8, 1927, at which time he was residing with his wife and daughter at Saugerties, N. Y. The records show that he was naturalized on June 7, 1927. It appears that Mr. Bennink has lost his United States citizenship through the operation of section 404 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940 (8 U. S. Č. 804 (b)), which provides that a person who has become a national by naturalization shall lose his nationality by residing continuously for 3 years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national or in which the place of his birth is situated, unless such person comes within one of the exceptions set forth in section 406 of that act. The files of this Department do not disclose the reason for which Mr. Bennink returned to Holland or what circumstances prevented his departure from that country before he became expatriated. There have not been any facts adduced to justify granting the extraordinary relief proposed. Accordingly, this Department is unable to recommend the enactment of the bill. Yours sincerely, PEYTON FORD, The below-quoted letter from Mr. Bennink, dated March 8, 1948, addressed to the Senate Judiciary Committee, discloses the type of work Mr. Bennink is engaged in and the reasons for his absence from the United States: 'T AMERIKAANSCHE MAISHUIS, Apeldoorn, Holland, March 8, 1948. Bill S. 1982 (Bennink). SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, United States Senate, Washington, D. C., United States of America: HONORABLE SIRS: Via Senator Brien McMahon I have been advised that abovementioned bill, designed to seek restoration of my status as member of the American Nation, will sooner or later come upon your desk for hearings. There is nothing special I wish to bring to the fore in your committee with the exception that if there is anything I could be of assistance to you, in the way of additional information or otherwise, please will know that I will do my utmost to aid you in your task. I appreciate so sincerely the aid I have received in my plight from Senators and friends, that it is the very least I can do from afar to help you to the utmost to understand this peculiar case. Several Americans, residing at home, do know my work here and can give you information should you desire them. Mr. Quinton Reynolds, general manager of Eastern States Farmer's Exchange, West Springfield, Mass, has personally seen my work in Holland. Prof. N. P. Neal, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.; Prof. R. M. Bailey, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; and Prof. William Wiidakas, agronomist, North Dakota Agricultural College, Fargo, N. Dak., are the three Americans who know at present exactly just how important a work I am doing in this season of 1948, for they have supplied me with hybrid foundation stock which I aim to multiply here this year for thousands of farmers looking desperate for seed corn. Prof. R. G. Wiggans, professor of plant breeding, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y., can tell you just what research work I carry out for him this year at Apeldoorn. Mr. Ellis S. Middelton, 1937 West Main Street, Stamford, Conn., also Mr. William F. Berghold, editor, the Rural New Yorker, 333 West Thirtieth Street, New York City, can give you their opinion of me as man and social worker I am not a "runaway American" for which the Nationality Act of 1940 was largely designed, but as destiny would have it I was charged with a mission as food grower, right in my "country of birth" which I could not forsake when my time limit expired. In two more seasons I hope to have my task finished here as pioneer, and then I sail homeward again—and gladly. Most respectfully yours. HERMAN A. BENNINK. The committe, after consideration of all the facts in the case, is of the opinion that the bill (S. 624) should be enacted and it therefore accordingly so recommends its enactment. Mr. MCCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT (To accompany S. 633 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 633) for the relief of Rachel D. Gattegno, having considered the same, do now report the bill to the Senate favorably, without amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the amount of $3,000 to Rachel D. Gattegno, of Salonika, Greece, in full settlement of all claims against the United States, on account of the death of her husband, as the result of a rifle shot accidently fired by a guard at a United States military camp in French Morocco. STATEMENT Attached hereto and made a part of this report is a letter received from the Department of the Army, which sets forth in detail the facts in this case. Hon. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, JANUARY 14, 1949. Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: There is enclosed herewith a draft of a bill to authorize the payment of the sum of $3,000 to Rachel D. Gattegno, 9 Chrisostomos Smirnis Street, Salonika, Greece, as damages on account of the death of her husband, David Gattegno, who lost his life as the result of a wound received from a bullet fired by a guard at a military camp controlled by the United States Army. The Department of the Army recommends that this bill be enacted into law. The records of the Department of the Army show that the claimant is a Spanish citizen and the widow of David Gattegno. Mr. Gattegno was born in Salonika, Greece, on August 28, 1872, of Spanish parents, and was a Spanish citizen by birth, being recognized as such by the Spanish consul at Salonika where his birth was recorded in the official register of Spanish citizens. The evidence shows that Mr. Gattegno was a printer by trade and that prior to the beginning of World War II he resided in Greece. He was interned by the Axis Powers during the war. In 1944, after the conquest of north Africa by the Allied Powers, Mr. Gattegno was given refuge at the north African refugee center, Fedhala, French Morocco, and in July 1944 he was temporarily residing at such refugee center, which was located within a military camp controlled by the United States Army. The camp was guarded by Italian prisoners of war under the control of a provost marshal of the United States Army. On the night of July 4, 1944, while one of the guards was off duty and cleaning his rifle the rifle was accidentally discharged and the bullet struck Mr. Gattegno while he was asleep in his tent, severely wounding him. The wound received by Mr. Gattegno resulted in his death on the following day. The evidence presented to the Department of the Army further shows that Mr. Gattegno's earnings prior to his internment by the Axis Powers amounted to approximately $750 per annum. As the decedent was a refugee he had no earnings at the time of his death. It appears that the decedent was in good health in July 1944, and that had he lived without injury he would have been able at the end of the war to return to work at his trade. Mrs. Rachel D. Gattegno filed a claim against the United States in the amount of $9,000 for damages on account of the death of her husband. The claim was disapproved on June 2, 1948, on the ground that there was no statute available to the Department of the Army under which it could be administratively settled. The claim is not payable under the act of July 3, 1943 (57 Stat. 372; 31 U. S. C. 223b), as amended, for the reason that that act only authorizes the payment of medical, hospital, and burial expenses actually incurred, and no such expenses were incurred by the claimant in this case. The claim cannot be settled under the Foreign Claims Act (55 Stat. 889), as amended (57 Stat. 66), for the reason that the decedent was not an inhabitant of the country in which his death occurred. The claim is not cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act, as revised and codified in the act of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 983; 28 U. S. C. 2672), because that act specifically provides that it shall be inapplicable to claims arising in a foreign country. The claimant appealed from the decision disapproving her claim to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, who, on October 15, 1948, sustained the previous action of the Department in disapproving the claim for administrative settlement. The Assistant Secretary, however, directed that action be initiated for the introduction of special legislation for the relief of Mrs. Gattegno in the amount of $3,000 for damages on account of the death of her husband, provided, that she first agreed to accept that amount in full satisfaction and final settlement of all claims against the United States on account of his death. On November 14, 1948, the claimant executed an acceptance agreement in which she agreed to accept the sum of $3,000 in full satisfaction and final settlement of all claims against the United States on account of the death of her husband, which agreement was filed with the Department of the Army on November 29, 1948. The evidence clearly establishes that the death of David Gattegno was not caused by any fault or negligence on his part but was caused solely by the negligence of a guard at a United States Army camp in so handling his loaded rifle that it was accidentally discharged. Such guard was at the time an agent of the United States serving under the supervision and control of an officer of the United States Army. He was not engaged on combat activity. The Department of the Army, therefore, believes that Mrs. Gattegno should be compensated in a reasonable amount for the death of her husband. Considering the age, occupation, and physical condition of David Gattegno on July 4, 1944, and the prior earnings received by him, it is the view of the Department of the Army that an award to Mrs. Gattegno in the amount of $3,000 would constitute a fair and reasonable settlement for all of the damages sustained as the result of the death of her husband. A similar bill was enacted by the Congress for the relief of the estate of Frederick Calvert, a British subject, who was killed in Iceland on November 14, 1942, in an accident involving an Army vehicle (59 Stat. 749). The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of the proposed bill for the consideration of the Congress. Sincerely yours, O KENNETH C. ROYALL, Mr. MCCARRAN, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT 'To accompany S. 634 The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (S. 634) to authorize payment of certain claims for damage to or loss or destruction of property and personal injury arising from activities of the Army, having considered the same, do now report the bill to the Senate favorably, without amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide for the payment of certain claims which cannot be administratively settled by the Department of the Army, but which have been determined by the Department to be meritorious and worthy of payment. STATEMENT Attached hereto and made a part of this report is a letter received from the Department of the Army, which sets forth in detail the facts in this case. Hon. MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate. JANUARY 11, 1949 DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: There is enclosed herewith a draft of a bill to provide for the payment of certain claims for damage to, or loss or destruction of, property and personal injury arising out of activities of the Army. which the Department of the Army recommends be enacted into law. The purpose of the proposed bill is to provide for the payment of certain claims which cannot be administratively settled by the Department of the Army, but which have been determined by the Department to be meritorious and worthy of payment. There is also enclosed herewith a memorandum setting forth the pertinent facts concerning each of the claims referred to in the proposed bill. S. Repts., 81-1, vol. 1- -47 The claims enumerated in the bill are not cognizable under the provisions of the act of July 3, 1943 (57 Stat. 372; 31 U. S. C. 223b), as amended, since they arose prior to May 27, 1941, and since that act provides only for the payment of claims arising on or after said date. The proposed legislation, if enacted, will in effect restore to the claimants-as to property damage-the remedy they had under the act of December 28, 1922 (42 Stat. 1066; 31 U. S. C. 215), which, through no fault on their part, was rendered no longer available to them by the enactment of the act of July 3, 1943, supra, said act having provided that the act of December 28, 1922, "shall hereafter be inapplicable to the War Department." As to the claim of Albert E. Drecoll for personal injury, the claimant would have had a remedy under the act of July 3, 1943, had such claim accrued on or after May 27, 1941. The claimants have no remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act as codified by the act of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 983; 28 U. S. C. 2672). for the reason that these claims arose prior to January 1, 1945. Bills similar to the proposed legislation have been enacted by the Congress. (See Private Law 101, 79th Cong., approved June 11, 1945, 59 Stat. 724; and Private Law 259, 79th Cong., approved Nov. 14, 1945, 59 Stat. 791.) The total cost of the bill, if enacted, will be $3,718.54. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of the proposed bill for the consideration of the Congress Sincerely yours, KENNETH C. ROYALL, MEMORANDUM OF FACTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS REFERRED TO IN THE PROPOSED BILL TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO OR LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AND PERSONAL INJURY ARISING FROM ACTIVITIES OF THE ARMY There are submitted below a list of the claimants included in the proposed bill and brief statements of the facts out of which their claims arise: 1. Henry W. Brooks, Warren, Vt. On July 29, 1940, an enlisted man operating an Army command car on official business lost control of the vehicle, which thereupon skidded across the highway to its left and collided with the oncoming automobile of the claimant, damaging the latter vehicle in the amount of $360. Amount claimed, $360; amount reported, $360. 2. T. N. Carlton, Rural Free Delivery No. 1, Wauchula, Fla. On March 22, 1941, an Army truck, operated by an enlisted man on official business, was making a left turn at an intersection. In an effort to avoid striking an unidentified civilian vehicle the Army driver swerved his truck abruptly to his left, whereupon it collided with the parked automobile of the claimant, damaging it in the amount of $250. Amount claimed, $275; amount reported, $250. 3. Melvin B. Clark, Mankato, Minn. On August 18, 1938, a Government truck, operated by an enrollee of the Civilian Conservation Corps on official business, collided, while crossing a bridge, with the claimant's automobile, which was proceeding in the opposite direction. The evidence showed that the Government vehicle was being operated partly to its left of the center line of the bridge. The claimant's car was damaged in the amount of $32. Amount claimed, $142; amount reported, $32. 4. Paul A. Davis, Rural Free Delivery No. 3, Sylvan Hills, North Little Rock, Ark. On or about January 1, 1941, the claimant leased a tract of land to the Government. During the period between January 3, and February 17, 1941, Army personnel, acting within the scope of their employment, tortiously removed 34 yards of flagstone of the value of $255 from the leased premises, for which the claimant has not been compensated. Amount claimed, $255; amount reported, $255. 5. Albert E. Drecoll, Libertyville, Ill. On March 1, 1941, an Army truck, operated by an enlisted man on official business, entered an intersection against a red traffic light and crashed into the claimant's automobile, which had properly entered the intersection on a green light. The claimant sustained injuries for the treatment of which he incurred medical and hospital expenses in the amount of $63.25 Amount claimed, $98.25; amount reported, $63.25. 6. E. H. Ferguson, Rantoul, Ill. On January 25, 1941, an enlisted man, while operating an Army truck on official business, and while his windshield was partly |