CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - SENATE

panying bill, referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary and ordered to be

printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval

Senate bill 153, a bill for the relief of

Wilhelm Engelbert.

This measure would grant the status

of lawful permanent residence in the

United States to Mr. Engelbert upon payment of the required visa fee.

Mr. Engelbert is a native and citizen

of Germany who was born in Dortmund,

Westphalia, on July 27, 1905. He entered the United States illegally on December 31, 1926, as a deserting seaman,

with the intention of remaining here

permanently.

Between 1926 and the outbreak of

World War 11 in 1939, the alien did nothing to regularize his status in the United

States. In fact, according to the record

set forth in the committees' reports upon

this bill, his actions indicate clearly that

he thought of himself as a German and

showed his allegiance time and again as that of a German national.

After the United States entered World

War II, Mr. Engelbert was interned as an

enemy alien. He remained an internee

until July 1, 1948. In due course a warrant for his deportation to Germany was

issued in 1943. This warrant, issued on

grounds of illegal entry, was outstanding

at the time of his release from alien

enemy proceedings. Applications for reconsideration and reopening of the deportation hearings have been denied by

the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Although it appears that to a certain

extent Mr. Engelbert's motives in becoming a member of the Nazi Party, registering for service in the German Army,

equipping himself with German money

to defray the cost of a trip to Germany,

and other acts demonstrating allegiance

to Germany, may have been dictated by a

desire to assist his mother and to obtain

legal entry into the United States, the

fact remains that he did nothing to regularize his status for some 12 years. Furthermore, from 1939 until the end of

World War II there is nothing in the

record of this case to indicate that Mr.

Engelbert showed real willingness to accept the responsibilities of a permanent

resident of the United States. On the

contrary, he sought repatriation to Germany during the war and it was not until

after victory had been assured in Europe

in 1945 that he withdrew his application

and requested adjustment of his immigration status.

Under these circumstances, I see no

basis for setting aside the requirements

of the immigration law.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 17, 1954.

MRS. MARGARETH WEIGAND-VETO

MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 105)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before

the Senate the following message from

the President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying.

bill, referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary and ordered to be printed:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, the enrolled bill (S. 502) for the

relief of the estate of Mrs. Margareth

Weigand.

Kurt P. Weigand, the son of Margareth Weigand and a German citizen

resident in the United States, was interned in 1942 as an enemy alien. Following his release from parole in 1945,

he died in Fargo, N. Dak., by accidental

drowning. Owing to his coverage under

the Social Security Act, his mother, a

resident and citizen of Germany, became

entitled to a lump sum death benefit

award. The amount of the award was

vested in the Attorney General by Vesting Order 17973, dated May 31, 1951,

which was issued in accordance with the

provisions of the Trading With the

Enemy Act. This bill would provide for

the return of the amount so vested to

the estate of Mrs. Margareth Weigand.

Mrs. Weigand was alive at the date of

issuance of the vesting order.

Section 39 of the Trading With the

Enemy Act, as amended, in general prohibits the return of property or interests

in property vested from nationals of

Germany or Japan unless such nationals

are eligible for return under the provisions of section 32 of the act. Mrs.

Weigand did not file a claim under section 32 for return of the amount vested,

and the record contains no indication

that she would have been eligible for

return. Her ineligibility would disqualify

her successors in interest. If ineligible,

the enactment of the bill would authorize

the transfer of the property to the beneficiaries of her estate contrary to existing general law.

Moreover, even if these beneficiaries

were eligible for the return of the property, this bill would bestow a preference

on them by setting aside the claims procedures prescribed by general law.

There is no apparent reason for singling

out the beneficiaries for preferential

treatment of any nature.

The reasons urged in support of this

measure would equally apply to the cases

of thousands of other enemy nationals

whose property in the United States was

vested pursuant to the provisions of the

Trading With the Enemy Act.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, March 17, 1954.

NEW MEXICO SENATORIAL ELECTION CONTEST

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Senator from Texas [Mr. DANIEL] has

the floor.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will

the Senator from Texas yield to me?

Mr. DANIEL. I yield.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, yesterday I announced to the Senate that

I intended to propound a unanimousconsent request with respect to the New

Mexico senatorial election contest. The

proposed unanimous-consent agreement

was read for the information of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the

proposed unanimous-consent agreement

be read again for the information of the

Senate now that we have had a quorum

call.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, the Secretary will state the

proposed unanimous-consent request.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

Ordered, That on the calendar day of

Tuesday, March 23, 1954, at the hour of 5

o'clock p. m., the Senate proceed to vote

without further debate, upon any amendment or motion, if any, proposed to the

resolution (S. Res. 220) recommending that no Member of the Senate was elected from

the State of New Mexico in the 1952 general

election, and upon the said resolution.

Ordered further, That the time between

12 noon Monday, March 22, and 5 p. m. Tuesday, March 23, be equally divided between

the proponents and opponents of the said

resolution and controlled, respectively, by

Mr. BARRErT and Mr. HENNINGS.

Mr. KNOWLAND. For the benefit of

Senators who were not in the Chamber

when the subject was previously discussed, I should state that it was the desire of Senators on the other side of the

aisle and of Senators on this side of the

aisle that the Senate may have a period

of more or less uninterrupted debate on

the subject, inasmuch as the seat of a

Member of the Senate is involved. Under the proposed unanimous-consent

agreement 2 days of debate on the contest would be provided, with the time to

be equally divided.

It was also the desire on the part of

Senators on both sides of the aisle that

a day and hour certain be set for the

debate and the vote so that Senators

who intend to leave the city would have

advance notice of the consideration of

the resolution, and could arrange to return to the city, or would not make engagements which would take them away

at that particular time.

So far as I am concerned, I wish to do

everything possible to comply with the

desires of Senators on the other side of

the aisle, and I have told them that if

Tuesday is not satisfactory I would be

perfectly willing to agree to Wednesday,

Thursday, or any other day.

In fairness to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. CHAVEZ],

whose seat is involved, and in fairness

to his colleagues on both sides of thG

aisle, I believe a specific date should be

set.

Of course, it is true that on Monday I

could move to displace the unfinished

business and to take up the resolution,

and following its disposition I could move that the Senate return to the consideration of the unfinished business.

That, however, would not fix a date and

hour certain, for the debate and the

vote, unless subsequently a unanimous

consent agreement were entered into.

That would mean that Senators would

not know until next week on what day

or hour the New Mexico election resolution would be taken up.

It is entirely immaterial to me, because I expect to be here all of this week

and all of next week, and for the balance

of the session. However, I know that some Senators must attend to official

business out of the city and that other

Senators have important engagements

which must be met, and which have been

1954 3381