« PreviousContinue »
arise pursuant to part 1 of this title, for protecting title to any cotton which may have been or may be acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture under authority of part 1 of this title, and for paying any expenses (including, but not limited to, warehouse charges, insurance, salaries, interest, costs, and commissions) incident to carrying, handling, insuring, and marketing of said cotton and for the purposes described in subsection (e) of this section.
“(e) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use in his discretion any funds obtained by him pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) or (b) of this section or of section 5 for making advances to any agency which may have been or may be established by the Secretary of Agriculture for the handling, carrying, insuring, or marketing of any cotton acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture, to enable
any such agency to perform, exercise, and discharge any of the duties, privileges, and functions which such
agency may be authorized to perform, exercise, or discharge.” (48 Stat. 1058).
It is to be noted that subsection (a) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to borrow money upon all cotton either in his possession or under his control. It is clear that the cotton is not at this time in the possession of the Secretary, but it is equally clear from your submission that it is under his control.
Under the terms of the Cotton Option and Pool Agreement, the Pool Manager can neither pledge nor sell the cotton without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. From this it follows that the Secretary has effectively retained control of the cotton within the meaning of the statute and, is, therefore, fully authorized to make the proposed loan.
Under subsection (e) the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use any funds obtained by him pursuant to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) for making advances to any agencies established for the handling, carrying, insuring, or marketing of any cotton acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture to enable any such agency to perform, exercise, and discharge any of the duties, privileges, and functions authorized. The cotton pool is an agency established
for the purpose of handling and carrying cotton, and since the Pool Manager is specifically authorized to make loans and to pledge the cotton, with the approval of the Secretary, it is my opinion that the Secretary is authorized to make the proposed advance to the Pool Manager and that he may re-pledge the cotton to secure the loan thus obtained.
Relative to the second question submitted by you, it is my opinion that the proposed form of note to be used in connection with the refinancing plan is without legal objection. It is suggested by your Solicitor that there may be some doubt as to your authority to pledge the credit of the United States for any deficiency which may result in the event that the proceeds from the cotton when sold are not sufficient to pay the indebtedness in full. The statute specifically authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to borrow money upon all cotton in his possession or control, and the Congress has thus authorized you to pledge the credit of the United States for the amount borrowed. The indebtedness to be evidenced by the notes is that which has been incurred by borrowing upon the cotton involved, and it is therefore within the authorization of the statute. Your questions are answered accordingly. Respectfully,
Acting Attorney General. To the SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE.
AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR CONTROL OF
JAPANESE BEETLE INFESTATION AT ST. LOUIS, MO.
The facts stated show that the Japanese Beetle infestation in St.
Louis, Mo., is al menace to the agricultural area of the Mississippi
Valley and west thereof stricken by drought. Held, the appropriation of $525,000,000 made by the Emergency Appro
priation Act, fiscal year 1935, “ to meet the emergency and necessity for relief in stricken agricultural areas” is available for the control of such infestation. (See Executive Order No. 6820 of August 11, 1934.)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
August 10, 1934. Sir: I am herewith transmitting, through the Secretary of the State, a revised draft of a proposed Executive Order presented by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture and submitted to this Department by the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget under date of August 3, 1934. The original draft of the order has been revised slightly as to form but the sense has in no wise been changed.
The proposed order allocates the sum of $65,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture from the emergency relief appropriation of $525,000,000 contained in the Emergency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1935, approved June 19, 1934, for the control of the Japanese beetle infestation at St. Louis, Missouri. The question is presented as to whether the item of $525,000,000 is available for the purpose stated.
The pertinent part of the appropriation Act in question is as follows:
“ To meet the emergency and necessity for relief in stricken agricultural areas, to remain available until June 30, 1935, $525,000,000, to be allocated by the President to supplement the appropriations heretofore made for emergency purposes
* » (48 Stat. 1056). Although the Japanese beetle infestation in question is localized in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, control of the infestation, as stated by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture in his letter to you of August 1, 1934, is necessary in order to prevent it from spreading into and further damaging the agricultural area of the Mississippi Valley and west thereof which has been stricken by drought. It is to be noted in this connection that the use of the appropriation is not limited to the relief of conditions caused by drought but is available for meeting “the emergency and necessity for relief in stricken agricultural areas. Thus conditions justifying relief under the Act might also be brought about by such forces as floods, storms, disease, plague, pest, etc.
There can be no doubt that if the agricultural area in question were already stricken by a Japanese beetle infestation the appropriation would be available for the control thereof in such area. The actual situation presented, however, cannot be distinguished in principle from the one supposed. The menace of the infestation in the non-agricul. tural St. Louis area has in fact created an emergency in the contiguous agricultural area sought to be protected; hence the removal or control of that menace is within the
purpose of the act as expressed in the language thereof. If the
appropriation is available for relief of conditions caused by pestilence, by force of reasoning it must be said to be available also for the prevention of such conditions.
Accordingly, it is my view that you are authorized to issue the proposed executive order. Respectfully,
Acting Attorney General. To the PRESIDENT.
PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH SETTLEMENT OF WAR CLAIMS ACT OF 1928, ETC.
Public Resolution No. 53, Seventy-third Congress, postponing pay
ments of awards of the Mixed Claims Commission while Germany is in arrears under the debt-funding agreement of June 23, 1930, does not restrict payment of administrative expenses pursuant to paragraph (1) of section 4 (c) of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, or payment by the Treasury Department of sums out of the Alien Property Custodian administrative expense fund.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
August 17, 1934. SIR: I have the honor to refer to the letter of Mr. L. W. Robert, Jr., Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated August 10, 1934, wherein he requests the opinion of the Attorney General “
on the question of whether Public Resolution No. 53, 73rd Congress, approved June 27, 1934, in any way restricts payment of administration expenses pursuant to paragraph (1) of Section 4 (c) of the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, or the payment by the Treasury Department to the Department of Justice, as the successor to the rights of the Alien Property Custodian, of sums out of the administrative expense fund consisting of the 2 per cent deducted at the time claims are paid by the Alien Property Custodian, which fund is a part of the No. 6 account of the Alien Property Custodian with the Treasury Department.”
Resolution No. 53, so far as material here, is as follows:
“ That so long as Germany is in arrears in any payments of principal or interest, including interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum on principal installments not paid when due, under the debt-funding agreement between Germany and the United States, dated June 23, 1930, with respect to Germany's obligations remaining on account of awards, including interest thereon, entered and to be entered by the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, all payments, conveyances, transfers, or deliveries of money or property or the income, issues, profits, and/or avails thereof authorized or directed to be made under the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended, or the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, as amended, whether or not a judgment or decree has been entered with respect thereto, shall be postponed and the money or property, or the income, issues, profits, and/or avails thereof reserved: Provided, however, That such of the funds as are from time to time available (without taking into consideration interest thereafter accruing) under the Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, as amended, for the payment of principal and interest upon awards of said Mixed Claims Commission shall be applied when available to the payment of principal and interest upon such awards in the same manner and to the same extent as though certain of the payments provided for in said Act had not been postponed under this resolution: Provided, further, That the President may, in his sole discretion, remove the restriction as
, to any of the cases or classes of cases in relation to which payments, conveyances, transfers, or deliveries have been postponed under this resolution: And provided further, That the President is authorized to determine, for the purposes of this resolution, the period or periods in which Germany is in arrears in the payments hereinbefore described, and his determination thereof shall not be subject to judicial review” [48 Stat. 1267, 1268].
It is to be noted that the Resolution does not expressly prohibit or direct the payment of administrative expenses; in fact, it is silent on the subject. It does, however, direct
. that all payments be postponed and that all money and other property be reserved. To carry out this direction obviously requires administration. The resolution further directs the payment of awards made by the Mixed Claims Commission, and it authorizes the President, in his discretion, to remove the restrictions as to payment in any case, and to determine the period or periods in which Germany is in