Page images
PDF
EPUB

a citizen at birth but such citizenship is subject to defeasance by the omission of the child to reside in the United States or to take the oath." (Congressional Record, vol. 78, p. 8471.)

Senator Thomas' substitute was defeated. It is quite apparent, therefore, that the Senate did not intend to adopt a provision which would have the effect of preventing such a child from being born a citizen but that it evidently adopted the view of Senator O'Mahoney that under the bill the child becomes a citizen at birth and that such citizenship might be divested if the child failed to fulfill the prescribed conditions.

The phraseology of the Act, though perhaps not as clear as might be desirable, leads to the same conclusion. The first sentence in clear and unmistakeable language provides that any child hereafter born outside of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States. This is a sweeping, unequivocal pronouncement apparently subject to no limitation or qualification. To construe the second sentence of the section as meaning that a child, only one of whose parents is a citizen, does not acquire citizenship at birth is at least partially to negative and destroy the grant of citizenship contained in the first sentence. On the other hand, if the second sentence be interpreted as containing conditions subsequent upon which the citizenship may become divested, full effect would be given to the entire section. In Petri v. Commercial Bank, 142 U.S. 644, 650, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller stated that "the rule that every clause in a statute should have effect, and one portion should not be placed in antagonism to another, is well settled ". Chief Justice Marshall in Postmaster General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 136, 152 stated that "the whole law is to be taken together, and one part expounded by any other, which may indicate the meaning annexed by the legislature itself to ambiguous phrases". Similarly, it has been stated that it is a settled rule of construction that one part of a statute must be so construed by another that the whole may, if possible, stand. United States v. Landram, 118 U.S. 81, 85.

It is, therefore, my opinion that a child born abroad subsequently to May 24, 1934, one of whose parents is a citizen of

the United States and the other an alien, acquires American citizenship at birth. Such citizenship is subject to being divested if such child thereafter fails to comply with the two conditions described in the Act, which must be regarded as conditions subsequent and not as conditions precedent.

Respectfully submitted.

To the SECRETARY OF STATE.

HOMER CUMMINGS.

REFINANCING AN

INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST COTTON ACQUIRED UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT Relative to the proposed plan of the Secretary of Agriculture, herein described, for refinancing an indebtedness of $100,000,000 outstanding against approximately 2,000,000 bales of cotton acquired under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, held that the Secretary is authorized to make the proposed loan and that he may re-pledge the cotton to secure the loan thus obtained.

The proposed form of the note to be used by the Secretary of Agriculture in connection with said refinancing plan is without legal objection.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

July 28, 1934.

SIR: I have your letter of July 25, 1934, and enclosures, setting forth the facts relative to the proposed plan for refinancing an indebtedness of $100,000,000 outstanding against approximately 2,000,000 bales of cotton acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933 (48 Stat. 31).

Under the authority of section 4 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Secretary of Agriculture borrowed approximately $60,000,000 from commercial banks at the rate of 6¢ per pound on approximately 2,000,000 bales of cotton, giving notes for the amount borrowed and pledging the cotton as security by depositing warehouse receipts covering the cotton with the Federal Reserve Bank at Atlanta, New Orleans branch, as custodian. The notes mature July 31, 1934.

On January 8, 1934, for the purposes outlined in your letter, the Secretary of Agriculture with the consent of the producers, who, by reason of participation in the acreage reduction program, held options upon the cotton, established a cotton pool under the management of a pool manager,

who, pursuant to the authority given him under the pool agreement borrowed $40,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation at the rate of 4¢ per pound on the said cotton. The obligation was evidenced by notes of the pool manager drawn in favor of the Commodity Credit Corporation and secured by a pledge of the cotton subject to the prior pledge made by the Secretary of Agriculture. The notes also mature July 31, 1934.

In order to protect the title to and the right of possession of this cotton and to effect a reduction in interest charges, the Secretary of Agriculture now proposes to borrow from commercial banks, under an existing arrangement, $100,000,000 at an interest rate of one-half of one per cent per annum, in order to refinance the loan of $60,000,000 and to advance to the Pool Manager $40,000,000 for payment of the notes held by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

You request my opinion upon the following questions:

1. Are the provisions of Section 4 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, sufficient to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the program above outlined?

2. Is the form of the note which the Secretary of Agriculture proposes to give to the commercial banks in proper authorized form?

It is indicated that there is doubt as to the Secretary's authority to make the proposed advance to the Pool Manager under the provisions of Section 4 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended by the Act of June 19, 1934 (Public No. 412, 73d Congress). That section is in part as follows:

"SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall have authority to borrow money upon all cotton in his possession or control and may, at his discretion, deposit as collateral for such loans the warehouse receipts for such cotton.

"(b) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to advance, in his discretion, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $100,000,000 to be available, until March 1, 1936, to the Secretary of Agriculture, for paying off any debt or debts which may have been or may be incurred by the Secretary of Agriculture and discharging any lien or liens which may have arisen or may

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.

[blocks in formation]

"(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,

WILLIAM STANLEY,
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 a 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 Appropriation 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,

[ocr errors]

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 sub

« PreviousContinue »