Opinion of the Court 94 C. Cls. 6, 1917, to extend its provision to any period of national emergency declared by the President. It was further provided that at such times the President was authorized to "investigate, regulate or prohibit" by means of licenses, or otherwise, the "export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to jurisdiction thereof." Section 3 authorized the Secretary of the Treasury whenever in his judgment "such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United States," to require the delivery "to the Treasurer of the United States" of "any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates" against payment of "an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States." Executive order of April 5, 1933, issued in the exercise of the power conferred by the act of March 9, prohibited hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates and prescribed regulations for that purpose. Section 2 of this Executive order provided as follows: All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following: The first exception related to such amount of gold as might be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession, or art, within a reasonable time, "including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold." The second exception related to gold coin and gold certificates not exceeding in amount $100 belonging to any one person, and gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins. The third exception related to gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized foreign government or a foreign central bank or the Bank for International Settlements. The fourth exception re 15 Opinion of the Court lated to gold coin and bullion licensed for other proper transactions (not involving hoarding), including gold coin and bulilion imported for reexport or held pending action on applications for export license. The second exception set forth in this Executive order shows very clearly, we think, that the term "gold bullion," as therein used related to and included refined gold bars of the gold content of the bars of plaintiff, here involved, in the hands of the owner mining and refining such gold. Section 3 of the Executive order of April 5 further provided as follows: Until otherwise ordered any person becoming the owner of any gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates after April 28, 1933, shall, within three days after receipt thereof, deliver the same in the manner prescribed in Section 2; unless such gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates are held for any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of Section 2; or unless such gold coin or gold bullion is held for purposes specified in paragraph (d) of Section 2 and the person holding it is, with respect to such gold coin or bullion, a licensee or applicant for license pending action thereon. Plaintiff did not come within any of the exceptions mentioned. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that prior to the Executive order of August 29, 1933, great doubt prevailed in the industry and the attitude of the Treasury Department was not clear as to the extent to which the Executive orders issued between April 5 and August 29, 1933, and the regulations made thereunder, would apply, if at all, to newly mined gold in the miner's hands. But the record fails to show that there was any doubt entertained by the responsible government officials as to whether gold bullion of the character here involved came within the terms of the Act of March 9, 1933, and Executive orders issued prior to August 29, 1933. Some owners engaged in mining and refining such gold had attempted without success to obtain a ruling that newly mined gold was not within the terms of the statute and the Executive orders. The matter was put at rest by the telegram of the Secretary of the Treasury of June 10, 1933, to the Superintendent of the Mint at San Francisco, quoted in finding 14, in which he Opinion of the Court 94 C. Cls. held that mining and refining companies were incorrectly under the impression that they were not required to deliver under Executive order of April 5 gold bullion produced by them; that this Executive order required delivery of all such gold, except stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of the owner mining and refining the same. He further instructed the Mint to advise all domestic miners and refineries that they must deliver all bullion in continental United States then owned by them, except such reasonable amount not to exceed the amount which, prior to April 5, 1933, it was their practice to maintain in stock. He further held that the provision of Executive order of April 5, requiring delivery to a Federal Reserve Bank, was not to be construed to exclude delivery of gold bullion to a United States Mint or Assay Office. No modification of this rule, insofar as it related to gold bullion of the character here involved, was ever made prior to the regulations issued under Executive order of August 29, 1933, which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to receive on consignment for sale, for the benefit of the producer, gold recovered from the natural deposits in the United States and places subject to the jurisdiction thereof "subject to such rules and regulations and upon such conditions as he shall prescribe." Upon the facts disclosed by the record and set forth in the findings, and for the reasons hereinabove given, we are of opinion that plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount as just compensation as for a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in excess of the amount paid by the defendant for the gold in question. The last question is whether the defendant should have received certain of plaintiff's gold bars on consignment for sale for its benefit under Executive order of August 29, 1933, and regulations issued by the Secretary of the Treasury September 12, 1933. The facts with reference to this phase of the question are set forth in the findings and need not be recited here. Article 29 of Treasury regulations provided that newly mined gold should not be received on consignment under and pursuant to the Executive order of August 29, 1933, if such gold was held prior to 15 Opinion of the Court August 28, 1933, in noncompliance with the terms of the Executive order of April 5, 1933, or the regulations issued thereunder, or was held after August 28, 1933, in noncompliance with the Executive order of that date, or the regulations issued thereunder. Article 30 of the regulations of September 12, provided that "Consignments which the Mint is not satisfied were recovered from natural deposits in the United States or otherwise do not meet the requirements of these Regulations will be disposed of in accordance with applicable law." Plaintiff argues that these regulations were invalid but we think this contention is without merit. Work v. Rives, 267, U. S. 175, 181, 182. Plaintiff had no vested rights which were affected by the regulations of September 12. When plaintiff presented certain of its gold bars, numbered 1195-1212, inclusive, to the San Francisco Mint and requested that they be received on consignment pursuant to the Executive order of August 29, 1933, the proper Mint officials found that such bars had been melted long before August 28, 1933, and had thereafter been held by plaintiff for an unreasonable length of time, although plaintiff had no need for such gold bars in its business. Accordingly, the Mint, in pursuance of the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of Treasury Regulations of September 12, 1933, and in accordance with the rule adopted by it, which we think was reasonable for determining the eligibility of newly mined gold, refused to receive plaintiff's gold bars on consignment under Executive order of August 29 for the reason that such bars did not meet the requirements of such Executive order and regulations issued thereunder. A line between gold receivable on consignment for sale under Executive order of August 29 and gold which had not theretofore been delivered in compliance with the previous Executive orders and regulations had to be drawn. Upon the facts disclosed, we think the rule applied under the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury and the decision of the proper officials of the San Francisco Mint in regard to plaintiff's gold bars were reasonable and proper. Even if it could be said that the correctness of the Treasury regulations of September 12, 1933, and the actions of the officials of the San Francisco Mint which were ratified and approved by the Secretary of the Treasury Reporter's Statement of the Case 94 C. Cls. were doubtful, the question was put at rest by the provision of section 13 of the act of January 30, 1934, 48 Stat. 337, which provided that "All actions, regulations, rules, orders and proclamations heretofore taken, promulgated, made or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury under the Act of March 9, 1933, are hereby approved, ratified and confirmed." United States v. Heinzen & Co., 206 U. S. 370, 386. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover and the petition is dismissed. It is so ordered. GREEN, Judge; and WHALEY, Chief Justice, concur. WHITAKER, Judge, took no part in decision of this case. BANKSON T. HOLCOMB, JR. v. THE UNITED [No. 43910. Decided June 2, 1941] On the Proofs Pay and allowances; Navy officer on duty in China. Decided upon authority of Francis v. United States, 89 C. Cls. 78, and similar cases cited, and Larsen v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 304. The Reporter's statement of the case: Mr. Rees B. Gillespie for the plaintiff. Mr. John W. Price was on the brief. Mr. Louis R. Mehlinger, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea, for the defendant. The court made special findings of fact as follows: 1. Bankson T. Holcomb, Jr., plaintiff, graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1931. While holding the rank of second lieutenant, U. S. Marine Corps, he served with the Fourth Regiment, Marine Corps Expeditionary Force, at Shanghai, China, from September 19, 1932, to October 6, 1934. During this period he was without dependents. 2. Upon reporting for duty with the Fourth Regiment of the Marine Corps in China, the Quartermaster assigned |