clear and convincing as to lead a man of ordinary judgment and prudence definitely to the same conclusions, it would be his duty to reject all of the bids.

The question whether the Director of Procurement, if he should be convinced in a specific instance that some of the bids received are collusive and others are not, should reject all of the bids or should reject only those deemed to be collusive and weigh the others, is not presented in your letter and is not passed upon herein. This question, also, would be difficult, if not impossible, to consider in the abstract, being susceptible of decision only in the light of the facts presented by particular cases as they arise. Respectfully,

HOMER CUMMINGS.

APPROVAL BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TITLE TO LAND ACQUIRED UNDER TITLE VII OF ACT OF JUNE 15, 1935, 49 STAT. 384

1. Title VII of the act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 378), must be read with the rest of that act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and other acts in pari materia.

2. Approval of title by the Attorney General is a prerequisite to the payment of the purchase price for land under sec. 355 R. S. 3. The term "buildings" in sec. 355 R. S. covers any public building. 4. Sec. 355 R. S. applies to lands purchased for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon and such purpose, fixed by statute, is not affected by any intention of the acquiring officer regarding erection or non-erection of buildings.

5. Sec. 355 R. S. is applicable to lands acquired for wildlife refuges under the act of June 15, 1935.

6. Sound reasons underlie the requirement for approval of land titles by the Attorney General.

The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE,

JULY 6, 1937.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Reference is made to your letter of March 27, 1937, in which you request my opinion upon the question "whether the prior approval of the title by the Attorney General is a prerequisite to the payment of the purchase price for a tract of land acquired in pursuance of title VII of the act of June 15, 1935 (49 Stat. 378, 384)."

58039m 42-vol. 39- -7

My investigation discloses that on March 5, 1937, you transmitted to the Acting Comptroller General, with a request for his approval of payment thereof, a public voucher covering the purchase price of land, the payment of which involved the same question now presented to me. In his response the Acting Comptroller General stated (16 Comp. Gen. 856, 857):

66

* * I have to advise that in the absence of a showing that title to subject land is satisfactory to the Attorney General payment on the voucher submitted is not authorized.”

I am in agreement with the above ruling of the Acting Comptroller General. Title VII of the act of June 15, 1935, reads as follows:

"That there is hereby appropriated out of the unexpended balance of the sum of $3,300,000,000 appropriated by the act of June 16, 1933 (48 Stat. 274), making appropriations to supply deficiencies in certain appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1933, and for other purposes, the sum of $6,000,000, which shall remain available until expended, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire by purchase or otherwise such lands as may be necessary in his opinion adequately to provide for the restoration, rehabilitation, and protection of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife and to erect and construct thereon and in connection therewith such buildings, dikes, dams, canals, and other works as may be necessary; and in the execution of this act the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make such expenditures for personal services in the District of Columbia and elsewhere as he shall deem necessary."

The act of June 15, 1935, of which title VII is a component part, is entitled "An Act to amend the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, and certain other acts relating to game and other wildlife, administered by the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes." The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of March 16, 1934 (48 Stat. 451), was enacted to supplement and support the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of

February 18, 1929 (45 Stat. 1222), which in turn was enacted for the purpose of carrying out the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada. Title VII must therefore be read not only in connection with the other provisions of the act of June 15, 1935, but also in connection with the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and other acts in pari materia. Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380, 386; Ryan et al. v. Carter et al., 93 U. S. 78, 84; Corralitos Co. v. United States, 178 U. S. 280; Chott v. Ewing, 237 U. S. 197, 200. As stated by the Court in Chott v. Ewing, supra, we must turn "primarily to the context of the section and secondarily to provisions in pari materia as affording an efficient means for discovering the legislative intent

* * * 99

An examination of the several acts dealing with the subject of protection of migratory birds discloses that throughout such legislation the Congress has followed the unbroken policy of requiring that no payment for lands purchased for such purpose shall be made "until the title thereto shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General." Section 6 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which has contained such a provision since its original enactment, was amended by section 301 of title III of the act of June 15, 1935, to read as follows:

"That the Secretary of Agriculture may do all things and make all expenditures necessary to secure the safe title in the United States to the areas which may be acquired under this Act, but no payment shall be made for any such areas until the title thereto shall be satisfactory to the Attorney General, but the acquisition of such areas by the United States shall in no case be defeated because of rights-ofway, easements, and reservations which from their nature will in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture in no manner interfere with the use of the areas so encumbered for the purposes of this Act; but such rights-of-way, easements, and reservations retained by the grantor or lessor from whom the United States receives title under this or any other Act for the acquisition by the Secretary of Agriculture of areas for wildlife refuges shall be subject to rules

and regulations prescribed [from time to time] by the Secretary of Agriculture for the occupation, use, operation, protection, and administration of such areas as inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds or as refuges for wildlife; and it shall be expressed in the deed or lease that the use, occupation, and operation of such rights-of-way, easements, and reservations shall be subordinate to and subject to such rules and regulations as are set out in such deed or lease or, if deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture, to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by him from time to time." [Italics and words in brackets supplied, the additions made to the section by the amendment being shown by italics and the eliminations there from being enclosed in brackets.]

The manifest purpose of this amendment was to coordinate the work of protection and conservation of wildlife, inaugurated by the act of March 10, 1934, 48 Stat. 401, with the Migratory Bird Conservation work of the Government. Considering this, and bearing in mind the abovementioned congressional policy relative to the purchase of lands for migratory bird conservation purposes, it is clear, it seems to me, that the Congress in enacting title VII intended that lands acquired with moneys therein appropriated, whether designated as "inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds" or as "refuges for wildlife," should be purchased subject to the provisions of section 6 of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended, which requires that the title must be "satisfactory to the Attorney General" before the purchase price is paid.

There is another statute which in my opinion must be considered in connection with the question presented by you. The appropriation made by title VII is available to the Secretary of Agriculture to enable him "to * * * lands * * acquire * and to erect and construct thereon and in connection therewith such buildings, dikes, dams, canals, and other works as may be necessary." Section 355 of the Revised Statutes provides:

"No public money shall be expended upon any site or land purchased by the United States for the purposes of

erecting thereon any armory, arsenal, fort, fortification, navy-yard, custom-house, light-house, or other public building, of any kind whatever, until the written opinion of the Attorney-General shall be had in favor of the validity of the title, nor until the consent of the legislature of the State in which the land or site may be, to such purchase, has been given."

The term "building" as here used has been construed broadly to cover any public building. 9 Comp. Gen. 75. See also Title Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Crane Co., 219 U. S. 24, 33; United States v. Tucker, 122 Fed. 518, 522. A building erected and used to assist in providing "for the restoration, rehabilitation, and protection of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife" must of necessity be a public building, and it may well be held that dikes, dams, canals and other works constructed to carry out this public purpose would also come within the provisions of section 355.

You do not so state, but I assume from a statement contained in the opinion of your Solicitor, transmitted with your letter, that you do not presently intend any construction upon the lands involved. Your Solicitor states:

"Generally speaking, a Government agency is required to submit a title to the Attorney General for approval only when the agency intends to erect a public building upon the particular tract of land (Revised Statutes, Sec. 355). With respect to those tracts on which no public buildings are to be erected, the approval of the titles by the Attorney General is not required (26 Ops. Att'y Gen. 380)." [Italics supplied.]

As I construe the statute and the opinion of the Attorney General cited by your Solicitor, they do not support his statement. Section 355, Revised Statutes, does not refer to lands upon which the acquiring agency "intends to erect a public building" but to lands "purchased by the United States for the purposes of erecting" buildings thereon. The opinion of the Attorney General cited refers to lands not charged by the statute authorizing their purchase with the purpose of erecting buildings thereon.