the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no others."

Obviously, the effect of this provision is to make unlawful the diversion of funds appropriated for one object of expenditure to another object of expenditure.

It is provided by section 3618, supra, how moneys derived from the sales of public property, with certain exceptions, shall be disposed of and used.

Concretely, the question turns on whether such a transfer from one Government department to another is or is not a sale. In the consideration of this question, which has frequently arisen in the administration of the War and Navy Departments, the Judge Advocate General of the Army has uniformly held that the transfer of public property from one bureau or department to another is not a sale. The decisions relating thereto are collected in the Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the Army for the years 1912 and 1915, as follows:

"But where the property desired to be transferred is no longer needed for the purpose for which appropriated, it may be transferred to another department without the consent of Congress. Such a transfer would not be a sale, as the Government would not part with its title, and it would not, therefore, be open to the objection that public property can not be disposed of without the authority of Congress. Section 3678, Revised Statutes, provides that 'all sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditures in the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no others.' While this statute prohibits the expenditure of an appropriation for purposes other than those for which appropriated, yet, if it be regarded as intended also to forbid the application of property purchased from an appropriation for a particular purpose to a different purpose, it should not be construed to forbid such a transfer where the property is no longer needed for the purpose for which appropriated. Therefore the property being no longer needed for the purpose for which appropriated, held that two vessels belonging to the Navy Department might be transferred for a definite or an indefinite time to the War Department for use as Army transports (C.

7840, Mar. 14, 1900); that certain cooking utensils, tableware, and soap, purchased from a river and harbor appropriation to be used in connection with the improvement of rivers and harbors in Florida, could be turned over to an officer for use in connection with a river improvement in Georgia (C. 10300, Apr. 25, 1901); that five mules purchased in connection with certain harbor improvements in Alabama could be transferred to the Quartermaster's Department of the Army (C. 3679, Nov. 26, 1897); that a sailboat in possession of the United States engineering officer at San Juan could be transferred to the Lighthouse Board (C. 10315, Apr. 29, 1901); that a Remington typewriter in possession of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Park Commission could be exchanged for a Smith Premier in the office of a certain quartermaster (C. 10741, June 25, 1901); that certain cable laid between Narragansett Pier and Block Island could be transferred to the Weather Bureau in the Department of Agriculture on the condition that the bureau keep the cable in repair, and in case of war or other military necessity restore it to the War Department (C. 12883, June 30, 1902); that certain property belonging to the Medical Department of the Army which had been condemned and ordered to be destroyed could be turned over to the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture (C. 21850, July 26, 1907)." Digest, 1912, p. 31.

In 1915, Digest of Opinions of the Judge Advocate General's Office, p. 491 (July 1, 1912, to April 1, 1917), there was submitted whether a team of dogs belonging to the Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce, for which the Bureau of Fisheries had no immediate use, could be transferred to the Signal Corps in Alaska. The Judge Advocate General held that such transfer could be made. These decisions recognize that such a transfer is in no sense a sale, for the reason that the Government does not part with the title to the property so transferred or loaned. Clearly, if the title changed, then such transaction would not be proper without the consent of Congress.

That such a transaction is not a sale is conversely recognized in a recent decision by the Comptroller of the Treas

ury rendered June 20, 1919, 25 Comptroller's Decisions, 961, in which it was held that where equipment is transferred from one department to another, payment to the transferring department is not authorized, since the transaction is not a sale. It was further adjudged that no adjustment of appropriations was necessary where the expenditure from the appropriation which bore the original expense had accomplished the purpose for which it was made, provided the transfer involved no additional charge against the appropriation under which the equipment was originally purchased. That is to say, a mere transfer without additional expense involves a mere question of accountability and not an adjustment of appropriations.

This question has been decided by Attorney General Brewster under date of December 20, 1882. It was there said inter alia:

"But where articles are manufactured or purchased by one branch of the public service under an appropriation made for that purpose, and are afterwards, on grounds of administrative expediency, transferred to another branch of the service, the latter thereupon reimbursing the appropriation of the former with the cost of the articles out of an appropriation applicable to the manufacture or purchase thereof, this transaction is not a sale either according to the ordinary or the legal signification of that term. It is nothing more than a transfer of the custody and use of the property and consequent accountability for the same, accompanied by a transfer of the cost thereof from one appropriation to another, within the scope of either of which the expenditure may properly come. The ownership (a transfer of which is an inseparable element in a sale of property) remains unchanged." (17 Op. 482.)

The question naturally and logically arises whether real estate can be transferred from one department to the other, assuming, of course, that it falls within the classification of property no longer needed for the purposes for which it was originally acquired. In other words, can real estate acquired for a definite and peculiar use be devoted to another and distinct purpose in the same or another department or bureau of the United States Government? This

question has been answered in the affirmative in three several opinions of the Attorney General, and attention is invited to the decision of Attorney General Wickersham to the Secretary of the Navy, July 17, 1911, 29 Opinions Attorneys General, 205, 208, 209, where the previous rulings of the department upon this question are specifically considered and approved. The opinion is as follows:

"That such power exists is the conclusion of two recent opinions. The opinion of November 3, 1904, by Solicitor General Hoyt, approved by Attorney General Moody, holding that the Secretary of the Navy had authority to transfer to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor for the extension of a lighthouse reservation the control of certain land at San Juan reserved by Executive order for naval purposes, is precisely in point here. (25 Op. 269.) In an opinion of April 29, 1910, this was approved, and I advised you that the President has authority to transfer to the War Department for military purposes the use and control of lands in the Philippine Islands reserved by Executive order for naval purposes. (28 Op. 262.) Mutatis mutandis, everything there said is entirely pertinent and controlling here; for the legislation of Congress relating to public lands in Porto Rico is from the viewpoint of the present problem in nowise to be distinguished from that relating to the public lands in the Philippines. And I adhere to that opinion. (See also 16 Op. 124.)"

There can be no question under the authorities cited that such transfers of real and personal property can be made, provided the transaction does not involve a change of title in praesenti or in futuro.

In conclusion and answering your question specifically, you are advised that there is no legal objection to the mere transfer from one bureau or department of the Government to another department of real or personal property no longer needed for the purposes for which it was appropriated; that such a transfer is not a sale and is not open to the objection that public property can not be disposed of without the authority of Congress.

Respectfully,

To the PRESIDENT.

HARRY M. DAUGHERTY.

PUBLICATION OF LISTS OF DRAFT DESERTERS.

There is no legal objection to the form or substance of the proposed heading to be prefixed to the lists intended for publication which contain the names of persons who were, according to the public draft records, classified and reported by the draft authorities as descrters.

No liability would attach to the United States in publishing such lists; and the proposed publication being within the scope of the authority of the Secretary of War in administering the military law, based on public records made in the course of official duty, is privileged and no liability would attach to the Secretary of War, his subordinates, or the former selective draft officials.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

April 26, 1921.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Jetter of the 24th ultimo, stating that it is proposed to publish a form containing the names of persons who were, according to the public draft records, classified and reported by the draft authorities as deserters, and requesting my opinion in regard to those names correctly, and also to those incorrectly, borne upon such lists as deserters, upon the following proposition:

"(a) Is there any legal objection to the form or substance of the heading proposed to be prefixed to each of the lists it is designed to publish?

"(b) Under what circumstances, if at all, could legal liability attach to either the United States, the Secretary of War, The Adjutant General, any other official or officer of the War Department, or former officials of the selective draft concerned in the preparation or publication of such lists, or who has furnished information upon which any such list is based?"

The heading which it is proposed to prefix to the publication merely states the result ascertained by the draft authorities. The draft boards were appointed under reguiations promulgated by the President in pursuance of the Act of Congress approved May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76), which regulations have been held valid and have the force of law. (Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 389; Franke v. Murray, 248 Fed. 865.) All records required by the selective service rules and regulations in connection with the registration, examination, and mobilization of