reserved right) for half yearly quotas, each based upon shipments and importations during the preceding 6 months, and the statute is to be construed in the light of the terms of the agreement.

I therefore conclude that issuance of further orders for each subsequent half calendar year, during the life of the reciprocal trade agreement, is mandatory and that each such order must provide for limiting 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 the preceding 6 months.

Respectfully,

HOMER CUMMINGS.

DUTY OF DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT TO REJECT

COLLUSIVE BIDS

The purpose of sec. 3709 R. S. is to secure to the Government the benefits flowing from competition and to prevent collusion and fraud in letting contracts.

Collusion among bidders depriving the Government of the benefits flowing from competition is in violation of sec. 3709 R. S.

It is the duty of the Director of Procurement to reject all bids when convinced they result from bidders' collusion depriving the Government of the benefits conferred by sec. 3709 R. S.

Quaere: Whether the Director of Procurement, if convinced that some bids are collusive and others are not, should reject all or only those deemed collusive.

The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

JUNE 30, 1937.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Reference is made to your letter of May 19, 1937, in which you state that "In the administration of the Procurement Division in the Treasury Department, the Director of Procurement is faced, from time to time, with a situation in which all the bids on a Government contract are identical and the Director is convinced, in view of the surrounding circumstances, that the price offered was arrived at as a result of collusive action upon the part of the bidders," and request my opinion upon the question "whether, under such circum

stances, the Director is under a duty to reject all of the bids."

Section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. C., title 41, sec. 5) requires that all purchases and contracts for supplies or services of the Government shall be made "by advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals respecting the same." The purpose of this statute is to secure to the Government the benefits which flow from competition and to prevent collusion and fraud in the letting of contracts. 21 Op. A. G. 304; 22 id. 1, 6; 36 id. 33, 37.

Collusion between bidders, the consequence of which is to deprive the Government of the benefits flowing from competition, is, therefore, in violation of this act (McMullen v. Hoffman, 174 U. S. 639); and when the Director of Procurement is convinced that all bids received are the result of such collusion, unquestionably he has the right to reject them. In re Salmon, 145 Fed. 649, 652–653.

Whether it is his duty to reject all bids in every instance in which he is convinced that they represent collusive action between the bidders is a question difficult to consider in the abstract. It has been the uniform practice of the Attorneys General to decline to render opinions on abstract questions and one of the reasons underlying it is the impossibility of attempting to anticipate every specific set or combination of facts which the future may present. The duty of the Director of Procurement in a particular situation in large measure would depend upon the facts peculiar to it, and no definite rule should be laid down in advance binding him in all possible future factual contingencies. This is especially true in view of the consideration that the Director clearly has the right and the power to reject all bids when, in his opinion, the interest of the Government so requires. I think I may go so far, however, as to say that if the Director should be convinced that all bids received in response to an invitation therefor are the result of collusion on the part of bidders and that the Government thereby has been deprived of benefits conferred upon it by section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, supra, and his convictions are supported by evidence so

clear and convincing as to lead a man of ordinary judgment and prudence definitely to the same conclusions, it would be his duty to reject all of the bids.

The question whether the Director of Procurement, if he should be convinced in a specific instance that some of the bids received are collusive and others are not, should reject all of the bids or should reject only those deemed to be collusive and weigh the others, is not presented in your letter and is not passed upon herein. This question, also, would be difficult, if not impossible, to consider in the abstract, being susceptible of decision only in the light of the facts presented by particular cases as they arise. Respectfully,

HOMER CUMMINGS.

APPROVAL BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TITLE TO LAND ACQUIRED UNDER TITLE VII OF ACT OF JUNE 15, 1935, 49 STAT. 384

1. Title VII of the act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 378), must be read with the rest of that act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and other acts in pari materia.

2. Approval of title by the Attorney General is a prerequisite to the payment of the purchase price for land under sec. 355 R. S. 3. The term "buildings" in sec. 355 R. S. covers any public building. 4. Sec. 355 R. S. applies to lands purchased for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon and such purpose, fixed by statute, is not affected by any intention of the acquiring officer regarding erection or non-erection of buildings.

5. Sec. 355 R. S. is applicable to lands acquired for wildlife refuges under the act of June 15, 1935.

6. Sound reasons underlie the requirement for approval of land titles by the Attorney General.

The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

JULY 6, 1937.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Reference is made to your letter of March 27, 1937, in which you request my opinion upon the question "whether the prior approval of the title by the Attorney General is a prerequisite to the payment of the purchase price for a tract of land acquired in pursuance of title VII of the act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 378, 384)."

58039m 42—vol. 39- -7

My investigation discloses that on March 5, 1937, you transmitted to the Acting Comptroller General, with a request for his approval of payment thereof, a public voucher covering the purchase price of land, the payment of which involved the same question now presented to me. In his response the Acting Comptroller General stated (16 Comp. Gen. 856, 857):

66* * * I have to advise that in the absence of a showing that title to subject land is satisfactory to the Attorney General payment on the voucher submitted is not authorized."

I am in agreement with the above ruling of the Acting Comptroller General. Title VII of the act of June 15, 1935, reads as follows:

"That there is hereby appropriated out of the unexpended balance of the sum of $3,300,000,000 appropriated by the act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 274), making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and for other purposes, the sum of $6,000,000, which shall remain available until expended, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire by purchase or otherwise such lands as may be necessary in his opinion adequately to provide for the restoration, rehabilitation, and protection of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife and to erect and construct thereon and in connection therewith such buildings, dikes, dams, canals, and other works as may be necessary; and in the execution of this act the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make such expenditures for personal services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere as he shall deem necessary."

The act of June 15, 1935, of which title VII is a component part, is entitled “An Act to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, and certain other acts relating to game and other wildlife, administered by the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes." The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451), was enacted to supplement and support the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of

February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222), which in turn was enacted for the purpose of carrying out the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. Title VII must therefore be read not only in connection with the other provisions of the act of June 15, 1935, but also in connection with the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and other acts in pari materia. Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380, 386; Ryan et al. v. Carter et al., 93 U. S. 78, 84; Corralitos Co. v. United States, 178 U. S. 280; Chott v. Ewing, 237 U. S. 197, 200. As stated by the Court in Chott v. Ewing, supra, we must turn "primarily to the context of the section and secondarily to provisions in pari materia as affording an efficient means for discovering the legislative intent * * *""

An examination of the several acts dealing with the subject of protection of migratory birds discloses that throughout such legislation the Congress has followed the unbroken policy of requiring that no payment for lands purchased for such purpose shall be made "until the title thereto shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General." Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which has contained such a provision since its original enactment, was amended by section 301 of title III of the act of June 15, 1935, to read as follows:

"That the Secretary of Agriculture may do all things and make all expenditures necessary to secure the safe title in the United States to the areas which may be acquired under this Act, but no payment shall be made for any such areas until the title thereto shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General, but the acquisition of such areas by the United States shall in no case be defeated because of rights-ofway, easements, and reservations which from their nature will in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture in no manner interfere with the use of the areas so encumbered for the purposes of this Act; but such rights-of-way, easements, and reservations retained by the grantor or lessor from whom the United States receives title under this or any other Act for the acquisition by the Secretary of Agriculture of areas for wildlife refuges shall be subject to rules