reason of the time and money spent in his equipment and training; that a person on probation or parole is in process of rehabilitation and has not yet established his right to be at liberty. I am not here concerned with the soundness of these reasons, but I must concede that some of them would apply with equal force to the Civilian Conservation Corps camps and may have influenced the Congress to prescribe the same rule for the camps.

It is therefore my opinion that persons on probation or on parole as a consequence of conviction for crime are not eligible for employment in the Civilian Conservation Corps

camps.

Respectfully,

STANLEY REED, Acting Attorney General.

CITIZENSHIP OF LEGITIMATED CHILD

A child born abroad of an alien woman separated from her husband '(later divorced) and living in adultery with a citizen of the United States who acknowledges the child to be his and has now married the mother, is legitimated under the law of the father's domicile and is to be regarded as an American citizen.

The SECRETARY OF STATE.

AUGUST 6, 1937.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have your letter of July 29, 1937, requesting my opinion regarding the citizenship of * * * [A].

The facts are stated in the memorandum of your legal adviser to be as follows: A was born in a foreign country in 1933 to Mrs. B, the wife of an alien, and Mr. C, a citizen of the United States. At the time of the child's birth Mrs. B had been separated from her husband and living with Mr. C for over a year, during which period divorce proceedings were pending and she had no contact with her husband (Mr. B) except on two occasions when she met him in the presence of her lawyer. After the divorce between Mr. and Mrs. B became final, Mrs. B and Mr. C were married in France in 1935, and went through another marriage ceremony in New York, where Mr. C had been dom

iciled for a number of years, in 1937. Mr. C acknowledges the child to be his and Mr. B agrees that this is true.

The following statutes require consideration:

R. S. 1993, as amended (U. S. C., 1926 ed., title 8, sec. 6): "All children born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers may be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the right of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States. * * *""

McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Book 14, sec. 24: "All illegitimate children whose parents have heretofore intermarried or who shall hereafter intermarry shall thereby become legitimatized and shall become legitimate for all purposes and entitled to all the rights and privileges of legitimate children; but an estate or interest vested or trust created before the marriage of the parents of such child shall not be divested or affected by reason of such child being legitimatized. Nothing in this article shall be deemed or construed to in any manner impair or affect the validity of any lawful marriage contract made before the passage of this article."

The particular question raised is the application or nonapplication of the principle stated in the Attorney General's opinion of April 7, 1920 (32 Op. 162, 164), as follows:

"When, by the law of the State where the father of an illegitimate child, at the time of his marriage with its mother, or his acknowledgment of the child as his own, is domiciled, the child is legitimated, it will be regarded as legitimate everywhere, even in States whose laws do not recognize subsequent legitimation. (Fowler v. Fowler, 131 N. C. 169; Miller v. Miller, 91 N. Y. 315; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243; Story, Conflict of Laws, sec. 93b.) Since the recognition of the relationship of an illegitimate child to a father whose identity has been established in the manner provided by statute is no longer against public policy even where the right to inherit from its father is involved, that relationship should be recognized as existing from the date of the child's birth. The State Department has for many

years held that a child born out of wedlock which, by the laws of its father's domicile has been legitimated, is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of Revised Statutes, section 1993. There appear to be no considerations of public policy which require a different decision."

The only possible ground of distinction is the fact that in the present instance the mother of the child was a married woman-and there is, of course, a presumption that children born to a married woman are the children of her husband. This presumption, however, is rebuttable. In Ives v. McNicoll, 59 Ohio St. 402, it is stated that "the weight of authority in this country is in favor of" the view that a statute providing in general terms for the legitimation of children upon the subsequent marriage of their parents is applicable to children born of adulterous connections, and this view was accepted and applied in New York (where Mr. C is domiciled) in Wolf v. Wolf, 178 N. Y. S. 726.

As indicated in the opinion of April 7, 1920, legitimation is dependent upon the law of the domicile of the father, through whom the right of citizenship is claimed, and the authorities cited in the opinion support this view-the New York case (Miller v. Miller) particularly pointing out that legitimation is effected by the law of the domicile even though the marriage is performed in a foreign country. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the effect of the second marriage ceremony performed in New York after the arrival of Mr. and Mrs. C in this country.

There being no suggestion to the contrary in the documents submitted by you, I assume that the French marriage was valid. Therefore, the domicile of Mr. C at the time of that marriage becomes important. He states under oath that he was "domiciled in and a resident of" New York in 1931 and that he left New York at that time with the intention of returning to the United States. This, taken in connection with the fact that he did return to New York in 1937, ordinarily would be sufficient to establish the fact that he was domiciled in New York at the time of his marriage in 1935. Further and somewhat ambiguous statements of Mr. C indicate that during some period after becoming enamoured of

the former Mrs. B, he put out of his mind for the time the idea of returning to America; but I cannot regard this as establishing the loss of his domicile in this country. Therefore, in the absence of any sufficient showing to the contrary, I consider that the child is entitled to the presumption that her father's New York domicile had not been lost at the time of the marriage in France. Upon this view it is unnecessary to consider whether or not the New York statute is so broad that it would operate to legitimatize the child upon the establishment of a domicile in New York by her parents subsequent to the time of the French marriage.

For the foregoing reasons it is my opinion that the principle stated in the opinion of April 7, 1920, is applicable and that the child, A, is to be regarded as an American citizen.

Respectfully,

HOMER CUMMINGS.

UNITED STATES HOUSING AUTHORITY-NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS, INSURANCE

It is not improbable that the courts will hold the Authority liable for negligence of its agents or employees.

The Authority is authorized under sec. 13 (d) of the U. S. Housing Act to procure insurance or to set up insurance reserves to protect against such liability.

The PRESIDENT.

JANUARY 28, 1938.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to refer to your letter of December 20, 1937, requesting my opinion on whether the United States Housing Authority is liable for any damage or loss arising out of injuries or damages to persons or property, or both, occasioned by the negligence of any of its agents or employees and, if so, whether it may take out insurance protecting itself against such loss or damage.

The United States Housing Authority, created under the United States Housing Act of September 1, 1937 (50 Stat. 888), is a corporation, the entire capital stock of which is subscribed and owned by the United States. The

powers of the Authority are vested in an Administrator, appointed by the President by and with the consent of the Senate, and all other officers and employees thereof are appointed by the Administrator. The corporation is established in the Department of the Interior and under the general supervision of the Secretary thereof. Its principal office is in the District of Columbia, but it is authorized to establish branch offices or agencies in any State, and to exercise any of its powers in any place within the United States. It is authorized to adopt and use an official seal, is granted the free use of the mail, may "sue and be sued in its own name," and may "procure insurance against any loss in connection with its property and other assets (including mortgages)."

Funds for carrying on the activities of the Authority are to be provided from its capital, from any funds allocated to it, from appropriations made by the Congress, and from the sale of obligations which it may issue and sell pursuant to the limitations of the act. Such obligations are fully and unconditionally guaranteed upon their face by the United States as to the payment of both principal and interest, and are declared to be lawful investments for all fiduciary, trust, and public funds the investment or deposit of which shall be under the authority or control of the United States or any officer or agency thereof. The obligations are exempt from all taxation, both as to principal and interest, except surtaxes, estate, inheritance, and gift taxes; and "the Authority, including but not limited to its franchise, capital, reserves, surplus, loans, income, assets, and property of any kind," is exempt from all

taxation.

The Federal Reserve banks are authorized to act as depositories, custodians, and fiscal agents for the Authority, which also may be employed as a financial agent of the Government and may be designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as a depository of public money, except receipts from customs.

The act declares it to be the policy of the United States "to promote the general welfare of the Nation by employ