heretofore pur an Indian subject to restrictions chased out of trust or restricted funds of said Indian shall be nontaxable * [Italics sup plied.] The obvious purpose of the Act is to make nontaxable, lands of all Indians purchased out of trust or restricted funds and restricted as to alienation or encumbrance. The statute is clearly a relief measure, and there is no apparent reason why the Congress should desire to exclude any particular tribe of Indians from the relief afforded. The earlier Act does not make, and does not purport to make, the lands in question taxable. It merely exempts the lands from certain liens and makes it clear that the exemption does not extend to the lien of taxes, to which the lands are ordinarily, and were at that time, subject. There is no conflict between the two statutes. The former exempts a certain class of lands from certain liens not including tax liens, and the latter renders such lands non-taxable. For the reasons stated, it is my opinion that the Act of June 20, 1936, is applicable to members of the Osage Tribe of Indians in Oklahoma in the same manner and to the same extent that it is applicable to members of other Indian tribes. Respectfully, STANLEY REED, Acting Attorney General. To the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. STATUS UNDER ACT APRIL 13, 1934, OF NATIONS MAKING "TOKEN PAYMENTS" ON OBLIGATIONS TO UNITED STATES1 It was a necessary effect of the Act of April 13, 1934 (c. 112, 48 Stat. 574), as interpreted in the opinion of May 5, 1934, to exclude as a "default" such partial failure theretofore occurring as resulted from the making and acceptance of so-called "token payments", and if a Government which made such a payment should pay the full amount of the next installment due on its indebtedness to the United States, it would not be "in default", within the meaning of the term as used in that Act. The Act of April 13, 1934, being penal, should not be unduly extended by construction. 1 The publication of this opinion was temporarily withheld. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, May 18, 1934. SIR: I have the honor to comply with your request of May 16 for my opinion upon the following question, stated by you to have arisen under the Act of April 13, 1934, forbidding financial transactions with foreign governments in default on their obligations to the United States. "If a Government that has made a so-called 'token' payment on its obligations to the United States, and is now in the non-defaulting category under the Attorney General's ruling of May 5, should pay the full amount of the next installment, would it still be regarded as not in default?" The operation of the statute, as applied to a particular country, is dependent upon a failure on the part of such country to meet its obligations to the United States. A government which made the so-called token payments had not met its obligations in full; but it was a necessary effect of the statute, as interpreted in my opinion of May 5, to exclude as a "default" such partial failure theretofore occurring as resulted from the making and acceptance of token payments under the circumstances indicated. There was no waiver of the amounts overdue, and I feel confident that both the President and Congress contemplated their payment within a reasonable time. However, as no definite time was specified, it could not be said that the mere maturing of a subsequent installment which was paid when due would in itself automatically create a default. The statute, being penal, should not be unduly extended by construction. It follows from these considerations that if a government which made a token payment under the circumstances stated in my opinion of May 5 should pay the full amount of the installment next due on its indebtedness, it would not be in default, within the meaning of that term as used in the Act of April 13, 1934. Respectfully, To The SECRETARY OF STATE. HOMER CUMMINGS. INDEX-DIGEST [See also index to subjects, p. XXV.] ABSTRACTS OF TITLE. FEDERAL SUBSISTENCE HOMESTEADS CORPORATION. See SUB- ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. Payment in connection with settlement of War Claims Act of 1928, etc.-Public Resolution No. 53, Seventy-third Congress, postponing payments 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. 23. ADVERTISEMENT. PROPERTY SOLD TO HIGHEST BIDDER. AERONAUTICAL ACCESSORIES. See REAL PROPERTY, 2. See AIRCRAFT, 3. AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION AUTHORIZED AGENCY OF AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, DISCLOSURE. See CONFIDENTIAL EFFECT OF PROCLAMATION DECLARING THAT AN "ECONOMIC TAXATION, 2, 3. PURCHASE OF SURPLUS SUGAR AUTHORIZED. See SUGAR. AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT. MINIMUM RATING REQUIRED FOR MILITARY PREFERENCE AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY OF. ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR BIRD AND GAME SANCTUARIES AND AUTHORITY TO BORROW MONEY FROM RECONSTRUCTION FINANCE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. See CONFI- 583 AGRICULTURE, SECRETARY OF-Continued. LOAN TO REFINANCE INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST COTTON. See PURCHASE AND DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS SUGAR. See SUGAR. OF ADVANCES under DIFFERENT STATUTES. See BONDS, 7, 8. AIR COMMERCE ACT OF 1926. FURNISHING ASSISTANCE TO AIRCRAFT. See AIRCRAFT, 1, 2. AIRCRAFT. 1. Furnishing assistance to aircraft under the Air Commerce Act of 1926. The existence in any aircraft of a state of disrepair or other inappropriateness for safe flight, including lack or shortage of fuel, oil, equipment, or supplies, apparent when assistance is requested, is sufficient to justify the furnishing of assistance to such aircraft under the Air Commerce Act of 1926, provided that the need has reasonable relation to an actual and definite flight. 145. 2. Same. The meaning of the term "emergency" considered. 145. 3. Procurement by War Department of aircraft, aircraft parts, and aeronautical accessories.-The act of July 2, 1926, ch. 721, 44 Stat. 780, is not exclusive in the matter of the procurement of aircraft, aircraft parts, and aeronautical accessories, and such equipment may be procured by the War Department under the provisions of prior laws relating to small scale purchases and procurements in circumstances where the exigencies do not permit delay incident to advertising for proposals or competition is not possible. 164. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION. See SHIPPING, 1. ALCOHOL BEVERAGE UNIT. STATUS OF EMPLOYEES REINSTATED IN TREASURY DEPARTMENT. ALIENATION OF LANDS. See INDIAN LANDS, 1. EXCLUDED FROM UNITED STATES FOR OFFENSES INVOLVING ALLEY DWELLING AUTHORITY FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AMERICAN LEGION. MAINTENANCE OF PERSHING HALL, PARIS, FRANCE. See RELEASE OF POSTS FROM CERTAIN CLAIMS. See CLAIMS, 4. AMERICAN PRINTING HOUSE FOR THE BLIND. DUTY TO PROVIDE COPIES OF PUBLICATIONS TO LIBRARY OF |