explicit and free from ambiguity. In either of the alternatives mentioned it appears that the conditions specified in section 5 are present in the case of this young man. He was born without the United States of alien parents, and he is residing here permanently, while yet a minor, with his mother, his only surviving parent, who has resumed her American citizenship.

Assuming that R. Bryan Owen did not acquire citizenship at the time his mother was naturalized, it is difficult to see how the fact that he was then in the United States affects in any manner his present citizenship status. To say that he is any the less a citizen than he would be had he come to the United States subsequent to his father's death, is to read into the statute a condition wholly unwarranted by its terms. Upon the conditions therein prescribed, section 5 provides that a minor child shall be deemed a citizen of the United States. (In re Lazarus, supra.)

Commenting on section 5, Van Dyne on Naturalization, page 219, makes the following statement:

"By the terms of this law, naturalization of the parent confers citizenship on the foreign-born minor child if the latter is permanently residing in this country at the time. of the parent's naturalization, or subsequently to such naturalization, during the minority of the child.”

It is well recognized doctrine that "the right of aliens to acquire naturalization is purely statutory." (Zartarian v. Billings, 204 U. S. 170; United States v. Rodgers, supra.)

In United States v. Tod, 3 F. (2d) 836, adverting to the above case of United States v. Rodgers, the court said (p. 838):

"It is there held that section 5 of the Act of March 2, 1907, though not in the form of an amendment or repealing act, was passed for the purpose of removing the ambiguity in the word dwelling' in section 2172, the language being changed in section 5 of the Act of March 2, 1907 (Comp. St. § 3962), to read The citizenship of such minor child shall begin at the time such minor child begins to reside permanently in the United States."

"No case has been cited by the relator, and none has been found, holding that, since the Act of March 2, 1907, section 2172, Rev. St., has any application to minor aliens born outside of the United States coming to the United States and claiming citizenship by naturalization of the parent."

While the considerations herein suggested seem persuasive, if not conclusive, against the view that R. Bryan Owen acquired citizenship at the time his mother resumed her American citizenship, your inquiry does not require that point to be passed upon categorically. It is therefore deemed sufficient to say that if R. Bryan Owen did not acquire a citizenship status at the time of his mother's naturalization, there can be, in my opinion, no doubt that he is now a citizen of the United States by reason of his father's death and the other existing conditions hereinbefore specifically mentioned, in accordance with the unequivocal terms of section 5 of the Act of 1907.

Respectfully,

To the SECRETARY OF WAR.

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

FEDERAL PROJECT FOR WATERWAY FROM UTICA, ILLINOIS, TO LAKE MICHIGAN

Respecting the adoption of a proposed Federal project for a waterway from Utica, Illinois, to Lake Michigan, including the Illinois State Waterway, in advance of an amendment to the constitution of the State of Illinois, and formal transfer of title by the State of Illinois to the United States, held:

First: That in dealing with this problem and having in mind the fact that the Illinois constitution may never be amended, and that no State officers may ever be authorized to relinquish this waterway to the United States, we must assume that the powers of the United States are limited to those which it may exercise under the Constitution without the consent of the State.

Second: That with respect to those parts of the waterway under consideration which are navigable streams improved by the State, the powers of Congress are plenary, and without any amendment to the constitution of Illinois or any permission from the State, the United States, under appropriate Acts of Congress, may take complete control over the improvement of navigation and its regulation and provide for and insure to the public perpetual, free navigation.

Third: That as to those parts of the waterway which are entirely artificial, Congress may provide for improvement and control of navigation and for the regulation and control thereof, so as to insure to the public the right of navigation, and to take such action as may be necessary to prevent interference with or obstruction to navigation, but probably subject to the qualification that without the consent of the State it can not be deprived of reasonable compensation for the use of its property.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

April 1, 1930.

SIR: I have the honor to comply with the request contained in your letter of March 6, 1930, for my opinion upon the question stated by the Secretary of War in his letter of February 6, 1930, as follows:

"Whether, upon the adoption of a Federal project for a waterway from Utica, Illinois, to Lake Michigan, including the Illinois State Waterway, in advance of an amendment of the constitution of the State of Illinois and formal transfer of title by the State of Illinois to the United States, the said waterway from Utica to Lake Michigan, including the structures pertaining thereto, would be subject to the complete control of the United States and to the Federal laws for the protection and preservation of navigable waters, and whether the public would be assured of the perpetual right of free navigation thereof."

The Secretary's letter states that, at the request of a committee of Congress, the War Department is engaged in a review of the reports submitted in House Document No. 112 and House Document No. 220, Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, with a view to the extension of free navigation with a nine-foot channel from Utica, Illinois, to Lake Michigan, which would link up the Mississippi waterway system with the Great Lakes. Such extension contemplates the use of improvements on the upper Illinois River and the Des Plaines River, constructed or being constructed by the State of Illinois, and commonly referred to as the Illinois State Waterway, and certain drainage canals constructed by the Sanitary District of Chicago, which is an independent, overlying political subdivision of the State, including the whole of the city of Chicago and forty-nine other cities and villages of the State of Illinois. The situation which gives rise to

the proposed project, as appears from the Secretary's letter, and the papers submitted by him, may be summarized as follows:

The so-called Illinois waterway extends between Lockport, which is the point of junction of the Des Plaines River with the main drainage canal of the Sanitary District of Chicago, and a point on the Illinois River near Utica, Illinois, which is the head of the existing United States improvement on that river. It was provided for by Act of the General Assembly of Illinois approved June 17, 1919 (Illinois Laws 1919, p. 977), which was enacted pursuant to an amendment to the constitution of the State, adopted in 1908, hereafter quoted, authorizing the issue of $20,000,000 of bonds for the construction of a deep waterway or canal between those points. This State project involves dredging and the construction of dams and large locks in the navigable Illinois and Des Plaines Rivers, also the construction of two short marginal canals and a large lock connecting with the main drainage canal at Lockport. At least two of the locks are built on land at some distance from any large navigable waters.

The plans of the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois for this waterway were submitted to the Secretary of War pursuant to sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1151; U. S. C., Title 33, sections 401, 403), and approved by permit of the Secretary of War dated March 6, 1920, as modified by order of the Secretary dated April 2, 1923.

Between Lockport and Lake Michigan the contemplated route would utilize the main drainage canal constructed by the Sanitary District of Chicago upon a right of way purchased by it, from the west fork of the Chicago River to Lockport, and another canal, known as the Calumet Sag Channel, also constructed by it, connecting the main drainage canal with the Little Calumet River and thence with Lake Michigan. These canals were constructed primarily for sanitary purposes, but their use for navigation was contemplated, and they were provided with movable bridges and with small locks in the dam at Lockport and at the head of the Calumet Sag Channel. The district has also

made navigation improvements in the south fork and west fork of the Chicago River, connecting this canal with the United States navigation project in the Chicago River, and also in the portions of the Little Calumet and Calumet rivers connecting the Calumet Sag Channel with the United States improvements in the latter streams.

The Secretary states that the completion of the Illinois waterway project, in connection with the canals of the Sanitary District and with certain United States projects, would open the way for the movement of water-borne commerce between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. This project has not as yet, however, received congressional authorization.

The Illinois waterway has not as yet been completed, and the unexpended balance of the proceeds of the bond issue authorized by the constitutional amendment of 1908 is less by several millions of dollars than the estimated cost of completion. The Secretary is informed that under the constitution of Illinois the State can not expend any money on the waterway in excess of the authorized $20,000,000 without a constitutional amendment, necessitating a referendum, which could probably not be secured for at least three years. It has therefore been proposed that the United States enter upon the uncompleted section of the Illinois waterway and expend Government funds to complete it.

The land on which the Illinois waterway is located is owned by the State of Illinois, and that State is prohibited by the constitutional amendment of 1908, above referred to, from selling or leasing any canal or waterway owned by it without the approval of the people expressed in a referendum, which the Secretary is informed could not be had for at least three years. That provision of the constitution (separate section 3) is as follows:

"The Illinois and Michigan Canal, or other canal or waterway owned by the State shall never be sold or leased until the specific proposition for the sale or lease thereof shall first have been submitted to a vote of the people of the State at a general election, and have been approved by a majority of all the votes polled at such election. The General Assembly shall never loan the credit of the State