A number of Executive orders were issued under this act but it is sufficient to refer to that of June 6, 1933 (No. 6156), portions of which are copied below: [PART III] "I. (a) Any person who served in the active military or naval service, for a period of 90 days or more, during either the Spanish-American War, the Boxer Rebellion, the Philippine Insurrection, or the World War, who is shown to have been in active service therein before the cessation of hostilities and to have been honorably discharged from such service shall be entitled to receive a pension for permanent total disability not the result of his misconduct and which is not shown to have been incurred in any period of military or naval service: * * * "(d) In determining the period of active service for the purpose of part III, it is not requisite that the 90 days' period of service shall have been completed before the cessation of hostilities. It is necessary, however, that a claimant hereunder shall have entered service prior to the cessation of hostilities and shall have served continuously thereafter for 90 days. A period of continuous active service for 90 days which commenced prior to, and extended into a period of hostilities as defined by part I, shall be considered as meeting the service requirements of part III." [Italics supplied.] Prior to March 20, 1933, several statutes authorized pensions on account of military and naval service rendered during various wars, insurrections, relief expeditions, etc. For example, the act of June 2, 1930, c. 375, 46 Stat. 492, provided pensions for certain "persons who served 90 days or more in the military or naval service of the United States during the war with Spain, the Philippine Insurrection, or the China relief expedition." You state that it had become settled practice under such prior statutes to consider all military or naval service rendered between the recognized opening and closing dates of a war, etc., as the period of military or naval service upon which the pension was based, and no other. In connection with Spanish War pensions, for example, all service rendered between April 21, 1898 (the effective date of the declaration of war), and April 11, 1899 (the effective date of the treaty of peace), was considered. This practice was interrupted by the act of March 20, 1933, and the administrative action taken thereunder. Subsequently the act of August 13, 1935, c. 521, 49 Stat. 614, provided "that all laws in effect on March 19, 1933, granting pensions to veterans of the Spanish-American War * * * are hereby reenacted into law and such laws shall be effective from and after the date of the approval of this act." It was determined, however, that the act of March 20, 1933, also remained in effect (Administrator's Decision No. 332, September 10, 1935), permitting applicants to claim under either law. The 1933 act and regulations required the adoption of a different pension basis (governing deductions under the Retirement Act) for reasons which may be illustrated by reference to the case of Spanish War pensions. The regulations changed the closing date of pensionable Spanish War service from April 11, 1899, to August 12, 1898, but also authorized the granting of pensions to persons who had served continuously for a period of 90 days not wholly within the war period but including a part of the war period. Your letters and the documents submitted therewith indicate that in the administration of this act you grant pensions, not merely for war service as under the old laws, but for periods of service beginning with a valid enlistment and ending with an honorable discharge which include a war period in whole or in part. You state that at a conference on December 15, 1937, participated in by representatives of various veterans' organizations, the Civil Service Commission, and the Veterans' Administration, the following conclusions were reached: "The Veterans' Administration to advise the Civil Service Commission when a veteran is in receipt of or entitled to pension because of war service, specifying the war in which service was rendered, but not specifying the beginning or end of the period or periods of the veteran's service. "The Civil Service Commission will "(a) Where there is one enlistment exclude from computable annuity service only the time from the beginning to the end of the war, and "(b) Where there is more than one enlistment beginning or terminating within a war period, exclude from computable annuity service the enlistment or part of enlistment. within the war period having the least number of days in excess of the minimum requirement for pension payment." Subsequently the Civil Service Commission wrote you as follows: 66* * * As your office and not that of the Commission adjudicates claims for military pensions, retired pay and compensation under the War Risk Insurance Act, it is not believed that the Civil Service Commission is authorized to determine what particular military service forms the basis of such pension, retired pay or compensation. "It seems to the Commission that the simpler way to handle such cases would be for your office to advise the Commission of the particular period of service you have used in authorizing a pension, etc., for military or naval service so that this office can exclude such service as required by the statute in authorizing civil service annuity benefits. * * At a recent conference, participated in by members of my staff, it was agreed by representatives of both the Civil Service Commission and the Veterans' Administration that the matter should be, and probably would be, submitted to the Congress at its next session. Under all the circumstances, and responding to the precise question which you have submitted, I can only advise that you certify to the Civil Service Commission the period of military or naval service upon which you actually base the pension as that period is determined by you. The President of the Civil Service Commission has joined with you in submitting the question, and I am sending him a copy of this letter. Respectfully, HOMER CUMMINGS. TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CANADA If the proposed new trade agreement with Canada should contain a provision for free entry of wooden shingles without reservation of the right to limit their importation it would, upon becoming effective, ipso facto supersede the limitation imposed under the trade agreement of Nov. 15, 1935, and sec. 811 of the Revenue Act of 1936. The PRESIDENT. AUGUST 12, 1938. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to comply with your request of August 9 for my opinion upon the question. hereinafter indicated. The reciprocal trade agreement entered into with the Dominion of Canada under date of November 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 3960, 3981), contained the following paragraph: "Shingles of wood-Free. "Provided, That the United States reserves the right to limit the total quantity of red cedar shingles which may be entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, during any given half of any calendar year to a quantity not exceeding 25 per centum of the combined total of the shipments of red cedar shingles by producers in the United States and the imports of such shingles during the preceding half year." Exercising the right thus reserved, the Congress provided in section 811 of the Revenue Act of 1936 (c. 690, 49 Stat. 1648, 1746) as follows: "Whenever any organization or association representing the producers of more than 75 per centum of the red cedar shingles produced in the United States during the previous half-year period shall request the President to limit the importation of red cedar shingles from Canada under paragraph 1760 of the reciprocal trade agreement entered into with the Dominion of Canada under date of November 15, 1935, and the President finds from available statistics that the total quantity of red cedar shingles produced in the Dominion of Canada which is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States, during any given half of any calendar year exceeds or will exceed 25 per centum of the combined total of the shipments of red cedar shingles by producers in the United States and the imports during the preceding half year, the President shall issue an order limiting for the six months immediately following the half of the calendar year in which said excess occurred, the quantity of red cedar shingles to be imported from Canada to 25 per centum of the combined total of the shipments and imports of red cedar shingles for such preceding half calendar year. The President shall issue a new order for each half of the calendar year thereafter during the continuation of the operation of the reciprocal trade agreement entered into with the Dominion of Canada, under date of November 15, 1935, with the same limitations as hereinbefore set forth." [Italics supplied.] You have already issued three Executive orders as provided for in the section quoted and another order, covering the second half of the calendar year 1938, has been prepared for your signature. You state that negotiations are now in progress with the Government of Canada for a new trade agreement under the authority of the Trade Agreements Act (48 Stat. 943; 50 Stat. 24) and inquire concerning the effect of such new agreement upon the Executive order limiting imports of red cedar shingles in the event that the agreement should be concluded and become effective prior to the termination of the six-month period covered by the order. The answer to your inquiry is partly dependent upon the provisions of the new trade agreement. I have made inquiry at the Department of State and am informed that, although it has not yet been finally determined, the new agreement may provide unqualifiedly for free entry of wooden shingles without any reservation on the part of the United States of the right to limit their importation. If such a provision should be inserted and the agreement become effective it would, in my opinion, ipso facto supersede the limitation imposed under the reservation contained in the present agreement. Respectfully, JOSEPH B. KEENAN, |