repatriation to occur even though the marriage had not terminated. The Nationality Act of October 14, 1940, specifically repealed the act of June 25, 1936. In section 317 (b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, it is provided that from and after the effective date of that act, which is January 13, 1941, a woman who was a citizen of the United States at birth and who lost her United States citizenship solely by marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status had terminated, would, if no other nationality was acquired by 'affirmative act other than by marriage, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed in the Nationality Act, be deemed to be a citizen to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922. The Nationality Act of 1940 carried through the provision vesting citizenship in women who had lost it by marriage, where the marriage had terminated. It failed to carry through the principle of the amendment of the 1936 act taking care of women who lost it by marriage but who had continued to reside in the United States. The only thing that this bill does is to rewrite into the Nationality Act of 1940 the provision which the Congress wrote into the law on July 2, 1940, permitting women to be reinvested with their citizenship where it was lost solely through marriage prior to 1922, and where these women had continued to reside continuously in the United States. As a matter of fact, the Department of Justice holds that such women have been restored to citizenship but a number of Federal courts have decided otherwise and it is for this reason that the amendment becomes necessary. This bill is identical with H. R. 1289, which passed the House of Representatives in the Seventy-eighth Congress. The Attorney General addressed the following letter to the chairman of the committee under date of February 10, 1945: Hon. SAMUEL DICKSTEIN, FEBRUARY 10, 1945. Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for my views relative to a bill (H. R. 384) to provide for the repatriation of native-born women residents of the United States who have heretofore lost their citizenship by marriage to an alien. Prior to the enactment of the Cable Act on September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1021), a female citizen of the United States lost her citizenship by marrying an alien. The Cable Act in effect provided that thereafter such a marriage should not have this result, but that the wife should retain her own citizenship status. The Nationality Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 1146; 8 U. S. C. 717 (b) (1)) provides that a natural-born female citizen who lost her citizenship by marrying an alien prior to September 22, 1922, but whose marriage has terminated, may reacquire citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance. The bill under consideration would extend this privilege to natural-born female citizens whose marriage is still in effect, and who have lived in the United States continuously since their marriage. The act of June 25, 1936 (49 Stat. 1917), as amended by the act of July 2, 1940 (54 Stat. 715), provided that women who married aliens prior to September 22, 1922, and whose marital status shall have terminated, or who resided continuously in the United States since the date of the marriage, should be deemed citizens of the United States as though the marriage took place on or after September 22, 1922. That act, however, also provided that the rights of citizenship should be withheld until the oath of allegiance was taken. Although the act was expressly repealed by the Nationality Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 1174), this Department has taken the position that such women reacquired their citizenship upon its original enactment and that they did not lose their citizenship as a result of the subsequent repeal of that act by the Nationality Act. Under this interpretation, the legislation under consideration would appear to be unnecessary. Some The courts, however, have reached divergent conclusions on the matter. courts, including the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, have adopted the position taken by this Department (Watson v. United States, decided December 10, 1941 (unreported)). On the other hand, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Shelley v. United States, 120 F. (2d) 734), and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia adopted the opposite view. In the light of this conflict of judicial authority it appears desirable to clarify the existing law by legislation. Accordingly, I find no objection to the enactment of the bill. I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. The committee unanimously recommends that the bill do pass. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW In compliance with paragraph 2a of rule XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by this bill are shown as follows (existing law in which no change is made is printed in roman; omitted matter is printed within black brackets; the new matter is printed in italics): The Nationality Act of 1940, as amended— SEC. 317 (b) (1). From and after the effective date of this Act, a woman, who was a citizen of the United States at birth, and who has or is believed to have lost her United States citizenship solely by reason of her marriage prior to September 22, 1922, to an alien, and whose marital status with such alien has or shall have terminated, or who has resided continuously in the United States since the date of such marriage, if no other nationality was acquired by affirmative act other than such marriage, shall, from and after the taking of the oath of allegiance prescribed by subsection (b) of section 335 of this Act, be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922. O FEBRUARY 21, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. PITTENGER, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1149] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1149) for the relief of Dane D. Morgan, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize and direct the Comptroller General of the United States to settle and adjust the claim of Dane D. Morgan, on account of increased cost incurred in the performance of his architectural-engineering contract with the Federal Works Agency by reason of unavoidable delays in the construction and completion of the defense housing project at Burlington, Iowa, and to allow in full and final settlement of the claim the amount of not to exceed $8,400. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts are that Dane D. Morgan contracted to provide architectural-engineering services in connection with the construction of 400 prefabricated demountable housing units as part of defense-housing project "Iowa 13015," Burlington, Iowa, under contract No. WA-1197, dated February 9, 1942, entered into with the Federal Works Agency. Prior to the execution of his contract Mr. Morgan discussed with the contracting officer the question of the period of performance of the construction work and was advised, apparently, that the project work would be completed within 150 days, with 120 days being allowed for construction. The contract, however, contained no provision limiting the time of performance. Subsequently, due to various delays, it became necessary for the architect-engineer to furnish supervisory services under his contract for a much longer period than had been contemplated at the time the contract was executed, thereby sustaining considerable loss in the performance of the contract. At this date the architect-engineer has agreed to accept the sum of $8,400 in full and final settlement of his claim. This case was submitted to the Comptroller General who has recommended to the Congress that an appropriation in the amount of $8,400 be made for the payment of the claim. This proposed legislation was submitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by the Comptroller General of the United States for consideration. Your committee has carefully considered the bill and recommend favorable consideration to same. Appended hereto is the recommendation of the Comptroller General of the United States, which is self-explanatory. The CONGRESS: GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, Pursuant to the act of April 10, 1928 (45 Stat. 413), I have the honor to make the following report and recommendation concerning the claim of Dane D. Morgan, Burlington, Iowa, for additional compensation to cover certain architecturalengineering services furnished in connection with the construction of 400 prefabricated demountable housing units as part of defense housing project "Iowa 13015," Burlington, Iowa, under contract No. WA-1197, dated February 9, 1942, entered into with the Federal Works Agency. Naturally it was realized by the architect-engineer that the period of time during which he would be required to furnish field engineering and supervisory services on the project was a material factor for consideration in fixing the price for which he would agree to perform the contract. Consequently, the question as to the period of performance of the construction work was discussed with the contracting officer prior to the execution of the contract and that official appears to have advised the architect-engineer that the project work would be completed within 150 days, with 120 days being allowed for construction. However, the contract as formulated and executed by the parties contained no provision limiting the time of performance but, on the contrary, provided under article 1 thereof that, for and in consideration of payment of the amount of $28,930.60, the contractor would (* * render such architectural-engineering services as may be required by the Administrator for the construction of the project * * Also by the terms of article 2 (e) of the contract it was provided that the contractor would 16* * * perform all necessary field engineering supervision and inspection during construction." On February 24, 1942, the administration of the housing project was transferred to the Federal Public Housing Authority pursuant to Executive Order 9070. Thereafter, on May 26, 1942, the latter agency executed the contract for the prefabrication and erection of the houses, which provided for completion of such work within 120 days. However, due to delays resulting principally from the reorganization required under Executive Order 9070, supra, and from difficulties encountered in procuring the necessary materials for the work, the project was not completed until on or about August 28, 1943. It therefore became necessary for the architect-engineer to furnish supervisory services under his contract for a much longer period than had been contemplated at the time the contract was executed thereby sustaining a considerable loss in the performance of the contract. The architect-engineer originally claimed the sum of $11,575.48 in addition to the contract price but now has agreed to accept the sum of $8,400 in full and final settlement of his claim. Under the above-quoted provisions of the contract the architect-engineer agreed to render such services as might be required "for the construction of the project" and "during construction." Furthermore, the contract made no provision for any increase in the contract price in the event the time during which the services would be required to be rendered should be longer than anticipated. Hence, the contractor performed no services in addition to those required under the plain terms of the contract and the claim for additional compensation is not a legal |