Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Markham v. Cabell — Opinion of the Court

To require claims to be more than 24 years old in order to be acceptable is beyond reason. The last clause reads, 'nor shall a debt be allowed under this section unless notice of the claim has been filed, or application therefor has been made, prior to the date of the enactment of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928.' This clause means nothing when applied to a claim like the present one which was not earned until 1935.
Section 9 (e) as thus earmarked prescribes a natural limitation upon claims to be allowed against enemy property seized in World War I. As such it is reasonable.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Markham v. Cabell — Opinion of the Court

It is said that to allow creditors of certain aliens whose property has been vested in the Alien Property Custodian to maintain suits but to disallow suits by creditors of aliens whose funds are merely frozen is to destroy consistency in the position of creditors under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Moreover, § 9 (a) permits suits on debt claims only if the debt is one 'owing from an enemy or ally of enemy' whose property has been taken.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Markham v. Cabell — Opinion of the Court

It is not possible, however, that Congress intentionally chose this indirect way of saying that American creditors may assert just claims against assets of debtors whose properties were seized in World War I, but not against assets of debtors whose properties might be held in custody by the Alien Property Custodian as a result of future wars.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature