Page images
PDF
EPUB

Pardon for Desertion.

tions between the several Departments of the Government of the United States and their officers and agents."

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

CLEMENT HUGH HILL,

Hon. WM. W. BELKNAP,

Secretary of War.

Acting Attorney-General.

PARDON FOR DESERTION.

The President may grant a conditional pardon, and he may remit a part
of the penalty or punishment without remitting the whole.
Hence he can pardon a deserter so as to re-enfranchise him, (i. e., remove
the disabilities imposed by section 21 of the act of March 3, 1865, chap.
79,) and at the same time make the pardon conditional upon his not
becoming thereby entitled to any moneys forfeited; and a condition of
this sort would exclude any right to the pay referred to in the joint
resolution of March 1, 1870, [No. 18.]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
October 3, 1872.

SIR: In your communication of the 31st of August you ask the opinion of the Attorney-General as to whether a pardon for the offense of desertion will re-enfranchise a deserter without giving him the right to the pay to which he would be entitled by the removal of a false charge of desertion, under the joint resolution of March 3, 1870.

By the act of March 3, 1865, section 21, (13 Stat., 490,) it is enacted that, in addition to all the other lawful penalties for the crime of desertion, "all persons who have deserted the military or naval service of the United States shall be deemed and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship and their rights to become eitizens, and such deserters shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States or of exercising any rights of citizenship thereof."

By the joint resolution of March 1, 1870, above referred to, (16 Stat., 370,) section 2, it is resolved that "the moneys withheld because of the desertion of any person from the volunteer forces of the United States, who is borne on the rolls as

Buildings on Military Reservations.

a deserter, shall not be paid to him except the record of desertion shall have been canceled, on the sole ground that such record had been made erroneously and contrary to the facts; but such money shall be and remain the property of the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, for the support of its beneficiaries."

I do not deem it necessary to decide whether or not an unconditional pardon of the President would restore the moneys above referred to, notwithstanding this act of Congress, to a deserter; for as it is well established that the pardon of the President may be conditional, and may remit a part of the sentence or penalty without remitting the whole, I am clearly of the opinion that the President can pardon a deserter so as to re-enfranchise him, and at the same time make the pardon conditional upon his not being entitled to any moneys which he has forfeited by the crime of desertion; and such conditional pardon would enfranchise any such person, without giving him any right to the pay referred to in the joint resolution of March 1, 1870. I have the honor to be, sir, your very obedient servant, CLEMENT HUGH HILL,

Hon. WM. W. BELKNAP,

Secretary of War.

Acting Attorney-General.

BUILDINGS ON MILITARY RESERVATIONS.

Buildings erected on military reservations by post-traders, under a license from the War Department, for the purposes of trade, are not to be regarded as such buildings would be if placed there by trespassers; that is to say, as constituting a part of the realty.

A trader, when he removes from his post at a military reserve,'has a right to remove the buildings which were erected thereon by him under such license, and is at liberty to dispose of the materials thereof as his own property.

But the license to erect such buildings, being purely personal to the trader, does not carry with it any right to lease or convey the same to others for their occupation and use, without the permission of the military authorities; his rights are confined solely to that of removing the buildings from the premises.

Buildings on Military Reservations.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

October 3, 1872.

SIR: I have duly considered the questions which you ask the Attorney-General in your letter of the 11th instant, and which are as follows:

Where persons, such as post-traders, contractors, and others, have been allowed by proper authority to erect buildings to facilitate their business upon a military reserve, with no restriction as to the term during which they shall be allowed to remain, 1. Are such buildings, after the removal of the trader, contractor, or other person from the reserve, still his personal estate, and, as such, has he the right to dispose of them by rent, lease, or sale to other persons! 2. Does not such property become part of the realty after the appointment of a trader is revoked, or a contractor has fulfilled his contract, or any event happens which dissolves their business. connection with the reserve?

By the order of the Secretary of War of June 17, 1871, (a copy of which you inclose to me,) it is provided that

"Post-traders, appointed under the authority given by the act of July 15, 1870, will be furnished with a letter of appointment from the Secretary of War, indicating the post to which they are appointed. They will be permitted to erect buildings for the purpose of carrying on their business upon such part of the military reservation or post to which they may be assigned as the commanding officer may direct; such buildings to be within convenient reach of the garrison. They will be allowed the exclusive privilege of trade upon the military reserve to which they are appointed, and no other person will be allowed to trade, peddle, or sell goods by sample or otherwise within the limits of the reserve. They are under military protection and control as camp-followers."

Buildings erected by post-traders on a military reserve, in comformity to this order, are erected for the mutual benefit of the Government and the trader, and are not to be regarded as buildings would be if erected by trespassers, or even by tenants under leases in which no provision is made therefor. They are erected under a license from the Government, and for the mutual benefit of both parties.

Metropolitan-Police Accommodations.

Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that, by the proper construction of the license, these buildings were not intended to become a part of the realty after their erection, but were to contiune the property of the traders, and, therefore, when a trader is removed from his post, I have no doubt that he has a right to remove the building from the place where it was erected, and, when removed, he can dispose of the materials as his own property.

But it is very clear that the license to erect such buildings. is a purely personal one, and is granted for one purpose only. Therefore, under such license, the person so erecting the building would have no right to rent or lease the same, or even to sell it to another post-trader, without permission of the military authorities, but his rights are confined solely to that of removing the building from the reserve. Undoubtedly the property in such a building might, with the approval of the commanding officer, be transferred to another posttrader, and such permission would have the same force as a license to a new post-trader to erect such a building at that spot.

I return you the papers enclosed.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
CLEMENT HUGH HILL,

Hon. Wм. W. BELKNAP,

Secretary of War.

Acting Attorney-General.

METROPOLITAN-POLICE ACCOMMODATIONS.

The 15th section of the act of August 6, 1861, chap. 62, was entirely superseded by the act of February 21, 1871, chap. 62, and no longer imposes any duty or confers any authority in regard to providing accommodations for the police force of the District of Columbia, this subject clearly falling within the legislative power given by the latter statute to the legislative assembly of the District.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
October 11, 1872.

SIR: I have had under consideration the communication

addressed to your Department by the president of the board of

Eight-Hour Law.

metropolitan police of the District of Columbia, dated the 13th ultimo, a copy of which was transmitted to the AttorneyGeneral by the Hon. W. H. Smith, acting secretary, in a letter of the 24th ultimo, requesting an opinion relative to providing accommodations for the police force, etc., under the 15th section of the act of August 6, 1861, (12 Stat., 323.)

That section, I think, has been entirely superseded by the act of February 21, 1871, "to provide a government for the District of Columbia," (16 Stat., 419,) and, consequently, no longer imposes any duty or confers any authority in regard to the subject mentioned. The providing of police accommodations clearly falls within the legislative power given by the act of 1871, and I observe that the legislative assembly of the District have acted in accordance with this view, and passed appropriations to furnish station-houses, etc., (see acts of August 15 and 19, 1871, Laws of the First Session of the First Legislative Assembly, pp. 35, 67.)

Thus, the question submitted by the president of the board of police appearing to be one that cannot now arise, an opinion thereon is deemed unnecessary, and none is given. I have the honor to be, &c.,

B. H. BRISTOW, Solicitor-General and Acting Attorney-General.

Hon. C. DELANO,

Secretary of the Interior.

EIGHT-HOUR LAW.

Section 2 of the act of May 18, 1872, chap. 172, relating to the settlement of accounts for the services of laborers, workmen, and mechanics employed by the Government between June 25, 1868, and May 19, 1869, was designed to have a broad and liberal construction; and, interpreted in this wise, its provisions may be taken to include all persons who were thus employed and paid by the day, although they may not come within the description of "laborers, workmen, and mechanics," regarding these words in their more strict signification.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
October 24, 1872.

SIR: I have duly considered the question proposed by you to this Department in your letter of the 23d instant, in regard

« PreviousContinue »