the term "sold foreign" was used in section 27. The provisions of the first proviso of section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, were originally introduced as H. R. 9223, 73d Congress. Hearings were held on the bill before the House Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries, and the bill was reported by the Committee to the Congress, but no final action was taken on the bill in the 73d Congress. H. Rept. 1947, 73d Cong., 2d sess. The bill was reintroduced as H. R. 115 in the 74th Congress and passed (act of July 2, 1935, 49 Stat. 442; H. Rept. 118 74th Cong. 1st sess.; S. Rept. 870, id; 79 Cong. Rec. 5390, 10049-50). No hearings on H. R. 115, 74th Congress, appear to have been published.

The report of the Committee on Merchant Marine, Radio, and Fisheries of the House of Representatives in the 74th Congress reads in part as follows (H. Rept. 118, 74th Cong., 1st sess. p. 2):

"The new matter will prohibit the following classes of vessels from engaging in the coastwise trade:

"1. Vessels built in or documented under the laws of the United States and later sold to foreign owners.

"2. Vessels built in the United States for foreign countries or foreign purchasers. This class of vessels have not been sold foreign after they were built in the United States, and they have never been documented in the United States as they were built originally for foreign use. These vessels should be subject to the same inhibition sought to be imposed upon vessels built in or documented under the laws of the United States and later sold foreign.

"The vessels built for foreign countries or foreign purchasers were constructed during 1917, 1918, 1919, and part of 1920, under the exigency of war, when foreign yards were stocked with orders or conditions prevented their construction in foreign yards. There were not many of these vessels, but they should be subject to the restrictions which are sought in this bill to be placed upon vessels built in this country for domestic use, or documented under the laws of the United States and later sold foreign.

"The bill seeks to prevent the renaturalization of ships formerly entitled to coastwise service but which have lost that right through foreign ownership.

"The hearings showed that there are 174 American-built vessels of approximately 700,000 gross tons now under foreign flags and subject to repurchase and reentry in the coastwise trade. There have been renaturalized in the years 1921 to 1934, 172 American-built ships, with 171,726 gross tonnage, which have been sold abroad, repurchased, and renaturalized for coastwise trade. Many of these ships when sold abroad were sold for low prices by the Shipping Board out of the surplus of ships on hand and without any thought that they might later be repurchased and used in the coastwise trade. These old vessels have only a nuisance value, but may be repurchased for something more than junk value. They are of very little value except to cut into existing trade, demoralize established services, produce instability and disorder, and delay the building of ships in American yards where the employment would go to American labor.

"The committee feels that this legislation is in the interest of an American merchant marine, the preservation of the integrity of our coastwise laws, the protection of American labor, and the maintenance of our established trade services." [Italics supplied.]

Similar statements are contained in the report of the Senate Committee. (S. Rept. 870, 74th Congress, 1st session.)

The purpose of the legislation, as stated in its history, is the preservation of the integrity of our coastwise laws, the protection of American labor, and the maintenance of our established trade services, through preventing "the renaturalization of ships formerly entitled to coastwise service but which have lost that right through foreign ownership." In light of this purpose, it seems clear that transfer of ownership of an American vessel through abandonment to a foreign underwriter constitutes the kind of break in the continuity of American ownership that Congress intended should render the vessel subject to the disqualifications of the statute.

For the reasons I have given, it is my opinion that the abandonment of the vessels to the foreign underwriters under the circumstances you describe is a "sale foreign" within the meaning of the first proviso of section 27 of the Merchant

Marine Act, 1920, as amended, and that the vessels so abandoned may not thereafter engage in the coastwise trade. Sincerely yours,

FRANCIS BIDDLE.

REGULATIONS UNDER VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944 The Civil Service Commission is authorized to include in the proposed regulations a provision that any department or agency may submit to the Commission a system for making appointments which will result in the granting of preference to veterans equivalent to that provided in the statute but which does not conform to all of the procedural requirements set forth in the proposed regulations. A plan which accorded to veterans a measure of preference not less than that provided by the statute would not be subject to objection merely because it involved a procedure different from that prescribed by the regulations for ordinary application.

The PRESIDENT.

JANUARY 29, 1945.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to comply with your request for my opinion whether the Civil Service Commission is authorized to include the following paragraph in the proposed Regulations for the Administration and Enforcement of the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 in the Unclassified Service.

"Special plans. Any department or agency having positions subject to these regulations may submit to the Commission a system for making appointments which will result in the granting of preference to veterans equivalent to the preference provided for in the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944 but which does not conform to all of the procedural requirements set forth in these regulations: Provided, That such a system may not be put into effect until it has received the prior approval of the Commission."

Section 8 of the Veterans' Preference Act (approved June 27, 1944, c. 287, 58 Stat. 387) specifies in some detail how the preferences authorized by the statute shall be accorded when appointments are made "in accordance with civil service laws and rules," that is, in the classified service. Section 9 provides that in the unclassified service appointments shall be made "in accordance with the provisions of

this act." As the Commission has previously been advised, informally, these words do not contemplate the procedural provisions of section 8, which are limited by their terms to the classified service.

The proposed regulations (authorized by section 11) prescribe for the unclassified service a procedure somewhat similar to that set up in section 8. By Regulation XI, Section 2, the Commission has determined that this procedure shall not be required for certain designated positions and in specified contigencies, "provided the principles of veteran preference are followed as far as administratively feasible."

It is quite possible that the need for special treatment may hereafter become apparent in cases other than those described in Regulation XI, Section 2. The substantive question appears to be, not whether a special procedural system to meet particular exigencies may be adopted, but whether the system would meet the requirements of the statute. While the word "equivalent," used in the proposed section, is not a word of precise meaning, I presume it is contemplated that the measure of preference accorded will not be less than that provided for by the statute. A plan which accomplished this result would not be subject to objection merely because it involved a procedure different from that prescribed for ordinary application.

For the foregoing reasons it is my opinion that the Commission is authorized to include in the regulations the section relating to special plans.

Respectfully yours,

FRANCIS BIDDLE.

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING POSTMASTER TO THE POSITION

OF POSTMASTER

Both the language and the legislative history of the act of May 20, 1944, require the conclusion that this statute does not authorize the appointment of an acting postmaster, serving under section 3 of the act of June 25, 1938, as amended, to the position of postmaster.

THE PRESIDENT.

JANUARY 31, 1945.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to comply with your request dated November 29 for my opinion upon a ques

tion submitted by the Civil Service Commission involving the interpretation of the act of May 20, 1944, c. 200, 58 Stat. 224, entitled "Relating to the appointment of postmasters."

Memoranda submitted by the Commission indicate that it is immediately concerned with the question whether an acting postmaster, who has at some time passed a civil service examination and is serving temporarily in the place of a postmaster who is absent in the military service, may be appointed postmaster without further examination when the position becomes vacant through resignation of the absent incumbent. The answer to this question depends upon whether the term "acting postmaster" as used in the act of May 20, 1944, relates to the "acting postmasters" provided for in section 3 of the act of June 25, 1938, c. 678, 52 Stat. 1076, as amended by the act of December 6, 1940, c. 927, 54 Stat. 1221.

The pertinent statutory provisions read as follows:

Act of May 20, 1944. "That no postmaster at an office of the fourth class shall be required, in the event such office is advanced to the third class, to pass any competitive or noncompetitive examination as a condition to appointment or service as postmaster at the office so advanced; and no postmaster at an office of the third class shall be required, in the event such office is relegated to the fourth class, to pass any competitive or noncompetitive examination as a condition to appointment or service as postmaster at the office so relegated; and any postmaster or acting postmaster of the fourth or third class who has passed a civil-service examination at any time and has given service satisfactory to the Department may be reappointed without further civil-service examination."

Section 3, act of June 25, 1938, as amended. "Appointments of acting postmasters in all classes of post offices shall be made by the Postmaster General: Provided, That acting postmasters shall serve not to exceed 6 months from the date of their designation, except that the Postmaster General may extend the period of service of any acting postmaster beyond such 6 months' period with the permission of the Civil Service Commission: Provided further, That at any post office the postmaster of which has been called for duty as a member of the National Guard or of the Reserve of the Army,