Page images
PDF
EPUB

Considering the possibility, at least, that the surrendered lands, no less than others, may have been "wrongfully patented or certified," with probable effect on the selection of "lieu lands," the suggested literal interpretation, requiring temporary suspension of the patenting of "lieu lands" as well as others, would appear to be reasonable and proper. There is a statement in the papers submitted with your letter that the surrendered lands were not actually affected by the controversy but, assuming this to be true, it is not sufficient to withdraw from the operation of the statute a case clearly comprehended within its language, and nothing in the legislative antecedents of the measure which has been brought to my attention would support such a construction. The legislation was apparently broad enough to encompass all possible questions and all lands, and the scope of the provision for maintaining the status quo during the litigation must be measured accordingly, rather than upon consideration of the issues as finally drawn in the suit.

Considering the foregoing, it is my opinion that the Secretary of the Interior should withhold the issuance of patents to the Northern Pacific Railway Company for lands selected by it in lieu of lands within Mt. Rainier National Park pending the termination of the litigation directed by the Act of June 25, 1929.

Respectfully,

J. CRAWFORD BIGGS,
Acting Attorney General.

To the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATION FOR THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FOR CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION OF PERSONS APPOINTED TO POSITIONS IN SUCH ISLANDS FROM THE UNITED STATES

The appropriation for the Virgin Islands for the fiscal year 1935 (Pub. No. 109, 73d Cong. [48 Stat. 362, 392]) is not available for payment of the return transportation of persons appointed from the continental United States to positions in the Virgin Islands who may be discharged without prejudice or resign after service of not less than 1 year, or for transportation for employees from the Virgin Islands to the United States and return for the purpose of taking leave.

The rule of ejusdem generis and expressio unius est exclusio alterius held applicable.

144790°-37-vol. 38- -7

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

September 5, 1934.

SIR: I have your letter of August 30, 1934, enclosing in response to my request of August 8, 1934, an opinion of the Solicitor of the Interior Department as to the authority of the President to issue the proposed Executive order submitted by the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget for the consideration of the Attorney General under date of July 19, 1934.

The proposed order modifies Executive Order No. 5566 of February 27, 1931, entitled "Placing the Government of the Virgin Islands under the supervision of the Department of the Interior." Under that order the Secretary of the Interior was authorized, among other things, to contract to furnish persons appointed from the continental United States to positions in the Virgin Islands free transportation from the port of departure in the United States to the Islands. The proposed order would extend this authority so as to allow the granting of free return transportation to any of such employees who may be discharged without prejudice or who may resign after a period of service of not less than one year, and also free transportation for such employees from the Virgin Islands to the port of departure in the United States and return for the sole purpose of taking leave, but not more than once during each two-year period of service.

Executive Order No. 5566 of February 27, 1931, purports to be authorized by the act of March 3, 1917, entitled "An Act to provide a temporary government for the West Indian Islands acquired by the United States from Denmark and for other purposes". (C. 171, 39 Stat. 1132), and the proposed order is said to be authorized under Section 1 of the same Act.

Since the proposed order would be ineffective if no appropriation is available to carry out its purposes, the question as to the availability of such an appropriation will be considered first.

The appropriation for the Virgin Islands for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1935 (Public No. 109, 73d Congress, 2d sess.), so far as material here, is as follows:

"For salaries of the Governor and employees incident to the execution of the Act of March 3, 1917 (U. S. C., Title 48, Sec. 1391), traveling expenses of officers and employees while absent from place of duty on official business, necessary janitor service, care of Federal grounds, repair and preservation of Federal buildings and furniture, purchase of equipment, stationery, lights, water, and other necessary miscellaneous expenses, including not to exceed $4,000 for purchase, including exchange, maintenance, repair and operation of motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles, and not to exceed $4,000 for personal services, household equipment and furnishings, fuel, ice, and electricity necessary in the operation of Government House at Saint Thomas and Government House at Saint Croix; $117,840." [Italics supplied.] (48 Stat. 392.)

It has been suggested that the language "other necessary miscellaneous expenses" makes the above-mentioned appropriation available for the payment of the transportation authorized by the proposed order. I am unable to agree with this view.

It is to be noted that the words "other necessary miscellaneous expenses" immediately follow several specifically described classes of expenses. The rule of ejusdem generis is applicable here. As stated in 1 Fed. Stat. Ann. (2d Ed.), page 116, section 91, it is as follows:

"While unqualified general terms are usually to be given their natural and full signification, yet when general words follow in a statute words of particular and special meaning, if there be not a clear manifestation of different legislative intent, they are construed as applicable to persons and things, or cases of like kind, as are designated by the particular words. This rule, which is sometimes called Lord Tenterden's rule, has been stated as to the word 'other' thus: Where a statute enumerates several classes of persons or things, and immediately following and classed with such enumeration the clause embraces 'other' persons or things, the word 'other' will generally be read as 'other such like', so that persons or things therein comprised may be read as ejusdem generis with, and not of a quality superior to or different from, those specifically enumerated.

* *

An examination of the act as a whole fails to disclose that the Congress intended that the above-mentioned rule of interpretation should not be applied in determining the meaning of the act. Under the circumstances, it is my opinion that the words "other necessary miscellaneous expenses do not include unofficial traveling expenses such as those authorized by the proposed order.

Furthermore, it is a general principle of interpretation that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of other things. According to this rule, it has been held that the enumeration of various objects to which money specified in an appropriation Act is to be applied, indicates an intention on the part of the Congress to exclude all other objects (18 Op. 146, 147). Since there is nothing in the language of the act to indicate that the Congress did not intend this rule of interpretation to be applied in ascertaining the objects for which the appropriation is made available, it must be held that the specific authorization to use the appropriation for the payment of official traveling expenses impliedly prohibits its use for the payment of any other kind of traveling expenses.

Since there is no appropriation available to carry out the purposes of the proposed order, it would appear to be unnecessary to consider the authority of the President to issue it under the act of March 3, 1917, supra, and its legal effect, if issued, upon the rights of employees granted such free transportation.

The proposed order and other papers enclosed with your letter of submission are herewith returned.

Respectfully,

HOMER CUMMINGS.

To the DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET.

SCOPE OF PROVISO CONTAINED IN BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE APPROPRIATION MADE BY EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1935

The proviso contained in the appropriation for collecting the internal revenue made by the Emergency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1935, and herein set out, applies to all persons who were separated from the service of the Bureau of Prohibition and the Alcoholic Beverage Unit of the Department of Justice between June 10, 1933, and

December 31, 1933, either by Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933, or by direct action of the Department of Justice, including those who were reappointed without break in service or within 4 months under authority of the said Executive order, or who were subsequently reinstated under Civil Service Rule IX.

The said proviso is not limited in its application to positions in the Bureau of Internal Revenue but applies to all positions in the Treasury Department similar in type or kind to those formerly existing in the Bureau of Prohibition and the Alcoholic Beverage Unit.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

September 6, 1934.

SIR: I have received a communication from your Assistant Secretary, Mr. M. H. McIntyre, enclosing a letter addressed to you by the Civil Service Commission dated July 18, 1934, in which the Commission requests the opinion of the Attorney General on several questions arising in connection with the following provision of the Emergency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1935, approved June 19, 1934 (Public, No. 412, 73d Cong. [48 Stat. 1061]):

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Collecting the internal revenue: For an additional amount for expenses of assessing and collecting the internalrevenue taxes, including the same objects specified under this head, and under the head 'Salaries and expenses, Bureau of Industrial Alcohol', in the Treasury Department Appropriation Act, 1935, and including so much as may be necessary for the compensation of one additional deputy commissioner, to be immediately available, $10,000,000; of which not to exceed $800,000 may be expended for personal services in the District of Columbia, and not to exceed $71,250 for the purchase of passenger-carrying automobiles to be used on official business: Provided, That after December 1, 1934, no part of the appropriation made herein or heretofore made for the fiscal year 1935 shall be used to pay the salary of any person formerly employed as investigator, special agent, senior warehouseman, deputy prohibition administrator, agent, assistant attorney, assistant prohibition. administrator, senior investigator, deputy production administrator, storekeeper or gauger, or any other position in the Prohibition Bureau or Alcoholic Beverage Unit, Department

« PreviousContinue »