tary of the Navy in retiring Captain Gleason under this provision was proper, except for the fact that section 309 is included in title III of the act and the heading to title III, as noted above reads, "Provisions Applicable Only to the Organized Reserve, Merchant Marine Reserve, and Volunteer Reserve." The question is whether, despite the heading of title III, the Congress intended the provisions of section 309 to be applicable to officers of the Fleet Reserve appointed under section 201.

Since the Naval Reserve Act of 1938 is a revision of prior statutes, it must be read in connection with the former acts in order to determine its meaning. United States V. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508, 513. A review of the prior legislation discloses that it has been the uniform policy of the Congress to require all officers of the Naval Reserve to be disenrolled or retired upon reaching the age of 64 years. Thus, the original act of August 29, 1916, as amended by the act of July 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 Stat. 704, 711, provided that "members of the Naval Reserve Force shall upon reaching the age of sixty-four years be disenrolled," except in time of war or national emergency. This provision applied to all officers of the Naval Reserve Force without regard to their classification in the force. It was superseded by section 19 of the Naval Reserve Act of 1925, which also applied to all officers of the Naval Reserve, and which in turn was replaced by section 309 of the Naval Reserve Act of 1938. An examination of the two sections last mentioned discloses that, except for the caption of title III under which section 309 of the 1938 act appears, they are without material difference so far as concerns the present question.

In view of this established policy with respect to retirement of Naval Reserve officers, it would seem likely that had the Congress intended to effectuate a change, it would have done so in unambiguous language. It is true that the House Committee on Naval Affairs, in reporting the bill which became the Naval Reserve Act of 1938, stated that "section 309 establishes an honorary retired list for the Naval Reserve to which officers and men of the Special,2 Merchant

2 The bill was amended to strike out the word "Special" and insert in lieu thereof the word "Organized."

Marine, and Volunteer Reserves shall be transferred" (H. Rept. No. 2465, 75th Cong., 3d sess., 10). However, the Report also enumerates the changes which it was intended that section 309 would effect in the prior section 19, and this enumeration makes no reference to any proposed change in the retirement provisions relating to officers of the Fleet Reserve (id. 10-11; see also, Cong. Rec., 75th Cong., 3d sess., 8946).

Furthermore, it has been the uniform administrative practice under the Naval Reserve Act of 1916, as amended, to disenroll all officers of the Naval Reserve Force, including officers of the Fleet Naval Reserve and ex-officers of the Regular Navy, upon reaching the age of 64 years, and also the uniform practice under the Naval Reserve Act of 1925 to place all officers of the Naval Reserve, including officers of the Fleet Reserve and ex-officers of the Regular Navy, upon the honorary retired list upon reaching the age of 64 years. It should be noted, also, that the requirement of retirement at 64 accords with the established policy with respect to officers of the Regular Navy, who are likewise required to be retired from active service upon attaining the age of 64 (U. S. C., title 34, sec. 384). It must be assumed that this practice was known to the Congress at the time it was revising the Naval Reserve Act of 1925. I find nothing in the legislative history of the statute disclosing a purpose to depart from such policy.

Finally, it is significant that in amending the Naval Reserve Act of 1938 in 1940, the House and Senate committees referred to certain sections in title III as applicable to all branches of the Naval Reserve (H. Rept. No. 2498, 76th Cong., 3d sess., 6-7; S. Rept. No. 1947, 76th Cong., 3d sess., 9-10).

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the provisions of section 309 of the Naval Reserve Act of 1938 are applicable to the retirement of officers of the Fleet Reserve, and I find no legal objection to the order of the Secretary of the Navy, above mentioned, transferring Captain Henry M. Gleason to the honorary retired list of the Naval Reserve.

Respectfully,

798037-496

ROBERT H. JACKSON.

IMPORTATION OF MEAT FROM TIERRA DEL FUEGO

Tierra del Fuego may be treated as a country separate from continental Argentina and Chile in the administration of the statute forbidding the importation of meat from countries in which rinderpest or footand-mouth disease exists.

The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.

MAY 16, 1941.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: In your letter of May 14 you request my opinion "whether Tierra del Fuego may be regarded as a country, separate from continental Argentina and Chile, within the meaning of section 306 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (U.S.C., title 19, sec. 1306 (a))," which reads as follows:

"If the Secretary of Agriculture determines that rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists in any foreign country, he shall officially notify the Secretary of the Treasury and give public notice thereof, and thereafter, and until the Secretary of Agriculture gives notice in a similar manner that such disease no longer exists in such foreign country, the importation into the United States of cattle, sheep, or other domestic ruminants, or swine, or of fresh, chilled, or frozen beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or pork, from such foreign country, is prohibited."

A somewhat similar question under the same statute was dealt with in the Attorney General's opinion of August 11, 1933, 37 Op. 225, and I quote therefrom the following paragraph:

"The Republic of Argentina, of course, is a foreign country, and no reasons have been presented to me which, in my opinion, would justify a conclusion that the southern part, referred to as Patagonia, may be considered a separate country. It appears from the Encyclopaedia Britannica and from Nelson's Perpetual Loose Leaf Encyclopaedia (corrected to 1933) that 'Patagonia' is a name commonly applied to the southern part of South America, embracing territory within both Chile and Argentina, and it further appears that the Patagonian portion of Argentina is geographically contiguous to the remainder of Argentina, the whole constituting a single political entity, one country, the Republic of Argentina."

The Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture in an opinion submitted with your letter points out that Tierra del Fuego, unlike Patagonia, is not geographically contiguous to either Argentina or Chile (save, perhaps, in a very broad sense), being wholly separated from the mainland of South America by the Magellan Strait, and that it is far removed from territory in which the foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U. S. 1, 5, pointed out that the term "foreign country" has no fixed meaning when used in a statute. The meaning to be given the term depends upon the purpose of the particular legislation in which the expression is used. The following excerpt is from the opinion of the Court:

"The word 'country,' in the expression 'foreign country,' is ambiguous. It may be taken to mean foreign territory or a foreign government. In the sense of territory, it may embrace all the territory subject to a foreign sovereign power. When referring more particularly to a foreign government, it may describe a foreign State in the international sense, that is, one that has the status of an international person with the rights and responsibilities under international law of a member of the family of nations; or it may mean a foreign government which has authority over a particular area or subject-matter, although not an international person but only a component part, or a political subdivision, of the larger international unit. The term 'foreign country' is not a technical or artificial one, and the sense in which it is used in a statute must be determined by reference to the purpose of the particular legislation."

Having in mind the obvious purpose of the statute, the geographical meaning of the term rather than its political meaning conforms with such purpose, where, in any event, the political meaning includes noncontiguous geographical areas, or where contiguous geographical areas encompass more than one political entity. Under this view, continental Argentina is a foreign country and Tierra del Fuego is also a foreign country notwithstanding that Tierra del Fuego is in part under the sovereignty of Argentina and in part under the sovereignty of Chile. Importations from all or

any of these foreign areas may be prevented under the conditions stated in the statute; and political jurisdiction is not the controlling factor. Your Solicitor indicates that the practice of your Department in the administration of the statute has been to this effect; that is, to regard the term "foreign country" as used primarily in a geographical rather than a political sense, as evidenced by the list of such countries from which importations are now forbidden (5 Fed. Reg. 4260). Accordingly, the present question is not controlled by the fact that a part of Tierra del Fuego is politically a part of Argentina.

If, therefore, having in mind the purpose of the statute to avoid risk of introduction of the disease into this country, you find that the disease does not exist in Tierra del Fuego and that the geographical separation of it from continental Argentina and Chile is sufficient to avoid such risk, it is my opinion that it is within your discretion to treat Tierra del Fuego separately and that it need not necessarily be included in provisions which apply to continental Argentina and Chile.

Respectfully,

ROBERT H. JACKSON.

TRAINING OF BRITISH FLYING STUDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES

The training of British flying students in civilian institutions of the United States offends no law and requires no specific statutory authority.

It is within the power of the President as Commander in Chief to authorize the instruction of British flying students by members of the Army Air Corps at air corps training centers.

The furnishing of airplanes, fuel, spare parts, instruction books, and similar articles for the use of such students is authorized by the Lend-Lease Act.

THE PRESIDENT.

MAY 23, 1941.1

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to refer again to the memorandum of your Secretary, General Edwin M. Watson, dated May 12, 1941, and to my letter to you dated

1 Released for publication October 16, 1942.