8416-8427, Remington's Compiled Statutes of Washington, 1922; Supplement of 1927, sec. 8999–1–4.) It is my opinion, therefore, that the Fifty Dollar Temporary Coupon Bond of the Third 414's which was found by one Katie L. Winters and submitted to the Treasury Department for payment, and the One Hundred Dollar Coupon Note of the Victory 434's which was left in a sack or box by a guest in a hotel operated by Mrs. Elnora Stewart at South Bend, Washington, and presented by her for collection to the United States National Bank of Portland, Oregon, should be retained by the Treasury Department subject to claim by the true owner or the States of Illinois and Washington, respectively. Respectfully, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL. To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, AS AMENDED The forfeiture of rights imposed by section 504 of the World War Veterans' Act (43 Stat. 629), as amended, when determined by the administrative officer charged with its enforcement, is not affected by the fact that a prosecution to enforce the other penalties imposed by section 504, supra, is not instituted. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to reply to your letter of July 11, 1932, requesting my opinion in connection with certain cases which are before you for consideration upon the following question: "Is an administrative finding of forfeiture of rights under section 504 of the World War Veterans Act dependent upon a judicial determination in the Federal Courts, and in the event there is a failure of a grand jury to indict or failure of a jury or court to convict, is the Administrator warranted in continuing a forfeiture previously effected?" It appears from your letter, and from the copy of an enclosed opinion rendered by the Solicitor of the Veterans' Administration in connection with the cases mentioned in your letter, that in such cases there has been an administrative finding of forfeiture of the rights of the particular veterans under section 504 of the World War Veterans Act, and that no criminal prosecution of such veterans has been instituted. Following the established practice of the Attorneys General, I shall limit my opinion to a consideration of your question in so far as it is involved in the particular cases mentioned in your letter. Section 504 of the World War Veterans Act (Act of June 7, 1924, c. 320, 43 Stat. 629, as amended by the Act of March 4, 1925, c. 553, Sec. 19, 43 Stat. 1312; U. S. C., Title 38, sec. 555) provides as follows: "Any person who shall knowingly make or cause to be made, or conspire, combine, aid, or assist in, agree to, arrange for, or in any wise procure the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, or writing purporting to be such, concerning any claim or the approval of any claim for compensation or maintenance and support allowance, or the payment of any money, for himself or for any other person, under Titles II or IV hereof, shall forfeit all rights, claims, and benefits under said titles, and, in addition to any and all other penalties imposed by law, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each such offense." The plain purpose of this statute, as indicated by its language, is to impose a penalty for the commission of the offense described. The penalty includes not only the forfeiture of rights under Titles II and IV of the World War Veterans Act, but also, upon conviction of the offense, punishment by fine or imprisonment. By the express provisions of the statute, however, forfeiture, unlike fine and imprisonment, is not dependent upon conviction. The statute itself declares the forfeiture, leaving for administrative determination whether the particular veteran has committed the proscribed acts and is thus subject to the forfeiture imposed by the statute. In the opinion of the Solicitor of the Veterans' Administration, enclosed with your letter, it is concluded that it is not essential that a conviction be secured in the Federal courts in order that the Veterans' Administration may find that a person has forfeited his rights as provided in section 504. You also state in your letter that the Veterans' Administration has consistently held, since the enactment of section 504, that the results of efforts to prosecute criminally have no bearing on a forfeiture previously made, except in so far as the Administrator, in a review of the case, might take into consideration such evidence as was produced in connection with the court proceedings. Considering the plain provisions of section 504 in the light of the consistent administrative construction, it is my opinion that the forfeiture imposed by section 504, when determined by the administrative officer charged with its enforcement, is not affected by the fact that a prosecution to enforce the other penalties imposed by section 504 is not instituted. Respectfully, WILLIAM D. MITCHELL. To the ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS. PUERTO RICO-VALIDITY OF BOND ISSUE The proposed issue for the Government of Puerto Rico of bonds of the face value of $500,000, the proceeds from the sale of which are to be devoted to the continuance of the construction of works for the development and use of the waters of the Tora Negro and Matrullas Rivers, being authorized by Congress and by Act No. 7 of the Legislature of Puerto Rico of April 6, 1931, as amended by Act No. 8 of July 12, 1932, and all the statutory requirements regarding the issue and sale of these bonds having been complied with, said bonds, when issued in the amount and form proposed, will constitute valid and binding obligations of the people of Puerto Rico. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to refer to your letter of October 18, 1932, stating that your Department has been authorized to sell for the account of the Government of Puerto Rico bonds of the face value of $500,000, the proceeds from which are to be devoted to the continuance of the construction of works for development and use of the waters of the Toro Negro and Matrullas Rivers under the so-called Toro Negro Project. The proposed bonds are to be issued under authority contained in section 3 of the Act of Congress approved March 2, 1917, entitled "An Act to provide a civil government for Puerto Rico and for other purposes," as amended by the Act of March 4, 1927 (c. 145, 39 Stat. 951, 953; c. 503, 44 Stat. 1418; U. S. C., Title 48, secs. 741, 745), and Act No. 7 of the Twelfth Legislature of Puerto Rico, Third Regular Session, approved April 6, 1931 (Laws of Puerto Rico, 1931, p. 144), as amended by Act No. 8 of the same Legislature, Third Special Session, approved July 12, 1932. The Act of April 6, 1931, authorized bonds "up to the sum of one million dollars," to be "made and sold as the work progresses." The validity of the first instalment of the bonds, in the amount of $500,000, was sustained in an opinion dated August 19, 1931. The validity of a proposed second instalment, in the amount of $300,000, was sustained in an opinion of February 4, 1932 (36 Op. 516), but such bonds were not actually issued because of conditions then existing in the bond market, as pointed out by the Governor of Puerto Rico in his message to the Assembly of June 21, 1932. You state that the bonds are to be issued and sold by you at the request of the Treasurer of Puerto Rico (which request has been approved by the Governor), in coupon form, in the denomination of $1,000 each to be dated January 1, 1932, and to bear interest at a rate not exceeding six per centum per annum, payable semi-annually on January 1 and July 1 of each year, the principal thereof to be payable at the Treasury of the United States on January 1, 1932, and the bonds to be redeemable at par, with accrued interest, on January 1, 1942, or at any time thereafter upon sixty days' notice. It has further been determined that the bonds shall be offered at par subject to bids on the rate of interest and that the interest rate, not exceeding six per centum, shall be finally determined upon a consideration of the bids sub mitted. A copy of the form of the proposed bond, revised as indicated in your letter, is submitted and you request my opinion upon the legality of the issue. Section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1917, as amended provides: 66* * * and when necessary to anticipate taxes and revenues, bonds and other obligations may be issued by Puerto Rico or any municipal government therein as may be provided by law, and to protect the public credit: Provided, however, That no public indebtedness of Puerto Rico and the municipalities of San Juan and Ponce shall be allowed in excess of 10 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of its property * * *. In computing the indebtedness of the people of Puerto Rico, municipal bonds for the payment of interest and principal of which the good faith of the people of Puerto Rico has heretofore been pledged and bonds issued by the people of Puerto Rico secured by bonds to an equivalent amount of bonds of municipal corporations or school boards of Puerto Rico shall not be counted, but all bonds hereafter issued by any municipality or subdivision * for which the good faith of the people of Puerto Rico is pledged shall be counted." You state that the records of your Department show that the aggregate assessed valuation of real and personal property in Puerto Rico on June 30, 1932, amounted to $324,309,117; that on the said date there were outstanding bonds of the Government of Puerto Rico of the face value of $28,378,000; that the total amount of temporary loans outstanding was $379,494.54; and that the total amount of municipal bonds outstanding, to which the good faith of the people of Puerto Rico had been pledged since the amendatory Act of March 4, 1927, aggregated $1,299,500, making a total of $30,056,994.54 to be considered when ascertaining the total bonded indebtedness which the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to incur. Therefore, it is apparent that the proposed issue will not increase the bonded indebtedness beyond 10 per centum of the aggregate of the assessed valuation, the maximum permitted by law. Section 1 of the Act of April 6, 1931, reads in part as follows: |