include the nonsurrender, nonlapsation, nonmaturity, or lack of exercise of some one of the options specified in the policy among the conditions of premium refund. The conditions stated in the statute exclude the idea that other conditions not stated were intended. Inclusoi unius est exclusio alterius. The rule of statutory construction thus stated has been frequently applied. Thus it has been held that when a legislative body has made a grant with a specific exception or limitation, and has made no other exception or limitation a conclusive presumption arises that it intended to make none. Wabash R. Co. v. United States, 178 F. 5. And it has been stated that "the enumeration of particular things excludes the idea of something else not mentioned." Bloemer v. Turner, 137 S.W. (2d) 387, 390, and see Hughes v. Wallace, 118 S.W. 324. Moreover, the stated conclusion is not inconsistent with the basic purpose of the cash surrender agreement and the regulations under which it has formulated, R. & P. R. issued pursuant to the authority and direction of section 602 (f) of the act is intended merely to save the Government from any claim inconsistent with the surrender of the policy and receipt of the cash value of it. A cash surrender is in effect simply a form of maturity analagous to the maturity of an endowment policy upon the expiration of the period prescribed therefor. In either maturity or in the event of maturity by death a claim that unearned premiums were tendered and applied to the insurance account is not inconsistent with the continued recognition of the fact that the policy has matured and that benefits are payable. An authorized refund of premiums does not affect the cash reserve of the policy, which is the source from which is drawn all benefits payable as a result of the maturity of the policy under any of its terms.

Insofar as the conclusion herein stated might be regarded as inconsistent with R. & P. R-3427, it would be necessary to regard the regulation as inconsistent with the statute and therefore invalid. It is believed, however, that the regulation must be read as intentionally subordinate to the statute and as embracing whatever exceptions are required by the statute itself. It is intentionally worded in broad language to accomplish its purpose of protecting the Government against claims inconsistent with the act of surrender and the receipt by the insured of the existing cash value of the policy and the Government may waive any other advantage which the wording might be considered to import. It is true that an insurer in the formulation of its dividend policies requires some assurance of freedom from the future assertion of claims based upon past events and circumstances and that the cash surrender agreement provides such assurance with respect

to insurance which has been surrendered. But it is also true that section 602 (n) embodies time limitations upon claims for premium refund and thus provides the required assurance as to freedom from such claims. In any event, the statute rather than the regulation is controlling.

HELD: (1) Administrator's Decision 187-A is as applicable to transactions relating to National Service Life Insurance as it is to transactions relating to United States Government Life Insurance. (2) In any case in which a claim for premium refund complies with the conditions of section 602 (n), the claimed refund must be allowed, notwithstanding the fact that the insurance to which it relates has been surrendered for cash. (Opinion of the Solicitor dated May 27, 1947, approved June 6, 1947, C-4, 625,367.)

ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, NO. 752 JULY 14, 1947.

Subject: Interpretation of subparagraph (c), section 602 (m) (2), National Service Life Insurance Act, as amended.

QUESTION PRESENTED: Is a serviceman who was sentenced by court martial and honorably restored to active duty and thereafter accidentally killed while on active duty stationed at a port of embarkation covered by insurance under section 602 (m) (2) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1946?

FACTS: The deceased entered military service on January 29, 1943. He applied for and was granted $10,000 National Service Life Insurance and authorized an allotment from his service pay to cover the premiums. His death occurred on October 20, 1944, in line of duty, as the result of injuries received when accidentally struck by a subway train while stationed at Camp Shank, New York City, Port of Embarkation.

He had been previously tried and convicted by general court martial for violation of the sixty-first article of war and sentenced to be confined at hard labor for 5 years, to forfeit all pay and allowances due or to become due, and to be dishonorably discharged upon release from confinement, which sentence was approved December 17, 1943. His class N allotment was, accordingly, discontinued November 30, 1943, the premiums on the insurance being paid to and including January 5, 1944. He was honorably restored to duty August 31, 1944, and did not reestablish an allotment to cover the insurance premiums.

COMMENT: Section 602 (m) (2) of the National Service Life Insurance Act, as amended by Public Law 589, Seventy-ninth

Congress (the Insurance Act of 1946), provides:

(2) In any case in which the insured provided for the payment of premiums on his insurance by authorizing in writing the deduction of premiums from his service pay, such insurance shall be deemed not to have lapsed so long as he remained in active service prior to the date of enactment of the Insurance Act of 1946, notwithstanding the fact that deduction of premiums was discontinued because-

(A) the insured was discharged to accept a commission; or

(B) the insured was absent without leave, if restored to active duty; or (C) the insured was sentenced by court martial, if he was restored to active duty, required to engage in combat, or killed in combat.

** *

*

The question concerns the proper construction of (C)-i.e., whether the three clauses following "if" are to be read as conjunctive or disjunctive. Under generally understood grammatical rules the latter would appear clearly indicated. If there be any doubt, certainty is afforded by the legislative history.

Subparagraph (C), section 602 (m) (2) of H. R. 6371, the bill enacted as Public Law 589, Seventy-ninth Congress, as passed by the House of Representatives, reads:

(c) The insured was sentenced by court martial, if he was restored to active duty, or was required to engage in combat, or was killed in combat.

If there had been no change in this language, there would be no question but that the three conditions are all in the alternative, so that if the insured met any one of the conditions enumerated, the insurance would not be deemed to have lapsed.

The question whether, in addition to meeting the requirement that there be a restoration to active duty, the insurance, in a case where the insured was tried by court martial, will be deemed not to have lapsed only if the insured was required to engage in combat or was killed in combat, arises solely because the words "or was" which preceded the words "required to engage in combat," were deleted in the Senate bill and in the enacted statute. It is therefore material to ascertain whether the deletion was deliberately accomplished with intent to produce that result, or whether the change was accomplished without any intent to produce a different construction than that produced by the language of the bill as it passed the House of Representatives.

Report 1705, Calendar No. 1740 Senate, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, accompanying H. R. 6371, reads, in part:

The amendment proposed by the committee is a complete substitute for the bill as referred to the committee. While many of the changes in the wording of the House bill were made for the purpose of clarification or to overcome technical objections, others represent changes in policy which your committee deem desirable. The principal changes in policy which the committee amendment would make in the House bill are as follows: *

There then follows a statement as to the principal changes in policy which the Senate committee amendment would make in the

371633-56-Vol. 2—10

bill as enacted by the House. These are seven in number and do not include section 602 (m) (2). In that portion of the report captioned "Explanation of the bill as proposed to be amended by the committee amendment," it is stated apropos the amendment of 602 (m) (2):

Section 6 of the committee amendment amends section 602 (m) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as presently enacted, by adding thereto a subsection 602 (m) (2) to provide that in any case in which the insured authorized in writing deduction of premiums from his service pay, insurance shall not be deemed to have lapsed so long as the insured remained in active service, prior to the date of enactment of the bill, notwithstanding the fact that authorized premium deductions were discontinued because— (a) The insured was discharged to accept a commission; or

(b) The insured was absent without leave, if restored to active duty; or (c) The insured was sentenced by court martial, if he was restored to active duty, or was required to engage in combat, or was killed in combat.

* *

It is pertinent to observe, at this point, that the explanation of the Committee on Finance of the Senate concerning section 6 of the committee amendment, copies, in totidem verbis as to subdivision (c), the language of the bill as it passed the House of Representatives. However, section 602 (m) (2) as printed in the bill which accompanied the report did not read as or follow the language which the report would lead one to believe was the language that was to be used in the bill, for the report covering this section is identical with and apparently was adopted from the report of the Committee of the House of Representatives. In the light of the above, the deletion of the words "or was" cannot be said to have been accomplished for the purpose of a change in the effect of the bill as enacted by the House of Representatives but was only as indicated by the Senate Committee "for the purpose of clarification or to overcome technical objections."

HELD: The three conditions in subparagraph (C) of section 602 (m) (2) may be interpreted as being in the alternative. Hence, as to any insured, who was sentenced by court martial, his insurance is not to be deemed to have lapsed as long as he remained in active service prior to the Insurance Act of 1946 (1) if he was restored to active duty, or (2) was required to engage in combat, or (3) was killed in combat. As the insured in the present case was restored to active duty and as he remained on active duty to the date of his death, it follows that under section 602 (m) (2) his insurance was in force at the date of his death. (Opinion of the Solicitor dated May 14, 1947, approved June 6, 1947, XC-3,738,622.)

ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION, NO. 753 JULY 16, 1947.

Subject: Disposition of gratuitous National Service Life Insurance upon failure of preferred dependent to file claim within statutory period. QUESTION PRESENTED: Where one of the preferred dependents under subsection (2) of section 602 (d) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, for gratuitous insurance payable under the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) (A) or (B) of section 602 (d) of the act, fails to file a timely claim, may his share of the insurance be paid to the other preferred dependent who filed a timely claim?

FACTS: The veteran was born August 11, 1921. He entered naval service July 18, 1940. He was reported missing in action as of March 1, 1942. In compliance with the provisions of section 5, Public Law 490, as amended, the Navy Department made a finding that his death is presumed to have occurred on December 15, 1945. However, for purposes of payment of insurance he is deemed to have died March 1, 1942. On that date he had in force $3,000 United States Government Life Insurance; and is deemed to have applied for and to have been granted $2,000 National Service Life Insurance under the provisions of section 602 (d) (2) of the act, supra. COMMENT: Section 602 (d) (2) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended, reads:

Any person in the active service on or after October 8, 1940, who, while in such service and before the expiration of one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this amendatory Act, dies or has died in line of duty (including death resulting from disease or injury incurred in line of duty), without having in force at the time of such death insurance under the War Risk Insurance Act, as amended, the World War Veterans' Act, 1924, as amended, or this Act, in the aggregate amount of at least $5,000 shall be deemed to have applied for and to have been granted insurance as of the date of entry into active service or October 8, 1940, whichever is later, in the sum of $5,000 payable as provided in section 602 (h), except that payments hereunder shall be made only to the following beneficiaries and in the order named

(A) to the widow or widower of the insured, if living and while unremarried;

(B) if no widow or widower entitled thereto, to the child or children of the insured, if living, in equal shares;

(C) if no widow or widower entitled thereto, or child, to the dependent mother or father of the insured, if living, in equal shares.

In the instant case the insured was not survived by wife or child but was survived by parents, his natural mother and stepfather, who, it is believed, occupied the relationship of loco parentis because he married the insured's mother when the insured was 6 years old, was living with the mother on the date of death of the insured, and for 1 year thereafter when the mother and stepfather were divorced.