in the Treasury of the United Seates, in designated proportions. There has never been any such balance.

By the Act of October 21, 1918, c. 192 (40 Stat. 1015), and by action of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture under authority of the Act of February 11, 1920, c. 69 (41 Stat. 405), certain tracts were reserved and set aside as a part of the Oregon National Forest, and they have since been under the control and management of the Department of Agriculture.

Your inquiry involves the construction of the Act of July 13, 1926, c. 897 (44 Stat. 915), entitled:

"An Act for the relief of certain counties in the States of Oregon and Washington within whose boundaries the revested Oregon and California Railroad Company grant lands are located."

The first section of this Act provides:

"That the Treasurer of the United States * pay to the several counties

***

shall

out of any money in

the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, amounts of money equal to the taxes that would have accrued against said lands for the years 1916 to 1926, inclusive, if the lands had remained privately owned and taxable."

Section 2 contains the following language:

66* * * In computing the amounts so to be paid the Secretary of the Interior shall include all Oregon and California land-grant lands title to which remains in the United States on the 1st day of March of each year.'

Section 3 provides:

"On or before the 1st day of October of each year after 1926 the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the order of the Secretary of the Interior, shall pay to the several counties amounts of money equal to the taxes upon said lands within such counties, to be ascertained, computed, and reported in the same manner as for the preceding years, until all charges against said 'Oregon and California land-grant fund' shall have been liquidated and the said fund shows a credit balance as available for distribution under section 10 of the Act approved June 9, 1916."

141183°-32-VOL 36—12

Section 4 provides:

"All moneys paid under the terms of this Act shall be charged against the said 'Oregon and California land-grant fund,' and all proceeds received from the sale of lands, timber, or otherwise, shall be placed to the credit of such fund until all sums charged against such fund are fully and completely liquidated, and until the United States has been so fully reimbursed no distribution shall be made as provided in section 10 of the said Act approved June 9, 1916."

The situation giving rise to the passage of the Act and its purpose appear in the following language, which occurs both in the Report of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, dated June 5, 1926, pp. 4-5, 7 (Report 1009, 69th Congress, 1st Session) and in the Report of the House Committee on the Public Lands, dated May 28, 1926, pp. 4-5, 7 (Report 1330, 69th Congress, 1st Session):

"Congress in the revestment act of 1916, realizing the serious situation that would be created by the act, provided for advancing to the counties the taxes for 1913, 1914, and 1915 from the United States Treasury, totaling about $1,570,000, since the railroad company, after the beginning of the suits to require it to comply with the terms of the granting acts, had refused to pay the taxes for these years. That is, Congress realizing that so far as the counties were concerned that it had assumed the obligations imposed by the granting acts, provided for the payment of taxes accrued prior to revestment, and proposed thereafter to make a distribution of 25 per cent of the proceeds of the sales of lands and timber (after the payment of certain amounts as stated previously) in lieu of taxes." (Page 5.)

"It was expected by Congress that the lands and timber would find ready market and that sales would be made sufficient in amount not only to pay the preferred claims, as stated above, but to make substantial distributions under the law, and that the counties would duly receive from such distribution moneys substantially equal to the taxes these lands should bear." (Page 4.)

"Unfortunately, however, the result expected has not been realized. Ten years have passed since the revestment act was passed and no returns have been forthcoming. Sales

of lands and timber have brought in less than $4,000,000, considerably less than is necessary to reimburse the Government for its liability to the railroad company. The time when there will be money for distribution under the terms of the revestment act is, therefore, still in the future.

"The sales under the act have not only failed to secure to the counties; in 10 years there has been nothing paid. The fact that there will be an ultimate settlement will not meet the present crisis and does not help the taxpayer in those counties, who is to-day paying upward of 40 mills in annual taxes. Help for him is now imperative.

"The Congress having, by its act, over objection of the State of Oregon, taken from the State and counties the source of a half million dollars' annual revenue, and having attempted to provide a payment in lieu of the revenue so taken, and the provision so made having proven inadequate, to the detriment of the State and counties, it follows that Congress is obligated, morally at least, to make redress for the injury caused." (Page 7.)

The contention is advanced that Congress could not have intended the Government to pay taxes or money in lieu of taxes, upon tracts which had been taken over by the Government itself as a forest reserve, largely for the purpose of protecting the water supply of certain cities in Oregon, especially in view of the fact hat, at least as to the land included in the forest reserve under the Act of 1918, no provision had been made for the sale of this land or the timber thereon. It is true that the Government could not reimburse itself out of such lands for any moneys paid to the counties in lieu of taxes on such lands, whereas the Act of June 9, 1916, expressly provided for disposition of other revested lands so as to yield funds from which the Government could obtain reimbursement.

But I do not agree with the contention that these tracts ceased to be "revested Oregon and California Railroad grant lands," within the meaning of the Act of July 13, 1926. I find in none of the statutes mentioned any provision restricting the meaning of these words. Although the Act of June 9, 1916, directed the Secretary of the Interior to

classify all of the revested lands, and contained express provisions for the control and management of lands classified by him as power-site lands, it provided that any of the lands, however classified, might be reclassified. If any power-site tract should be reclassified it might then be subject to a disposition which would yield revenue. The Act of February 11, 1920, expressly authorized the Secretary of Agriculture under certain circumstances to sell timber from that land. which is set aside as a part of the Oregon National Forest. The Act of October 21, 1918, contained no such authorization. With this situation existing, Congress passed the Act of July 13, 1926, which gives no indication that it was intended to apply only to such of the revested lands as might produce revenue. This Act includes all revested Oregon and California Railroad Company land-grant lands. It does not except from its terms such of the revested lands as are included in forest reserves. The qualifications are but two: first, the land must be revested land-grant lands, and, second, title must remain in the Government. It contains no provision that the money paid in lieu of taxes on any particular parcel of land shall be charged to the revenue arising from that parcel. If the tracts in question are omitted from the computation, the Secretary of the Interior will not include "all Oregon and California land-grant lands title to which remains in the United States on the 1st day of March of each year," and the Secretary of the Treasury will not pay to the several counties "amounts of money equal to the taxes upon said lands within such counties," as the Act requires.

The legislative history of the Act of July 13, 1926, reveals nothing sufficiently definite to show that the words "all Oregon and California land-grant lands" were intended to be used in a restricted sense. I find in it no reference to the fact that a portion of the revested lands had been set aside as a part of the forest reserve. The only discussion which tends to create any doubt on the matter is the following, which occurs both in the report of the Senate Committee, p. 5, and in the report of the House Committee, p. 5, referred to above:

"The bill does not propose that the Government shall pay the counties any moneys in lieu of taxes on lands publicly held. It does propose, in view of the unforeseen and distressing conditions that have arisen and now exist by reason of the delays in the disposition of the lands and timber contemplated in the revestment act but not realized, that the Government advance now the amount of taxes that would have accrued on the lands for the years 1916-1926, inclusive, had they not been revested, and for subsequent years until the counties have received the 25 per cent coming to them under the revestment act, or until the sales have been made to such an extent that the yearly distribution to the counties practically equals the former taxes collected therefrom. The bill will not give to counties any more money than the reversing [revesting] act provides, but it does make the money available before the sales occur."

The meaning of the first sentence of this passage is uncertain. The amount of money which the revesting Act provided was never determined or even definitely limited, and I regard the quoted passage of the reports as too blind to rely upon. On the other hand, there is the following clear language on page 7 of both reports:

"The measure of the injury suffered by the counties is the amount they would have received in taxes had the revested lands remained on the tax rolls. The bill provides redress for that injury by payment commensurate with that loss. It simply makes the counties whole."

If the tracts in question are not included in the computations, the payment would not be commensurate with the loss, and the counties would not be made whole.

I consequently advise you that in my opinion the question set forth at the beginning of this letter should be answered in the affirmative.

Respectfully,

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

To the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.