For example, in the case of Louis A. Bonnet y Jaspard, 2 P. R. Fed. Rep. 70, 73, Judge Rodey said:

"The United States attorney does not dispute that this court, under its jurisdiction as a circuit and district court of the United States, is vested with power, which, it is admitted, previous judges have several times exercised, to naturalize aliens * if such aliens meet the require

*

As this jurisdiction has been assumed by the district court of Porto Rico without question, and as undoubtedly persons have applied for and received naturalization in good faith, relying upon the exercise of its jurisdiction, and as section 2165, Revised Statutes, has been repealed and the whole matter is now regulated by the act of June 29, 1906, it seems to me that it would be improper at this time to question the validity of the exercise of this jurisdiction by the district court of Porto Rico; and my opinion to that effect is confirmed by the case of Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468, 476, where the Supreme Court, having under consideration section 5278, Revised Statutes, which provides for the extradition of criminals. " whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice," held that the statute applied to Porto Rico and said:

"It may be justly asserted that Porto Rico is a completely organized Territory, although not a Territory incorporated into the United States, and that there is no reason why Porto Rico should not be held to be such a Territory as is comprised in section 5278.”

Without, therefore, going so far as to hold that the district court of Porto Rico was right in assuming jurisdiction to naturalize aliens under section 2165, Revised Statutes, yet there were evidently persuasive considerations to sustain its action, and I think, therefore, that its assumption of jurisdiction should be acquiesced in.

It is true that apparently neither of these aliens resided within the United States proper for five years prior to his naturalization. Without, however, passing upon the point whether residence in Porto Rico is residence within the

United States within the meaning of the naturalization law it is enough to say that, in my opinion, the judgment of the district court of Porto Rico can not be attacked collaterally upon this ground.

The Superintendent of the Library Building and Grounds has no authority to transfer certain disused portions of the lighting and heating plant of the Library of Congress to the Bureau of Mines of the Department of the Interior.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

September 24, 1912.

SIR: I have the honor to reply to your letter of August 28, 1912, requesting an opinion as to the authority of the superintendent of the Congressional Library Building and Grounds to transfer to the Bureau of Mines of your department certain portions of the Library lighting and heating plant, which, together with the old Capitol plant, has become useless because of the construction of a central heating plant for the Capitol and Library Buildings.

It appears that by section 11 of the District of Columbia appropriation act approved June 26, 1912, the Superintendent of the Capitol Building and Grounds is authorized to "transfer apparatus, appliances, equipments, and supplies of any kind, discontinued or permanently out of service, to such other branches of the service of the United States, or District of Columbia, whenever, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, in his judgment the interests of the Government service may require it," a detailed report. of all such transfers being required to be submitted to Congress in the annual report of the superintendent.

No such authority to transfer apparatus, equipment, and supplies "discontinued or permanently out of service" has

been conferred by Congress upon the superintendent of the Library Building and Grounds, but you say that that officer is willing to make the transfer of certain portions of the disused library heating and lighting plant "provided the same can be done lawfully."

There being no statute specifically prohibiting or authorizing such a transfer, the authority of the superintendent of the Library Building and Grounds to make it must be entirely a matter of implication from the powers devolved upon him by law. The act of February 19, 1897 (29 Stat. 545), impliedly makes him the custodian of the property referred to, but that carries with it no authority to transfer such property to some other branch or establishment of the Government, even if its use for heating and lighting the library has been discontinued. On the contrary, his duties as custodian impliedly prohibits him from transferring the possession of the property committed to his care to some one else.

Doubtless the transfer of the property in question to the Bureau of Mines of your department would be to the pecuniary advantage of the Government. Presumably it ought to be made now, if it is to be made at all. It may also be that if the transfer were made it would meet with the approval of Congress. But, as I view it, the custodian of the property has no legal authority to make such transfer, and if he does so, he necessarily runs the risk of criticism and discipline for his unauthorized action. It is for Congress, under its constitutional grant with respect to the regulation and disposition of the territory and other property of the United States, to say what shall be done with the apparatus in question. Mere custodians under it have no such authority.

It is to be observed that in authorizing the transfer of disused property from the Capitol to other branches of the service of the United States, as well as the District of Columbia, Congress has safeguarded the exercise of the power by the Superintendent of the Capitol Building and Grounds by requiring the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and also by requiring a detailed report to be made of all such transfers by the superintendent. If a

transfer were to be authorized in the present case, Congress might think like or further restrictions necessary. It is also to be observed that any transfer of this kind operates to increase the appropriations for the branch of the Government to which the transfer is made, something that Congress could not have had in mind when making such appropriations.

The statement of daily newspapers required to be filed by section 2 of the Post Office appropriation act of August 24, 1912, should include the average of the number of copies of each issue of such publication sold or distributed to all persons who have subscribedthat is, have agreed to take and pay for one or more copies of the publications for a definite period of time-and have paid for such subscriptions, and it is immaterial whether or not the subscriptions are individual or in bulk.

The provision covers the number of copies of such publications distributed to such subscribers by any means, whether by the mails or otherwise.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

September 25, 1912.

SIR: In your letter of September 14 you call my attention to certain provisions of section 2 of the act entitled “An act making appropriations for the service of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1913, and for other purposes" (37 Stat. 553), approved August 24, 1912, which makes it the duty of the editor, publisher, business manager, or owner of every daily newspaper to file with the Postmaster General and the postmaster at the office at which such publication is entered, not later than the 1st day of April and the 1st day of October in each year, on blanks furnished by the Post Office Department, a sworn statement which shall include

"The average of the number of copies of each issue of such publication sold or distributed to paid subscribers during the preceding six months

*

a copy of which sworn statement shall be published in the second issue of such newspaper printed next after the filing of such statement, and which publication, it is enacted—

"Shall be denied the privileges of the mail if it shall fail to comply with the provisions of this paragraph within ten days after notice by registered letter of such failure." You ask my opinion as to

"Whether or not this statement shall be limited to paid individual subscriptions, or shall include purchases in bulk by news agents or others for redistribution; also whether in your opinion the provision covers paid circulation of daily newspapers not distributed through the mails?"

The provision is highly penal in its nature, as a consequence of failure to comply with it is punished by denying to the publication the privilege of the mails, not merely the privilege of being carried in the mails as second-class mail matter, but the privilege of being carried in the mails at all. Being therefore in derogation of common right, the provision should not be construed to embrace anything more than falls clearly within its terms, and by those terms the requirements of the statement are limited to

"The average of the number of copies of each issue of such publication sold or distributed to paid subscribers during the preceding six months."

The verb "to subscribe " has a definite meaning in both a legal and a popular sense, and is defined as

"To promise a certain sum verbally, or by signing an agreement; specifically, to undertake to pay a definite amount, in a manner or on conditions agreed upon, for a special purpose; as to subscribe for a newspaper, or for a book (which may be delivered in installments) In law the word implies that the agreement is made in writing." (Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia.)

* *