purchase was used in "the more limited or common signification, to wit, that of acquisition by bargain and sale for a consideration."

In accord with these authorities are also Hoyt v. Van Alstyne (15 Barb. 568); Cheatham v. Bobbitt (118 N. C. 343, 347); Cobb v. Webb (26 Tex. Civil App. 467-470); Curtis v. Burdick (48 Vt. 166, 171).

The section in question was taken from the act of May 1. 1820, ch. 52 (3 Stat. 568). And I think when Congress passed this act, as well as when it was introduced into the Revised Statutes, that body had in mind, primarily the expenditure of the money of the United States; and that it was not its purpose to prohibit the acquisition by the Government of real property otherwise than for a valuable consideration. This view is emphasized by the phrase "on account of the United States," which is the equivalent of saying "at the expense of" or "to be paid for by the United States;" and in as much as the acquisition of the land in question, does not involve an expenditure of money upon the part of the United States Government, or at least of anything more than a mere nominal sum, it is my opinion that the acceptance of neither of these instruments is prohibited by this statute.

The next question is whether the moneys appropriated by Congress for the Bureau of Mines can be used in placing such structures on these lands as will enable the bureau to carry out the purposes for which it was created. Under the principle that whenever a power is conferred by a statute the authority to adopt and use all means necessary to accomplish the object had in view may be implied, such expenditure undoubtedly can be made unless it is by express terms, or by implication, prohibited by statute. By section 355, Revised Statutes, it is provided that—

"No public money shall be expended upon any site or land purchased by the United States for the purposes of erecting thereon any armory, arsenal, fort, fortification, navy-yard, custom-house, light-house, or other public building, of any kind whatever, until the written opinion of the Attorney-General shall be had in favor of the validity of the title, nor until the consent of the legislature of the

State in which the land or site may be, to such purchase, has been given."

It is suggested that this statute applies to the erection. of buildings upon these lands. However, I find that it is unnecessary to pass upon this question. By examining the statutes of the States of Alabama, West Virginia, and Indiana, I find that the consent of the legislatures of these States to the purchase of lands for the purposes mentioned in said section 355, has been given. (Code of Alabama, 1907, sec. 898; West Virginia Code, sec. 4; Burns's Annotated Indiana statutes, revision of 1908, sec. 8112.)

If, therefore, section 355 is applicable, the written consent required of these States has already been obtained. But if it is not applicable, then the authority to erect structures is not prohibited, and is implied under the principle above suggested. I think it advisable, however, that the titles to these tracts of land be submitted to the AttorneyGeneral for his opinion with reference to the validity thereof. This should be done as a wise precaution, regardless of whether said section 355 be applicable to the facts here presented or not.

I think you will find in the foregoing a sufficient answer to your inquiries without a detailed answer to each separate question.

Respectfully,

J. A. FOWLER, Acting Attorney-General.

The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

PAYMASTERS' CLERKS OF THE NAVY-RETIREMENT. A paymaster's clerk of the Navy who is incapacitated for active service and whose incapacity is the result of an incident of the service, is entitled to be retired under the provisions of section 1453, Revised Statutes. Paymasters' clerks, in reference to retirement, are placed in precisely the same condition under the act of June 24, 1910 (36 Stat. 606), as warrant officers.

Whenever there is a peremptory obligation on the part of the Government to do something with reference to a person, there is a corresponding right in that person to have it done.

Where no concrete facts are presented relative to the questions propounded, the Attorney-General will not express an opinion.

59515°-VOL 28-12-27

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

September 19, 1910.

SIR: I received your communication of August 19, 1910, from which and the documents accompanying it, the following facts appear:

Paymaster's Clerk Frank C. Adams, who has been serving as chief clerk to the general storekeeper at the navyyard, at Washington, D. C., was on July 7, 1910, ordered to appear before the naval retiring board for examination. The examination being had on July 15, 1910, the board reported that Adams "is incapacitated for active service by reason of arterio sclerosis, and that his incapacity is the result of an incident of the service." The record of this examination having been transmitted to you as required by statute, and you being in doubt as to your legal duties in the premises, you ask my opinion as to whether Adams is entitled to be retired. Other questions are also propounded, but there being no concrete facts presented relating thereto, under the long established rule of this department I will have to refrain from expressing an opinion upon these questions; but I think proper answers will be readily deducible from what shall be said in reaching a conclusion upon the question properly before me.

If Adams is subject to retirement at all, it must be because the provision in the appropriation act of June 24, 1910 (36 Stat. 606), to-wit: "All paymasters' clerks shall, while holding appointment in accordance with law, receive the same pay and allowances and have the same rights of retirement as warrant officers of like length of service in the Navy," has so extended section 1453 of the Revised Statutes as to make it applicable to paymasters' clerks. This section reads as follows:

"When a retiring board finds that an officer is incapacitated for active service, and that his incapacity is the result of an incident of the service, such officer shall, if said decision is approved by the President, be retired from active service with retired pay, as allowed by chapter eight of this title."

An able and exhaustive opinion was rendered by the JudgeAdvocate-General, in which he maintains that section 1453, Revised Statutes, is not extended by the said provision of

the act of June 24, 1910, to paymasters' clerks, the two reasons upon which he justifies this conclusion being, first, that the act of June 24, 1910, undertakes to vest in the paymasters' clerks "rights of retirement," and not to require the Government to enforce a retirement, while section 1453, Revised Statutes, provides alone for a compulsory retirement, and therefore creates no right in the officer; and, second, that the phrase "like length of service in the Navy" in the latter act shows that the provision was intended to apply to retirements for length of service alone. Let us see to what result this process of reasoning leads.

The retirement of a warrant officer may occur under any of the following provisions of law:

(1) After forty years' service, under section 1443, Revised Statutes, to wit:

"When any officer of the Navy has been forty years in the service of the United States he may be retired from active service by the President upon his own application."

(2) Upon reaching the age of 62, under section 1444, Revised Statutes, to wit:

"When any officer below the rank of vice admiral is sixty-two years old, he shall, except in the case provided in the next section, be retired by the President from active service." (The exception in the following section does not include warrant officers.)

(3) For incapacity resulting as an incident to the service, under section 1453, which is above quoted.

(4) For incapacity not resulting as an incident to the service, under section 1454, Revised Statutes, to wit:

"When said board finds that an officer is incapacitated for active service and that his incapacity is not the result of any incident of the service, such officer shall, if said decision is approved by the President, be retired from active service on furlough pay, or wholly retired from the service with one year's pay, as the President may determine."

(5) After thirty years' service, under a provision of the naval appropriation act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat. 128), to wit:

"When an officer of the Navy has been thirty years in the service, he may, upon his own application, in the dis

cretion of the President, be retired from active service and placed upon the retired list with three-fourths of the highest pay of his grade."

Under the first reason advanced by the Judge-AdvocateGeneral, the second, third, and fourth causes for retirement, to wit, because the officer has reached 62 years of age, because incapacitated as an incident to the service, and because incapacitated not as an incident to the service, do not fall within the act of June 24, 1910, and are not applicable to paymasters' clerks, because they all provide for compulsory retirement; and the last two, moreover, would be excluded under the second reason advanced, as they do not rest upon length of service. This would leave only the first and fifth grounds; but under the narrow construction thus sought to be placed upon the language of the act the fifth would also certainly and the first probably be excluded. The provision quoted from the act of May 13, 1908, does not declare that the officer may voluntarily retire for the reason mentioned. Such an idea is in fact negatived by placing his retirement entirely within the discretion of the President. The officer is vested with the right to make application for retirement, but there his right ends and the discretion of the President begins. The same is true with reference to the first ground unless the word "may" be given the same meaning as "shall." Consequently, if the reasons insisted upon apply to any of the grounds for retirement, they apply to all, unless it be the first, and the provision quoted of the act of June 24, 1910, has but little effect and possibly none whatever. But I do not think either of them can be sustained by sound reasoning. This provision was inserted in the act of June 24, 1910, for the benefit of paymasters' clerks, and should therefore receive a favorable construction in their behalf. It is conceded that section 1453, Revised Statutes, would be very beneficial to paymasters' clerks, much more so in fact than to warrant officers, because if incapacitated for service their appointments may be revoked and they be dismissed from the service, which can not be done with an officer. That such course would be pursued goes without saying, as the Navy Department