Page images
PDF
EPUB

$4,644,000 Friar Lands Purchase Bonds now outstanding, is $62,264,000.00. Against this indebtedness, there had been accumulated in the corresponding Philippine sinking funds, as of November 30, 1929 (the latest date for which complete figures are available) the sum of $8,158,225.00. The present indebtedness of the Philippine Government, if increased by the bond issue of $500,000 now proposed, will not exceed the amount authorized by Congress."

You also state that the Governor General of the Philippine Islands informed your Department on March 22, 1930, "that the total assessed valuation of taxable real property in the Philippine Islands on December 31, 1929, amounted to $919,392,414.50."

From the foregoing statements it is apparent that the proposed third series of bonds in the sum of $500,000.00 to be issued pursuant to Act No. 3413 of the Philippine Legislature will not increase the bonded indebtedness of the Philippine Government beyond the maximum amount authorized by law.

I find that all of the statutory requirements regarding the issue of bonds by the Government of the Philippine Islands have been complied with in this case and that the form of bond submitted by you is in substantial compliance with the law authorizing the issue. It is my opinion, therefore, that when issued in the form and amount proposed said third series of bonds in the amount of $500,000.00 will have been legally issued and will be valid and binding obligations of the Government of the Philippine Islands.

Respectfully,

To the SECRETARY OF WAR.

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS-LEGALITY OF BOND ISSUE

The proposed issue by the Government of the Philippine Islands of bonds in the sum of $925,000, the proceeds from the sale of which are to be used for the construction of works and improvements in the Port of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo, being authorized by Congress and by Act No. 3417 of the Philippine Legislature of December 7, 1927, and being within the maximum of indebtedness authorized by law, and all statutory requirements regarding the issue of such

bonds having been complied with, said bonds, being the third series of bonds under Act No. 3417, supra, when issued in the form and amount proposed, will have been legally issued and will be valid and binding obligations of the Government of the Philippine Islands.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

April 11, 1930.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 2, 1930, requesting my opinion as to the validity of the proposed issue by the Government of the Philippine Islands of bonds in the sum of $925,000, being the third series and balance of the total issue of bonds in the sum of $2,175,000, authorized by Act No. 3417 of the Philippine Legislature, approved December 7, 1927, pursuant to the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916 (c. 416, 39 Stat. 545), as amended by the Act of May 31, 1922 (c. 203, 42 Stat. 598). The proceeds from the sale of said bonds are to be used for the construction of works and improvements in the Port of Iloilo, Province of Iloilo.

The first series of these bonds, dated April 1, 1928, in the amount of $750,000 was issued in accordance with the opinion of Attorney General Sargent, dated April 17, 1928 (35 Op. 443), and the second series of said bonds, dated October 15, 1929, in the amount of $500,000, was issued in accordance with my opinion, dated October 12, 1929 (36 Op. 102).

You state that you are now in receipt of a request of the Governor General of the Philippine Islands that a third series in the amount of $925,000, being the balance of the bonds authorized by Act No. 3417 of the Philippine Legislature, be issued and sold as soon as possible. You also state that, pursuant to Act No. 3417, you have determined that the proposed bonds shall be dated April 15, 1930, to mature in thirty years (April 15, 1960); that they shall be in coupon form only in the denomination of $1,000 each, and that they shall bear interest at the rate of 42% per annum, payable semi-annually.

In an opinion dated April 17, 1928, 35 Op. 443, my predecessor upheld the legality of the original authorization of the entire issue under Philippine Act No. 3417, supra, and approved the issuance of the first series of bonds covered by this authorization in the amount of $750,000. In passing

upon the legality of the proposed third issue of bonds in the amount of $925,000, it is only necessary to consider whether the bonds when issued would increase the bonded indebtedness of the Government of the Philippine Islands beyond that permitted by law, and to pass upon the form of bond submitted.

Section 11 of the Act of August 29, 1916, as amended, supra, provides "that the entire indebtedness of the Philippine Government created by the authority conferred herein, exclusive of those obligations known as friar land bonds, shall not exceed at any one time 10 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of its property

* *

You enclose with your letter a copy of a memorandum by the Chief of the Bureau of Insular Affairs, in which it is stated:

"On December 31, 1928 (the latest date for which complete figures are available) the assessed valuation of taxable real property in the Philippine Islands was $860,514,525.00. The present bonded indebtedness of the Philippine Government, exclusive of collateral bonds aggregating $6,765,500, which are secured by an equivalent amount of bonds issued by its constitutent provinces and municipalities, and of $4,644,000 Friar Lands Purchase Bonds now outstanding, is $62,264,000.00. Against this indebtedness, there had been accumulated in the corresponding Philippine sinking funds, as of November 30, 1929 (the latest date for which complete figures are available) the sum of $8,158,225.00. The present indebtedness of the Philippine Government, if increased by the bond issue of $925,000 now proposed, will not exceed the amount authorized by Congress."

You also state that the Governor General of the Philippine Islands informed your Department on March 22, 1930, "that the total assessed valuation of taxable real property in the Philippine Islands on December 31, 1929, amounted to $919,392,414.50."

From the foregoing statements it is apparent that the proposed third series of bonds in the sum of $925,000, to be issued pursuant to Act No. 3417 of the Philippine Legislature, together with the bonds in the amount of $500,000 recently authorized to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Act No. 3413 of the Philippine Legislature, will

not increase the bonded indebtedness of the Philippine Islands beyond the maximum amount authorized by law.

I find that all of the statutory requirements regarding the issue of bonds by the Government of the Philippine Islands have been complied with in this case and that the form of bond submitted by you is in substantial compliance with the law authorizing the issue. It is my opinion, therefore, that when issued in the form and amount proposed said third series of bonds in the amount of $925,000 will have been legally issued and will be valid and binding obligations of the Government of the Philippine Islands.

Respectfully,

To the SECRETARY OF WAR.

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

PARDONING POWER OF GOVERNOR OF THE PANAMA CANAL NARCOTIC DRUGS IMPORT AND EXPORT ACT

The Governor of the Panama Canal has no authority to pardon Rafael Garcia Burban for the commission of the offense of having violated section 2, subdivision (c), of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of May 26, 1922 (42 Stat. 596).

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

May 9, 1930.

SIR: I have the honor to refer to your letter of March 15, 1930, requesting my opinion as to the power of the Governor of the Panama Canal to pardon one Rafael Garcia Burban who, on May 11, 1925, was convicted in the District Court of the Canal Zone and sentenced to ten years imprisonment in the Penitentiary at Gamboa, Canal Zone, where he is still confined, and to pay a fine of $5,000, for violation of section 2, subdivision (c) of the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act of May 26, 1922, c. 202, 42 Stat. 596, which provides:

"That if any person fraudulently or knowingly imports of brings any narcotic drug into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, contrary to law, or assists in so doing, or receives, conceals, buys, sells, or in any manner facilitates the transportation, concealment, or sale of any such narcotic drug after being imported or brought in, knowing the same to have been imported con

trary to law, such person shall upon conviction be fined not more than $5,000 and imprisoned for not more than ten years.

[ocr errors]

In the opinion of your Judge Advocate General, copy of which was received with your letter, it is suggested that the power of the Governor of the Panama Canal to pardon Rafael Garcia Burban depends upon whether the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, supra, is a local law of the Panama Canal.

In the recent case of United States v. Guinane, the District Court of the Panama Canal sustained a demurrer to an information charging a violation of the National Prohibition Act, upon the ground that Congress in extending that Act to the Panama Canal made it a local law of the Panama Canal and, therefore, that the information should have been brought in the name of the Government of the Panama Canal and should have charged the commission of an offense against and in violation of a law of that Government instead of having been brought in the name of the United States. and having charged the commission of an offense against and in violation of a law of the United States. The Judge Advocate General's opinion suggests that this decision is equally applicable to the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, supra.

Under the rule that the conclusions of a Federal Court, until reversed or overruled, are binding upon the Attorney General (10 Op. 347; 20 id. 618, 729; 23 id. 221; 24 id. 59; 29 id. 99; 32 id. 472; 33 id. 86; 35 id. 297), the decision in United States v. Guinane, supra, would have an important bearing upon the question whether the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, supra, is a local law of the Panama Canal Zone. But upon that question I express no opinion because the nature of the offense of which Rafael Garcia Burban has been convicted is necessarily determined by the record of his conviction. If there was error in denominating the offense this could only be corrected by appeal and unless reversed the conviction itself defines the offense. Any other test would lead to a perversion of the pardoning power and confusion in its exercise.

The District Court of the Canal Zone sits as a Court of the Canal Zone and also as a Court of the United States

« PreviousContinue »