Page images
PDF
EPUB

After authorizing the City of Manila to "incur a bonded indebtedness of $5,000,000, money of the United States, for the purpose of providing funds to acquire and construct such permanent public improvements as may be deemed advisable and necessary," section 1 of Act No. 3456 provides:

"The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to issue said bonds in the name and behalf of the said City of Manila, said bonds to be payable after thirty years from the date of issue. Both the principal and the interest on the bonds shall be payable in gold coin of the United States at the Treasury of the United States. The Secretary of War shall determine the form of the bonds, the date of issue of the same, and the rate and dates of payment of the interest thereon, which rate shall not be in excess of five and one-half per centum per annum. Said bonds may be coupon bonds or registered bonds, convertible, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, into either form, and shall be in convenient denominations as may suit the purchasers thereof. In the case of the issue or transfer of any registered bond, the same shall be registered in the Treasury of the United States."

Section 2 of the Act authorizes the Secretary of War to sell said bonds upon such terms and conditions as in his judgment are most favorable to the City of Manila, and section 4 provides that said bonds shall be exempt from taxation by the Government of the Philippines, the Government of the United States, or by any State or Territory of the United States, or any municipal subdivision thereof. Section 5 provides for the creation of a sinking fund for the redemption of the bonds at maturity, and section 6 makes a permanent annual appropriation out of the general funds of the Insular Treasury of such sums as may be necessary to provide the sinking fund and for the payment of the interest on the bonds issued pursuant to said Act as the same shall become due.

Section 11 of the Act of August 29, 1916, as amended by the Act of May 31, 1922, supra, provides:

66* * * where necessary to anticipate taxes and revenues, bonds and other obligations may be issued by the

Philippine Government or any provincial or municipal government therein, as may be provided by law and to protect the public credit: Provided, however, 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, nor that of the city of Manila 10 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of its property, nor that of any Province or municipality, a sum in excess of 7 per centum of the aggregate tax valuation of its property at any one time. In computing the indebtedness of the Philippine Government, bonds not to exceed $10,000,000 in amount, issued by that Government, secured by an equivalent amount of bonds issued by the Provinces or municipalities thereof, shall not be counted."

You state that on December 31, 1928, the assessed valuation of the taxable real property in the City of Manila was $126,215,167.50 and that its outstanding public indebtedness at the present time amounts to $5,420,000, while there has been accumulated in the various sinking funds as of December 31, 1928, the aggregate sum of $1,176,181.30. As the Act of August 29, 1916, as amended, supra, permits the City of Manila to incur an indebtedness not to exceed 10 per centum of the aggregate taxable valuation of its property, it is apparent that the proposed issue of bonds will not increase its indebtedness beyond the maximum amount allowed by law.

I find that all of the statutory requirements regarding the issue of bonds by the City of Manila have been complied with and that the form of bond submitted is in substantial compliance with the laws authorizing the issue. It is my opinion that it will be proper for you to issue the bonds in series as the funds are required and that those of the first series, amounting to $500,000, when issued in the form proposed, will have been legally issued and will be valid and binding obligations of the City of Manila.

Respectfully,

To the SECRETARY OF WAR.

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

CONSOLIDATION OF BANKS LOCATED IN HAWAII

The Bank of Bishop and Company, Ltd., of Honolulu, Hawaii, is authorized by the Act of February 25, 1927 (44 Stat. 1224), to consolidate with the First National Bank of Hawaii, upon compliance with the conditions imposed by said Act.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

May 16, 1929.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 9, 1929, stating that the Bank of Bishop and Company, Ltd., of Honolulu, Hawaii, has made application to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate with the First National Bank of Hawaii pursuant to authority given by the Act of February 25, 1927, commonly known as the McFadden Act. You request an expression of my opinion "as to whether or not it was the intent of Congress to include banks organized under the banking laws of Territories, and specifically whether such consolidation as described above can be made under the terms of the Act of February 25, 1927."

Section 1 of the Act of February 25, 1927, c. 191, 44 Stat. 1224, entitled "An Act to further amend the national banking laws and the Federal Reserve Act," provides in part:

"That any bank incorporated under the laws of any State, or any bank incorporated in the District of Columbia, may be consolidated with a national banking association located in the same county, city, town, or village under the charter of such national banking association on such terms and conditions as may be lawfully agreed upon by a majority of the board of directors of each association or bank proposing to consolidate."

As the above statutory authority for the consolidation of banks incorporated under the laws of any State does not expressly include banks incorporated under the laws of Territories, the Bank of Bishop and Company, Ltd., being incorporated under the laws of the Territory of Hawaii, the question arises whether such banks are included by implication in the grant of authority.

The word "state," when given general application as designating the various parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the several Territories of the

United States. Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258. While the word "state" is often used in contradistinction to "territory," yet in its general public sense, and as sometimes used in the statutes and the proceedings of the Government, it has the larger meaning of any separate political community, including therein the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States. Talbott v. Silver Bow County, 139 U. S. 438, 441-444; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 260.

In Talbott v. Silver Bow County, supra, the court had under consideration the right of Territories of the United States to tax the stock of national banks under a statute granting such authority to the several States, although Territories were not expressly named therein. The court said (p. 441):

"Can it be that Congress meant to give power to the States to tax, and to withhold that power from the Territories? Some plausible reason should be suggested before the intention is imputed to Congress of granting to an independent jurisdiction, such as a State, the power to tax one of its own instrumentalities, and at the same time withholding a like power from a political organization like that of a Territory wholly dependent upon Congress, and subject to its absolute supervision and control. Such is not the ordinary lesson of experience. If the matter in respect to which such an intent was imputed were wholly of interest to the States, or designed purely for the exercise of powers within the States, then properly all general expressions in the statute might be limited to States, and the intent of Congress be supported and established by the character of the subject matter of the legislation. The converse of this is true. The national banking system was national in its design, coextensive in its operation with the territorial limits of the United States and intended to be the banking system for the whole country, Territories as well as States."

The reasoning of the Court in that case is applicable to the question under consideration. The national banking laws of the United States have been extended to the Territory of Hawaii by the Act of April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 141. 23 Op. 177. As the Act of February 25, 1927, supra, authorizing banks incorporated under the laws of any State to consolidate with national banking associations, is a part of

the national banking law and as the systein established by such law is "coextensive in its operation with the territorial limits of the United States," including the Territories of the United States, it follows that a bank incorporated under the laws of the Territory of Hawaii may consolidate with a national banking association located in the same city or place, upon compliance with the conditions imposed by the Act of February 25, 1927.

I have to advise you, therefore, that the Bank of Bishop and Company, Ltd., of Honolulu, Hawaii, is authorized by the Act of February 25, 1927, supra, to consolidate with the First National Bank of Hawaii, upon compliance with the conditions imposed by said Act.

Respectfully,

WILLIAM D. MITCHELL.

To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, SECTION 213-CLAIM OF

WILLIAM BICKEL

William Bickel, while in vocational training, accompanied his counselor in an automobile controlled by the latter to the site of a new job, and, while on the premises where the work was to be performed, a branch of a tree caught in the windshield of the automobile and snapped back into Bickel's face thereby injuring his right eye, held that Bickel's injury resulted from his training within the meaning of section 213 of the World War Veterans' Act, 1924 (43 Stat. 623), as amended.

When Congress inserted in section 213 of the World War Veterans' Act, supra, the requirement that injury must result from training, without attempting to define more closely the necessary degree of casual connection, it is assumed it intended that the general word "result" should be interpreted in the light of the cases decided under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

The opinion of June 12, 1926 (35 Op. 76), is hereby modified in so far as it intimates that cases decided under the English Workmen's Compensation Act and the Workmen's Compensation Acts of the various States can not safely be resorted to for guidance in determining whether or not an injury in any given case results from training.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
May 17, 1929.

SIR: I have the honor to refer to your letter of April 17, 1929, requesting my opinion as to the right of William

« PreviousContinue »