66

be argued that, as this provision, which is contained in the act of February 20, 1907, apparently classes all the persons referred to in the last two provisos in section 2 of that act as contract laborers," the term "contract laborer " was intended by Congress to comprehend all aliens induced or solicited to migrate to this country by offers or promises of employment, etc., whatever the nature of such employment. But it will be observed that the last two provisos to section 2 of the act embrace persons who are undoubtedly manual laborers, and it is to them that the clause in section 4 may fairly be presumed to be addressed. A different view might be justified if the legislative history of the act indicated a purpose on the part of Congress to enlarge the scope of the act in this respect. On the contrary, however, the clause referred to was added, according to the report of the House committee, for the purpose simply of harmonizing section 4 with section 2 of the existing law and section 2 of the present act.

Moreover, section 2 of the present act defines the term "contract laborers" as being persons "who have been induced or solicited to migrate to this country by offers or promises of employment, etc., to perform labor in this country of any kind, skilled or unskilled." It will be observed that the words "or service" have been omitted from this section, although they still appear in section 5. In the view that Congress did not intend to enlarge the scope of the existing law in the respect under discussion, the omission of the words "or service" is immaterial, and a study of the legislative history of the act indicates that these words dropped out unnoticed. On the other hand, if the intention of Congress had been to extend the scope of the act beyond manual labor, it would seem fair to presume that the words "or service" would not have been omitted.

Under the circumstances referred to, and in view of the fact that some of the provisions of the act are penal and therefore should be construed strictly, I do not think you are authorized to extend its scope by what is at best a doubtful construction. If Congress had intended to enlarge the class of alien contract laborers, it was its duty to do so in plain and unambiguous terms, in view of the

adjudications of the Supreme Court on the subject. In my opinion, however, it had no such intention, and the provisions of the statute are limited to manual labor, skilled or unskilled.

If, therefore, the alien William McNair, whose case is now pending before you, is not coming to this country to perform manual labor, skilled or unskilled, his case is not within the act of February 20, 1907. It appears from the facts stated in your letter that while he is required to have the qualifications of a skilled laborer and mechanic, the work he is expected to perform is that of superintendent of the "upper works" of the Bridal Veil Lumbering Company. Whether or not he comes within the statute is to be determined by the character of the work he is to perform and not by his qualifications for the position. The position of superintendent referred to does not appear to require manual labor, skilled or unskilled, on his part, and therefore he is not, in my judgment, within the purview of the act.

Respectfully,

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.

The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

BOARD ON LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES-COMPENSATION—

EXPENSES.

Section 9 of the act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 945), which prohibits the use of public moneys and appropriations made by Congress in payment of compensation or expenses of any commission, council, board, or other similar body, unless the creation of the same shall be authorized by law, has no application to the Board on Life-Saving Appliances, and consequently does not require the abolishment of that board or prevent the payment of the expenses of its members.

This section applies only to commissions, boards, etc., which the law has not authorized, and to details thereto from any Executive Department or Government establishment.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 2, 1909.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of April 16, requesting an opinion whether

section 9 of the sundry civil act, approved March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 945), "has application to the Board on Life-Saving Appliances of the United States Life-Saving Service, or is intended to require the abolishment of said board, or to prevent the payment of the expenses of its members." The section provides:

"That hereafter no part of the public moneys, or of any appropriation heretofore or hereafter made by Congress, shall be used for the payment of compensation or expenses of any commission, council, board, or other similar body, or any members thereof, or for expenses in connection with any work or the result of any work or action of any commission, council, board, or other similar body, unless the creation of the same shall be or shall have been authorized by law; nor shall there be employed by detail, hereafter or heretofore made, or otherwise personal services from any Executive Department or other Government establishment in connection with any such commission, council, board, or other similar body."

In my opinion the provision just quoted applies only in the case of a commission, council, board, or similar body which the law has not authorized. This is obvious as to the first part of the provision, and it seems quite clearly true also of the latter part concerning details" from any Executive Department or other Government establishment in connection with any such commission, council, board, or other similar body." The reason for both parts of the provision was the same, namely, the illegality of the body whose compensation or expenses are forbidden to be paid, and to which personal services shall not be rendered on detail. It should be observed also that the provision concerning detail relates no less to a detail of persons employed regularly in the very Executive Department to which their services are to be given on the detail, than to details from other Executive Departments.

The question which you present reduces, therefore, to an inquiry whether the creation of the Board on Life-Saving Appliances of the United States Life-Saving Service by the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized by law. On that point I have no doubt the Secretary of the Treasury is

"authorized to make all necessary regulations for the government of the Life-Saving Service not inconsistent with law" (18 Stat. 127). The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints "a suitable person, who shall be familiar with the various means employed in the Life-Saving Service for the saving of life and property from shipwrecked vessels, as General Superintendent of the Life-Saving Service, who shall, under the immediate direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, have general charge of the service and of all administrative matters connected therewith" (20 Stat. 164).

By the same statute, organizing the Life-Saving Service, it is made the duty of the General Superintendent, among other things, "to cause to be properly investigated all plans, devices, and inventions for the improvement of lifesaving apparatus for use at the stations, which may appear to be meritorious and available" (sec. 7). The statute does not provide how or by what instrumentality this investigation is to be made. It is not to be done by the superintendent, for he is to cause it to be made. It must therefore be done by an officer or officers, or by persons who, within the requirements of the act, are familiar with the various means employed for the saving of life and property from shipwrecked vessels. The duty requires men of special skill and qualifications.

In accordance with these provisions of law, the Secretary of the Treasury constituted the Board on Life-Saving Appliances. In his discretion and judgment, such was the most practicable manner in which to attain the required end.

It is not to be assumed that Congress intended, in enacting the above-quoted section 9 of the sundry civil act approved March 4, 1909, to interfere with or fetter the established conduct of administration in the Departments. There is nothing to indicate a purpose to change or affect in any way regular and accustomed administrative functions. If there had been such purpose, it would have been expressed in unmistakable language.

It is common usage in the Departments to denominate "boards" such administrative bodies as the Board on

Life-Saving Appliances. The use of the name "board " for such a body determines nothing as to its legality. When, as in the case of the Board on Life-Saving Appliances, their duties relate to the ordinary administration of regular Department business, they must be deemed authorized by law; and their lawful existence is recognized by the accounting officers of the Government, and has been repeatedly sanctioned by Congress in appropriations for the payment of their expenses.

*

It is of further importance to consider that the appropriation act, concerning the effect of which you inquire, itself makes an appropriation for the conduct of the LifeSaving Service, viz., in the first section of the act, “traveling expenses of officers under orders from the Treasury Department; commutation of quarters and allowance for heat and light for officers of the Revenue-Cutter Service detailed for duty in the Life-Saving Service; ** and contingent expenses, including freight, storage, rent, repairs to apparatus, labor, medals, stationery, newspapers for statistical purposes, advertising, and all other necessary expenses not included under any other head of life-saving stations on the coasts of the United States, two million and eighty-seven thousand and forty dollars." These appropriations are the same as have been made for years. The expenditures under them have been regularly audited and paid, and included the expenses of the members of the board mentioned in your letter.

I am of opinion that the section which you quote from the sundry civil act approved March 4, 1909, has no application to the Board on Life-Saving Appliances, and consequently does not require the abolishment of that board or prevent the payment of the expenses of its members.

Very respectfully,

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.

The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,