A notice had been issued by authority of the Secretary of War to those engaged in fishing in the waters near the mouth of the Columbia River, Oregon, calling attention to the foregoing provision and to the provisions of section 12 of said act prescribing punishment for violations thereof, and advising them that the operation of gill nets for taking fish within certain limits was considered as an unreasonable obstruction to navigation and prohibited by said law. It was shown that gill nets were sometimes half a mile in length and 30 feet or more in width, and constituted a menace to navigation from the liability of becoming entangled in the propellers of passing vessels or otherwise impeding their progress. Held, That the right of navigation was superior to the right of fishery; that Congress by said act had assumed full jurisdiction over the navigable waters of the United States and had paramount authority over the same; that the act prevented obstructions not only to the navigable portions of the waters, but also to the navigable capacity as well; that the placing of such nets in the channel of the river constituted an obstruction to navigation within the prohibition of the statute, which obstruction might be removed or abated; and that under the clauses of said section 10 succeeding the general prohibition therein, the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War might authorize the operation of seines which constitute obstructions to the navigable capacity of said river, but which, if not authorized, would be prohibited by the opening declaration of said section, said character of obstruction coming within the concluding language of said section. 62-100, June 11, 1914. PIPE LINES 1994. Permit is requested to extend the waste pipe of a United States factory across the international boundary line into Canada. As the project involves a physical connection between the United States and a point outside Its territorial jurisdiction, the consent of the President is necessary. 680.4, Sept. 28, 1918. USE OF RIVER AND HARBOR WORKS 1995. Certain private parties desired the exclusive use of the United States Government's easterly breakwater in Chicago Harbor for a limited time for the purpose of holding a carnival, with permission to charge an entrance fee to all who might desire to enter thereon. Section 14, act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1152), provides among other things that The Secretary of War may, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, grant permission for the temporary occupation or use of any of the aforementioned public works whenever in his judgment such occupation or use will not be injurious to the public interest. The "aforementioned public works" refers back to an enumeration which includes those of the same character as the breakwater mentioned. Held, That the statute above quoted was ample authority for granting the request for the temporary occupation of said breakwater. 80-816.1, June 18, 1913. It is often possible to allow commercial vessels to dock at Government piers when such piers or parts thereof are temporarily vacant and to do this is for various reasons advantageous to the Government. Whether or not a particular vessel may dock at a Government pier presents a question which is necessarily exigent and it is essential that some Government official in the immediate vicinity be vested with authority to act in the premises. It is therefore desired to originate a form of agreement whereby commercial steamers may be per mitted to dock at Government piers and the question is presented whether the Secretary of War can delegate such authority to a representative of the War Department to sign such licenses. Under provisions of the act of July 28, 1892 (27 Stat. 321), the Secretary of War is given the authority to lease for a period not exceeding five years and revocable at any time such property of the United States under his control as may not be required for public use. Under such authority the Secretary of War has the authority to lease any Government pier or portion thereof which may not at the time be required for public use, and furthermore the Secretary of War has authority, if he shall determine that the project of leasing unoccupied Government piers is in the public interest, lawfully to delegate to subordinates of his Department the duty of executing the lease in each particular case. 680.41, May 23, 1919. Secs. CHAPTER 19 SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 1996. ABANDONMENT. 1997-2000. CIVIL LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING. 2001. DESTRUCTION. 2002-2006. EXCHANGE. 2007. FREIGHT CHARGES. 2008-2009. GIFT TO GOVERNMENT. 2010-2011. INTERBUREAU. 2012-2030. INTERDEPARTMENTAL. 2031-2049. ISSUE OR LOAN. 2050. LEASE FROM UNITED STATES. 2052-2066. PROCUREMENT. 2067. RETURN OF CAPTURED PROPERTY. 2069-2103. SALE. 2104-2107. TITLE. 2108-2111. TRANSPORTATION. 2112. USE. ABANDONMENT 1996. On the interpretation of paragraph 16 (now par. 8d (1), AR 95-120) in connection with paragraph 5, AR 35-6640, and paragraphs Sd (5) and 9, AR 20-35, Held, That the purpose of these regulations is to provide an administrative method for the disposition of expensive property that has been so damaged as to be of no further use. Where an airplane, wrecked and sunk in the Mississippi River, can not be salvaged except at a cost wholly out of proportion to its salvage value, the Secretary of War may determine that it has no value and has been totally destroyed. Held further, That legal title to the property remains in the United States, which could repossess same by an action in replevin should it be recovered by private parties, but in such case the Government would be obliged to pay salvager the reasonable value of his services, and this right could be enforced in the Court of Claims. 452.1, Sept. 26, 1928. Various amendments have been made to the regulations cited above since this opinion was written. 987 72746-32-63 Secs. CIVIL LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING 1997. FEDERAL. 1998. INSULAR POSSESSIONS. 1999-2000. STATE AND MUNICIPAL. FEDERAL 1997. A quartermaster initiated a shipment of Government animals from a post in Texas to a post in Nebraska. The railroad company refused to ship the animals beyond the State of Texas unless compliance was had with the Department of Agriculture quarantine regulations applicable thereto. To avoid delay the quartermaster authorized the "dipping" of the animals as required by such regulations. On the question of the necessity for the dipping of these animals in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Agriculture and payment for such services from public funds, Held, That quarantines established by the Secretary of Agriculture, in pursuance to congressional authority, and regulations applicable thereto promulgated by him, unless appropriate exceptions are made therein, apply to the shipment of animals by the Government as well as by other shippers, and payment of reasonable value of services in carrying out such regulations may lawfully be made. 728.2, Aug. 1, 1928. INSULAR POSSESSIONS 1998. Section 2699 of the Revised Administrative Code of the Philippine Islands may not be applied to prohibit the return to the United States on Government transports of subsistence supplies which have been purchased by the United States Government and shipped to the Philippines for use by the Army and the condition of which subsequently warrants reclamation under the procedure prescribed by AR 30-2220. 400.63, May 17, 1930. STATE AND MUNICIPAL Secs. 1999. PROCUREMENT OF UTILITIES. 2000. QUARANTINE. PROCUREMENT OF UTILITIES 1999. The Government had a contract for furnishing it with electric power, which contract contained a provision for its renewal at the option of the United States from year to year for 10 years. When the time came for renewal the company which had taken over the original contract at first declined to sign the renewed contract and consented to do so only after instructions had been issued that in case it persisted in such refusal the surety on the bond of the original contractor would be requested to secure compliance. The reasons assigned for such refusal were that the rate at which electric current was then being furnished was below cost to the company, and that the furnishing of such current at said rate would be likely to bring it into conflict with the laws of the State prohibiting the charging of one person or corporation a greater or less rate for electric current than another. Held, That the Government having acquired valuable rights under the contract as executed, the department could not lawfully release the contracting company from its obligations, if such action would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States (9 Op. Atty. Gen. 81); that the United States is not within the meaning of the words " any person, firm, or corporation," as used in the State statute against discrimination in charges for services of this character as between private parties; and that contracts with the United States are controlled by the laws of the United States applicable thereto and not by State legislation. Held further, therefore, That the statutes of the State upon the subject constituted no valid ground upon which relief could be granted in this case. (United States v. Fox, 94, U. S. 315; Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 867; 15 Comp. Dec. 648.) 76-610, Apr. 3, 1913. A State commission is without jurisdiction to modify, to the disadvantage of the Government, contracts under which public-service corporations are bound to serve the United States. It is a well-settled principle that operations of the Federal Government within the scope of its constitutional powers are beyond the field of jurisdiction of a State government; and no authority created by a State can regulate the terms under which the Government may contract for its supplies, either directly or indirectly, by attempting to control the person or corporation supplying the same. 161, Aug. 26, 1918. A contract between the United States and a gas company, fixing certain rates to be paid by the Government, stipulated that the maximum quantity of gas furnished should be approximately 500,000 cubic feet per month. The State public utilities commission thereafter authorized the gas company to charge higher rates. Held, That the action of the utility commission was ineffective as to gas furnished up to 500,000 cubic feet per month, the maximum quantity covered by the contract. The gas company is entitled to charge the new rate fixed by the commission for quantities of gas furnished above the limit specified in the contract. 164, Oct. 2, 1918. There is no legal objection to the insertion in a Government contract with a public-service corporation for gas, electricity, or water service, a provision that the rates therefor are subject to change by the State public-utilities commission or like instrumentality having jurisdiction thereof under State laws. The Government thereby would contract to pay for the service desired at the rates lawfully established for the general public and which the general public is bound to pay. While this office has often expressed the view that States and their instrumentalities are without power to change the contract rights of the Government the rule so announced is in no way inconsistent with the view herein expressed. However, if this provision be incorporated in a Government contract, the Government should reserve the right to terminate the contract on notice. 165, Oct. 8, 1921. The Government entered into contracts for commercial telephone service, to be paid for at "legally established rates" and for trunk-line facilities, to be paid for at "established rates." The telephone company sought permission of the municipal authorities to raise its rates, and, being refused, obtained a restraining order from the Federal court, raised its rates, and applied for a permanent injunction against interference therewith by the municipal authorities. As to what course the Government should follow if bills are rendered by the company under the new schedule, Held, That the term "established rates " means "legally established rates," and until the recently raised rates have become legally established, by final court action or otherwise as provided by law, there is no obligation on the part of the Government to pay them. 483.2, June 5, |