am not quarreling with you. In fact, I want to go further and faster than this legislation provides.

Mr. MCGOWAN. I am comparing them with the armed services because they performed a service similar to the veterans in the armed services.

Mr. MILLER. I agree with you to quite some extent. What I am trying to do is see if we can suggest some way in which we can get relief to them faster without involving the question of reparations or assets of Japan or anything else.

It is all going to come out of the taxpayer's pocket anyway. If you take the $100,000,000 of assets and dispose of them, use it for this purpose, we will not use other money. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers are going to pay it, and I think we will willingly pay it.

I would like to suggest that I would like to see it brought in as a meritorious claim against the Treasury as a part of the cost of war, and meet it face on.

Mr. McGowan. According to House Report No. 17, Seventieth Congress, accompanying H. R. 7201, providing for the settlement of claims of American nationals against Germany, World War I, you will find this statement on page 3 thereof:

One of the principal objections to all former plans was that they involved a special appropriation beyond any liability of our Government.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if it would be possible, even in the short 10 minutes remaining, to have some of these people who were mistreated by the Japanese to testify, maybe two or three of them. I am not trying to tell the chairman how to run this committee at all, but I am just wondering if that would be possible.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman wishes to assure the gentleman that we all would be pleased to be directed by the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BECKWORTH. Not at all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Our thoughts are in accord. I had in mind that we would hold a committee hearing until 12: 30, hoping that we would have an opportunity to hear some of those witnesses to whom Mr.

Beckworth has referred. If we do not, we will then strive to have a session at 2 o'clock. That will depend somewhat upon the business in the House and whether we obtain the necessary permission.

I am inclined to think that that permission will be granted, under the circumstances that exist, namely, the bringing of many witnesses here from long distances. It is the desire of the committee to inconvenience them as little as possible, so it is my desire to hear them just as quickly and as soon as we can.

I think we have about ended our questioning of Mr. McGowan. Mr. Harless, do you wish to question him any further?

Mr. HARLESS. Just one point I want to clear up.

Mr. McGowan, you made the statement that you had felt the internees should be paid for the losses of their earnings. Is it not true that many of the people who were interned were employees of large corporations and have already been paid the losses of their earnings by those various corporations?

Mr. McGowAN.. Very few.

Mr. HARLESS. Very few have been?

Mr. McGOWAN. Yes.

Mr. HARLESS. How would you distinguish between those people? Mr. McGowan. If they have been paid by their employers they would be unable to prove impairment of earning capacity to the extent of that amount which they have received.

Mr. HARLESS. Thank you.

Mr. McGowAN. It would be deducted from their claim.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elsaesser?

Mr. ELSAESSER. I would like to ask Mr. McGowan this: Did I understand you correctly when you said that the nationals in Japan and Hawaii had been warned? That was in answer to a question by Mr. Heselton.

Mr. McGOWAN. I presume that the people in Hawaii knew as much about what was going on as those to whom Mr. Grew refers in his statement, whom he said had been warned to get out of Europe and other parts of the world.

Mr. ELSAESSER. I believe, Mr. McGowan, you stated that this information as to true conditions was withheld from your group in the Philippines.

Mr. McGowAN. Yes.

Mr. ELSAESSER. While at the same time nationals in Japan and Hawaii had been given notice and had been given the opportunity to

move.

Mr. MCGOWAN. I would not be sure about Hawaii.

Mr. ELSAESSER. You did not mean that with respect to Hawaii? Mr. MCGOWAN. No. I will take that back. I do not know a thing about Hawaii.

Mr. ELSAESSER. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sadowski?

Mr. SADOWSKI. Pursuing the question that was raised by Congressman Miller, I assume that the reason that you are trying to collect these claims from the Property Custodian by means of the Hinshaw and Beckworth bills, is because it is the easiest way to get the money. If you had to file through the Treasury it would mean you would have to go through the Appropriations Committee then

you would have to buck up against Mr. Taber, and you would probably have a hard time getting it.

Mr. McGowan. Another thing is we would probably go before a committee that was not as sympathetic as this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I think most of us are aware it is a new experience where you have difficulty getting money out of the United States Government.

Are there any further questions?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say, Mr. McGowan, that the Hinshaw bill relates only to damages incurred on American soil! Mr. McGowan. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What about American ships?

We fought the War of 1812 with the idea that every deck over which flew the American flag was American territory. It may not be soil, but it is certainly territory.

Mr. McGowan. It was held in cases, I believe, claims against Germany, World War I, that if an American citizen lost his life on a ship that possessed some kind of a naval or military status, he could not recover against Germany.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any type of damage under either of these bills that could be recovered

Mr. McGowan. I know the group that you have reference to. The ships that were sunk, we would like to see the victims taken care of some way in the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I was only directing my question as to whether the bill included it, or not. Of course, I realize the committee will determine the policy whether it should be included or not. Does it intend to include those cases?

Mr. MCGOWAN. The bill as presently drafted does not include those on ships. However, members of the American Merchant Marine Service have been taken care of to some extent by Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. I wish for the purpose of the record to make a comment with respect to the question that was asked by Mr. Dolliver. It would seem to be assumed by him, in asking the question, that the Department of Justice, based upon a statement made by Mr. Cutler here this morning, favored the payment of claims out of the Treasury of the United States Government. I have read the statement made by Mr. Cutler and I can see where language has been used that might create that thought, although taking the doctrine as a while I do not believe that it was the intention of the Department of Justice to indicate any such policy. I thought it would be well to make that fact plain.

Are there any further questions, gentlemen?
Mr. CROSSER. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crosser.

Mr. CROSSER. Mr. McGowan, I noticed, in your response to Mr. Harless' question, it was to the effect that some of the people have been paid by their employers, and would not expect to be given any consideration here.

Mr. MCGOWAN. I did not say that. I said this, if I recall my answer: That whatever their employers had paid them would be deductible from the claim they had.

Mr. CROSSER. If they paid them in full, they would not have any claim?

Mr. McGOWAN. Insofar as wages are concerned. But they would have a claim for personal injuries.

Mr. CROSSER. Whatever they would pay them in the wages?

Mr. McGOWAN. In the way of wages, yes.

Mr. CROSSER. Would you expect the employer to subjugate them to their rights?

Mr. MCGOWAN. I would say, yes.

Mr. CROSSER. That is all.

Mr. SADOWSKI. I have one more question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sadowski.

Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. McGowan, do you know how much money the Alien Property Custodian turned back to Germany after the First World War, after the claims had been paid?

Mr. McGOWAN. The Alien Property Custodian at one time held $750,000,000 of German assets during the period of World War I. By the time they got around to paying the awards and holding 20 ̊ percent, there was little of that original $750,000,000 remaining in our possession.

The first bill that was passed was known as the Winslow bill. Mr. Winslow was a member of this committee, in 1922, I believe it was, introduced a bill restoring $10,000 to each person whose property had been seized; and that was the start of the vanishing point of the German assets which was ultimately reached in 1928.

Mr. SADOWSKI. Were any claims of this nature as contemplated in these bills taken care of out of that fund after the first World War? Mr. McGowAN. Yes. In this way: There was no German property actually used to pay anybody's claim. We held it as collateral or security. No bill passed that actually confiscated the property. The effect has been we have confiscated it because we have held it for, now, going on 20 years. It do not think there is any intention of restoring it.

That amount of Germans assets seized during World War I that we now have is about $65,000,000.

Mr. HARRIS. In that connection, then, what happened, I assume, was that a big part of the money taken over by the Alien Property Custodian, that was German property, went back to the Germans?

Mr. McGowan. Oh, Yes. In very smart ways they got it back. I knew something about the history of the legislation because I had some cases pending. And I fought against it being returned.

Mr. HARRIS. It occurs to me that it might be timely to consider the fact that if we no not try to take care of some of these people, our own people, that they may try to get some of this property back.

Mr. McGowAN. Yes. That was some of the difficulty we had; they started to get back part of the $750,000,000 immediately after the end of World War I. They were successful too and obtained it all except less than 10 percent of that sum.

Mr. SADOWSKI. I imagine Mr. Beckworth would like to take care of our people first.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Yes. That is the very purpose of the bill I introduced about 2 years ago.

Mr. MCGOWAN. At this point I submit my statement in writing.