and sailors, section 100 states that the statute is enacted "in order to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense under the emergent conditions which are threatening the peace and security of the United States and to enable the United States the more successfully to fulfill the requirements of the national defense." Thus, the statute shows on its face that at least one of the chief parties in interest is the Government. Other provisions of the act support the view that the act is applicable to the Government. Article V, which relates to taxes and to the rights and interests of soldiers and sailors under the public-land laws, is clearly so applicable. I recognize that the several articles of the act deal with separate subjects, and that under Ebert v. Poston, 266 U. S. 548, a holding that the Government is bound by the provisions of article V does not necessarily require a like holding with respect to articles II and III which deal with financial obligations or liabilities other than tax obligations or liabilities. On the other hand, I see no reason why, under present emergency conditions to which the statute is intended to apply, the Congress should grant to soldiers and sailors relief from Government tax claims and at the same time deny them relief from other Government claims of a lesser dignity but equally or more burdensome. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 was enacted for the same purpose and in substantially the same language as the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of March 8, 1918 (40 Stat. 440). The 1918 act was administratively interpreted as being applicable to the Government. This administrative interpretation was brought directly to the attention of the Congress in connection with a recommendation by Attorney General Gregory that section 200 of the act be amended so as to exempt the United States from the requirement to file bonds and also to authorize the United States to pay fees of attorneys appointed by the court to protect the interests of absent defendants. H. Rept. 841, 65th Cong., 3rd sess. In passing the 1940 act the Congress must have presumed that it would be given the same interpretation as that given the 1918 act. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 is applicable to all agencies of the Government, and therefore to the several lending programs of the Department of Agriculture. Administratively the act has been so interpreted by this Department in connection with all matters coming under its jurisdiction. Respectfully, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Acting Attorney General. PROCEDURE IN REQUISITIONING PROPERTY French nationals who may dispute the applicability of a decree of the French Government in connection with property requisitioned by the United States under the Act of October 10, 1940, are entitled to have the matter passed upon by the courts. When property of a French national has been requisitioned and the owner cannot be contacted, service by publication within the United States will be sufficient except that the French Government should also be served as another party claiming an interest. If there is no agreement between the owner and the French Government as to who should receive the money it should not be awarded to either, leaving the parties to pursue their remedies in the courts. The PRESIDENT. JULY 10, 1941. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to refer to your memorandum of June 4 submitting a letter from the Administrator of Export Control in which he states that "in the administration of the act of October 10, 1940 [c. 836, 54 Stat. 1090], where fair and just compensation is to be determined for articles or materials requisitioned by the United States, a question as to the rights of French nationals has arisen by virtue of a decree of the French Government at Vichy," and requests that you obtain my opinion. The decree of the French Government reads in pertinent part as follows: "In all matters concerning the purchases and contracts negotiated abroad between September 1, 1939, and June 25, 1940, the state is hereby appointed representative of, and authorized to act for organized groups of importers or for private importers, and may, notwithstanding any intervention or opposition on the part of the latters, decide upon the modification or the cancellation of these purchases or contracts as well as upon the disposition or liquidation of the merchandise delivered." Private parties who may dispute the applicability of this decree or the effect thereof in connection with property requisitioned by the United States under the act of October 10 are entitled to have the matter passed upon by the courts and would not be bound by any administrative determination of their rights. The specific questions submitted by the Administrator and my answers with respect thereto are set forth below: "(1) Where property of a French national has been requisitioned by the United States and such owner cannot be contacted and does not have an agent in this country upon whom service of process may be made, may service of process under the authority of the French law be properly made upon the representative of the French Government. "(2) If, in your opinion, the decree of the French Government should not be given effect as to the property requisitioned by the United States where the owners, French Nationals, are not in this country and cannot be contacted abroad and have designated no agent in this country to act for them, may notice of hearings to ascertain the value of the property taken be validly given by publication within the United States." Service by publication within the United States will be sufficient except that the French Government should also be served as another person claiming an interest in the requisitioned goods, as provided in the regulations and in the rules of procedure already set up, particularly sections 11, 14, and 15 of the rules of procedure which deal with publication and with service of notices upon private persons and foreign governments. "(3) In cases in which the owner or his designated agent is in this country, should he or his agent be recognized instead of the representative of the French Government, and should any award of just compensation be made to these owners or their agents, or does the French law require that all such awards be paid to the representative of the French Government. "(4) As to those French Nationals who are not in this country and have no designated agents here, would payment of the award of just compensation under the authority of the French decree to the representative of the French Government preclude any future claims by the owners. "(5) If the French decree be recognized to the extent of constituting a representative of the French Government as the legal representative of French Nationals in the United States for the purpose of an appearance before the Compensation Board only, may the amount approved by the President as just compensation, in the event the owner is not within the United States and cannot be contacted abroad, be paid into the Treasury of the United States to be held for payment to the owner at some subsequent time." The owner or his designated agent should be recognized and should be served when possible, but so also should the French Government. If there is no agreement between them as to who should receive the money it should not be awarded to either. The amount of the compensation may be determined but the money should be held in the Treasury for payment to the rightful owner at some future time, leaving the contending parties to pursue their remedies in the courts. I am sending copies of this letter to the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of the Treasury because of their interest in the matter of payments to the French Government or to French nationals. Respectfully, MATTHEW F. MCGUIRE, POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD Section 9 of the Hatch Act is not applicable to members of the National Guard ordered into the service of the United States under the Public Resolution of August 27, 1940. The SECRETARY OF WAR. JULY 14, 1941. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have your letter of July 11 requesting my opinion concerning the applicability of the 798037-49- -9 Hatch Act (act of August 2, 1939, c. 410, 53 Stat. 1147, 1148, as amended by the act of July 19, 1940, c. 640, 54 Stat. 767) to officers of the National Guard of the United States ordered into the active military service under Public Resolution 96, approved August 27, 1940, c. 689, 54 Stat. 858. The Hatch Act (section 9) provides that "no officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof," shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. The statute has previously been held in informal rulings by this Department to be applicable to officers of the National Guard while in the service of the United States; and it has also been held that "being a candidate for elective office" (the activity particularly mentioned in your letter) constitutes taking an active part in political management or in political campaigns within the contemplation of the statute (See opinions of April 17 and June 6, 1940, 39 Op. A. G. 423, 446). Since these rulings were made, however, Public Resolution 96, supra, has intervened. In view of this enactment, the acting Judge Advocate General of the Army, in a memorandum opinion accompanying your letter of July 11, concludes that the prior rulings, referred to above, are not applicable to officers of the National Guard ordered into service under the resolution of August 27, 1940. He quotes from a recent opinion concerning the candidacy of a reserve officer on active duty for reelection to a municipal office, in which the Judge Advocate General cogently states: "Subsequent to the date of approval of the Hatch Act and to the dates of the pertinent opinions of the Attorney General and of this office cited above, Congress enacted the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, approved September 16, 1940 [c. 720, 54 Stat. 885], and Public Resolution 96, 76th Congress, approved August 27, 1940. These two enactments provided for involuntary service in the interest of national defense. At the time of the enactment of the Hatch Act, there was no officer or employee of the Federal Government who held his position except through his own volition. In a careful effort to preserve the employment status of individuals who might be required to accept such office or employment, without their consent, Congress made |