"The insertion of the words 'to the current business of the carrier' permits a common carrier to which a mail coach is attached to transmit by its servants to other stations on its route communications not inclosed in the mail, if such communications are confined to the carrier's business. This is in exact conformity with the construction placed upon existing law. The regulations of the Post-Office Department permit such communications, and these regulations have been declared legal by an opinion of the AttorneyGeneral of the United States. "The amendment therefore only makes clear the existing law upon the subject." Similarly, Senator Sutherland, who moved the adoption of the clause in the Senate, stated in so moving: "I move that amendment because I think it puts in express language precisely what the section means as it stands without it. *** I think the opinion of the Attorney-General, to which I called attention yesterday, gives the correct construction to this section. * ** I think it should be clear under the law that the carrier should not have the right to carry mail intended for others, but only its own mail. To that extent I think the law should permit the carrier to go." The amendment proposed by Senator Sutherland was thereupon agreed to. (Cong. Rec. vol. 42, p. 1976.) And also the debate on the floor plainly shows that the evil sought to be remedied by the amendment was the doubt as to the correctness of Attorney-General Harmon's opinion and the regulations of your department. It thus appears that the purpose of Congress in introducing this clause was to permit a carrier to transport free outside the mails its own messages within the terms of the opinion of Attorney-General Harmon, and it was not the intention of Congress to revolutionize the then existing law and practice by permitting free transportation of letters and packets belonging to railroads or persons other than the carrier even though such letters or packets might "relate to the current business of the carrier." It is true that the grammatical syntax of the section is against this construction, for the letters and packets referred to by the balance of the section, and permitted by its exceptions, are letters and packets belonging to persons other than the carrier, and mere technical grammar would require that the new exception should relate to the same subject; but such considerations of syntax and grammar must yield to the intention of Congress. (Blake v. National Banks, 23 Wall. 307; U. S. v. Lacher, 134 U. S. 624; U. S. v. Healey, 160 U. S. 136, 148; Werchmeister v. Pierce Co., 63 Fed. 445, 454; Griffith v. Bogert, 18 How. 158.) In my opinion the history which I have above outlined puts it beyond question that Congress did not mean to do more than to permit carriers themselves to carry their own messages, and particularly corporate carriers to carry their own messages, which would necessarily be limited to their business, as Attorney-General Harmon pointed out. III. Your third question is as follows: "The A, B, and C companies are distinct corporations, but have been merged into and are known as the C system of railways. The C corporation owns all or a large portion of the stock of the A and B companies and the control and management of the system are vested in one set of officers. Heretofore the practice of the department has been to regard the right to carry letters outside of the mails without payment of postage as being limited to the distinct corporations composing the system. For example, letters originating with the A company and addressed to the B company can be carried by the former and delivered to the latter company at a point of connection and can then be carried by the B company to any point on its line. The B company, however, can not carry letters written by the A company and addressed to the C company, as the B company would be an intervening carrier in this case. It is desired to know whether you consider this practice correct under existing law." For the same reasons which I have outlined in answer to your second question I am of opinion that the existing practice of your department in respect to this situation is correct under the existing law. IV. Your remaining question is a general question as to whether the change in the statute has changed the scope of the exceptions included therein as defined in the opinion of Attorney-General Harmon. This question also is substantially answered by the answer to the preceding questions. It is true that Congress used the words "current business" instead of the word "business," which was used by Attorney-General Harmon in his opinion with reference to corporate carriers; but the history of the act, as I have stated, shows that the intention was not to set aside the opinion of Attorney-General Harmon, but rather to adopt it. Practically I think the precise definition of the words "current business" is not necessary, and in advance of specific cases it would be impossible. Presumably any business of the carrier is current when it comes up in such a way as to call for current communication. Respectfully, GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM. The POSTMASTER GENERAL. REVENUE-CUTTER SERVICE-INTERMENT OF OFFICERS AND SEAMEN IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES. Commissioned and warrant officers and seamen of the Revenue-Cutter Service who die in the ordinary administration of that service in time of peace are not entitled to the privilege of interment in national cemeteries. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to reply to your letter of the 1st instant, requesting my opinion upon the question whether, in the ordinary administration of the Revenue-Cutter Service in time of peace, commissioned and warrant officers and seamen of that service are entitled to the privilege of interment in national cemeteries. The first legislation in respect to national cemeteries appears in section 18 of the act of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat. 594, 596), which authorized the President, whenever he deemed it expedient. to "purchase cemetery grounds, and cause them to be securely enclosed, to be used as a national cemetery for the soldiers who shall die in the service of the country." Following this, section 1 of the naval appropriation act of May 21, 1864 (13 Stat. 80, 85), provided "for the purchase and preparation of a site for a cemetery for the Navy and Marine Corps." February 22, 1867 (14 Stat. 399), an act was approved entitled "An act to establish and to protect national cemeteries," the first section of which provided: "That in the arrangement of the national cemeteries established for the burial of deceased soldiers and sailors, the Secretary of War is hereby directed to have the same inclosed with a good and substantial stone or iron fence; and to cause each grave to be marked with a small headstone, or block, with the number of the grave inscribed thereon, corresponding with the number opposite to the name of the party, in a register of burials to be kept at each cemetery and at the office of the quartermaster-general, which shall set forth the name, rank, company, regiment, and date of death of the officer or soldier; or, if unknown, it shall be so recorded." This act was amended on June 1, 1872 (17 Stat. 202), by adding thereto the following: "That from and after the passage of this act all soldiers and sailors honorably discharged from the service of the United States who may die in a destitute condition, shall be allowed burial in the national cemeteries of the United States." March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. 605), an act was approved entitled "An act to authorize the interment of honorably discharged soldiers, sailors, and marines in the national cemeteries of the United States," which provided: "That honorably discharged soldiers sailors or marines who served during the late war either in the regular or volunteer forces, dying subsequent to the passage of this act may be buried in any national cemetery of the United States free of cost and their graves shall receive the same care and attention as the graves of those already buried. The production of the honorable discharge of the deceased shall be authority for the superintendent of the cemetery to permit the interment." The foregoing statutes were codified in section 4878 of the Revised Statutes, which provides: "SEC. 4878. All soldiers, sailors, or marines, dying in the service of the United States, or dying in a destitute condition, after having been honorably discharged from the service, or who served during the late war, either in the regular or volunteer forces, may be buried in any national cemetery free of cost. The production of the honorable discharge of a deceased man shall be sufficient authority for the superintendent of any cemetery to permit the interment." This section was amended by an act approved March 3, 1897 (29 Stat. 625), so as to authorize the burial of army nurses in such cemeteries. The history of section 4878, Revised Statutes, makes it clear that the words "soldiers, sailors, or marines, used therein, had reference to persons in the Army, the Navy, or the Marine Corps. It is also clear that the Revenue-Cutter Service, neither in its inception nor in its more recent development, is to be regarded as a part of the Navy, to which it would naturally be assigned, unless it is cooperating therewith in accordance with the express provisions of law on the subject. The Revenue-Cutter Service was first authorized by the act of March 2, 1799 (1 Stat. 627, 699), entitled "An act to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage," which empowered the President, "for the better securing the collection of the duties imposed on" imports and tonnage, "to cause to be built and equipped so many revenue cutters not exceeding ten, as may be necessary to be employed for the protection of the revenue," the expense thereof to be paid out of the revenues on imports and tonnage. (Sec. 97.) That act further provided that there "shall be to each of the said revenue cutters, one captain or master, and not more than three lieutenants or mates, first, second, and third, and not more than seventy men, 59515°-VOL 28-12-35 |