to the Home, and those admitted were required to assign their pensions for its use. Private donations of money and property have continued to be made; by contract it acquires title to all property of deceased inmates, subject to claims made within five years by heirs or next of kin; and large sums of public money have been appropriated by Congress for its support. Ten branches have been established in different parts of the country.

Originally the benefits of the Home were restricted to disabled volunteer officers, soldiers, and seamen of the Civil War. Later, other classes of veterans were admitted. By the Act of June 7, 1924, c. 291, 43 Stat. 477, 519 (U. S. C. Title 24, sec. 131), the following persons are now admitted upon application: "Honorably discharged officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines who served in the regular, volunteer, or other forces of the United States, or in the Organized Militia or National Guard when called into Federal service, and who are disabled by diseases or wounds and who have no adequate means of support and by reason of such disability are either temporarily or permanently incapacitated from earning a living."

The chief purpose was domiciliary care. A medical staff, however, was early provided and authority granted to purchase hospital supplies at contract prices from the Medical Department of the Army. (U. S. C. Title 24, secs. 82 and 91.) Since the World War the hospital facilities have been expanded, and patients of the Veterans' Bureau are admitted by express authority and direction of Congress. The Director of the Bureau is made responsible for the care and treatment of such patients, and would seem to be vested by the statute with a large measure of control over them and over the facilities set aside for their use. Moneys allotted for the expense of patients of the Bureau are required to be specially accounted for. (U. S. C. Title 24, sec. 113; Title 38, sec. 434).

The hospital is used primarily for the reception of veterans who have been regularly admitted to the Home and subsequently acquire a condition necessitating medical treatment. One thousand four hundred and eighty-seven members were admitted to the hospital during the last fiscal year. The average hosp al population during the year was 325, of

which only 27 were patients of the Bureau. In addition. 2,260 members were given "medical treatment at sick call." The Bureau now assumes no responsibility for inmates of the Home who, subsequent to their admission, require and receive treatment in the hospital. Some such cases (a small percentage of the total), and the many mere "sick calls," could not be cared for by it without additional legislationalthough, as to this, I merely accept the construction which I understand to be applied by the Bureau in its administration of the statutes and find no present occasion to interpret them.

One of the benefits of the Home is that of medical treatment when required. Every regularly admitted inmate is entitled to all benefits, occupies a contractual relationship with the corporation, and as a condition of his admission has surrendered property rights of substantial value. (U. S. C. Title 24, secs. 136, 138, 139.) To construe these contracts

is beyond the scope of the present inquiry. As bearing on the probable intent of Congress, however, it must be pointed out that merely to deprive the Home of its hospital facilities would not discharge any obligation incurred by contract or imposed by law.

The Board of Managers are of opinion (Proceedings, September meeting, 1928) that to transfer the hospital "would take from the Board an absolutely essential part of its organization in a Branch Home which is operating to its capacity and would seriously impair and embarrass the operation of the Branch "; and, further, that

"All the buildings and facilities which are affected by the recommendation referred to above are on a tract of 640 acres, which was donated by citizens of that community, together with an improvement fund of $50,000 for the erection of a Soldiers' Home on this property. The deed which is duly recorded, transfers this ground to the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, a corporate body, created by, and organized and existing under, an Act of Congress. The property in this case is the property of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, a corporation duly authorized by Acts of Congress as distinguished from property belonging to the United States of America."

Erection of the Branch Home had been authorized and directed by the Act of July 5, 1884, c. 223, 23 Stat. 120, which appropriated $250,000 and stipulated that the Home should be located within one of seven named States on ground purchased or donated, or on Government land which might be selected by the Board of Managers.

The title, whatever the ultimate legal result may be, is in the corporation. Though essentially a governmental agency under the direct control of Congress, it is vested with very broad powers. It may make by-laws, rules, and regulations, contract at will, take hold and dispose of property for its sole and exclusive use, sue and be sued. When sued on its contracts, it can not rely upon principles applicable in ordinary suits against the United States. (National Volunteer Home

v. Parrish, 229 U. S. 494, 496-497.)

It is entirely conceivable, without knowledge of the facts, that any given piece of property thus held by the corporation may be the subject of contract rights (aside from the ordinary contracts with inmates) or liens. It is said that the title to some of its land is subject to defeasance if used other than for purposes stipulated by the donor. (Hearing, January 9, 1928, p. 105, House Bill 5604, 70th Cong., 1st sess.) Respecting the truth of this or its application to any particular tract, I have no knowledge. The possibility of such incumbrances, however, does indicate a distinction between this and ordinary public property of the United States.

In one important particular the tract at Leavenworth clearly lacks the prescribed characteristics of a Federal building site. The Act of March 3, 1901, c. 853, 31 Stat. 1133, 1175 (U. S. C. Title 24, sec. 79), ceded to the State of Kansas and relinquished any jurisdiction of the United States over such property and provided that thereafter "the United States shall claim or exercise no jurisdiction." The ordinary requirement, purposed to insure in the United States exclusive jurisdiction (Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8), is that "no public money shall be expended upon any site or land purchased by the United States for the purposes of erecting thereon any public building, of any kind whatever, until the consent of the legislature of

*

*

* *

the State in which the land or site may be, to such purchase, has been given." (R. S. sec. 355, U. S. C. Title 40, sec. 255.)

When reporting a bill to provide for additional hospital, domiciliary and out-patient dispensary facilities for World War Veterans, the House Committee on World War Veterans' Legislation stated that certain funds were desirable, "in the event the President should transfer any of the hospitals now under the control and jurisdiction of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, or from any other governmental agency to the Bureau." (H. Rept. 1222, 70th Cong. 1st sess.)

My investigation leads me to believe that the quoted language, in so far as it referred to the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, was prompted by the possibility that some legislation intended to authorize such a transfer might be passed. Chairman Luce, of the abovementioned committee, referred to such a possibility when the House was considering appropriations for the Home. (Cong Rec., v. 69, pt. 3, pp. 2812-2813, 70th Cong., 1st sess.) The matter had been urged upon the committee at a hearing on January 9, 1928, supra, and a diversity of views developed (pp. 19 et seq.). Nowhere do I find any indication of a belief, even among the proponents such a transfer, that Congress had already acted.

Considering all of the foregoing, I must advise you that, in my opinion, the language used in the Act of March 3, 1925, is not reasonably susceptible of a construction which would authorize the proposed transfer. The papers inclosed with your letter are returned herewith.

Respectfully,

JOHN G. SARGENT.

To the PRESIDENT.

TARIFF INVESTIGATION-PRODUCTION COSTS IN PORTO

RICO

Section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922 (42 Stat. 941), which provides for investigations of the differences in costs of production of articles "in the United States and the principal competing country," does

not contemplate that production costs in Porto Rico should be considered when making an investigation for the purposes thereof.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

December 8, 1928.

SIR: I have the honor to comply with your request of May 31, 1928, for my opinion on a question thus stated by the chairman of the United States Tariff Commission:

"The Tariff Commission has instituted an investigation, and others are in prospect, for the purposes of section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922, with respect to articles imported from foreign countries into Porto Rico and thence, in the same or in an advanced form of manufacture, brought to continental United States. The pending investigation includes articles in an unfinished condition imported into Porto Rico for completion there before shipment to continental United States.

"The question has arisen whether costs of production in Porto Rico can legally be compared with foreign costs of production, either independently of or in combination with production costs of similar articles manufactured in continental United States, in ascertaining differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country' under said section 315."

The question arises under section 315, Title III, of the Act of September 21, 1922 (c. 356, 42 Stat. 858, 941-943, U. S. C., title 19, secs. 154-159), the pertinent portions of which are these:

"(a) That in order to regulate the foreign commerce of the United States and to put into force and effect the policy of the Congress by this Act intended, whenever the President, upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of competing foreign countries, shall find it thereby shown that the duties fixed in this Act do not equalize the said differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country he shall, by such investigation, ascertain said differences and determine and proclaim the changes in classifications or increases or decreases in any rate of duty provided in this Act shown by said ascertained differences in such costs of