legal definition of a statutory term is a question of fact. (1895) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 255.

The question of whether one trademark simulates another is one of fact. (1895) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 260.

The existence of a foreign law is a question of fact. (1896) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 377.

What constitutes prompt delivery is a question of fact. (1909) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 47.

The determination of the meaning of the term "meat food product" is essential to the proper enforcement of the Meat Inspection Law, and as Congress has not defined the term, and it has no well-defined meaning, but is one of commercial usage, and such determination is a question of fact. (1910) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 369.

The meaning of the term "work of art," and its application to a particular design drawing, or painting, etc., under section 11, Act March 4, 1909 (35 Stat. 1078), presents a question of fact, to be determined in each instance by the Register of Copyrights. (1911) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 557.

9. Questions of mixed law and fact.The Attorney General should not express an opinion upon the question as to whose fault or negligence, if any one's, it is that a wrongful payment has been made, as that is a question of mixed law and fact which only a court can determine. (1893) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 524.

The Attorney General cannot be asked to exercise appellate jurisdiction upon mixed questions of fact and law. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 711; (1892) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 342.

IQ. Questions of administrative policy or practice.-No appeal lies from the decision of the Commissioner of Pensions or other officer of the government to the Attorney General. (1854) 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 289.

It is not the duty of the Attorney General to determine the amount of compensation payable to counsel specially retained by the Secretary of State or other head of department. (1854) 6 Op. Atty. Gen. 635.

The consideration and discussion of remonstrances and reclamations on behalf of the subjects of friendly foreign governments against the operation of our laws and the judgments of our courts are within the peculiar province of the Secretary of State, and will not be assumed by the Attorney General. (1862) 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 347.

The opinions of the Attorney General are advisory only. He has no control over the action of the head of department at whose request and to whom an opinion is given, nor could he with propriety express any judgment concerning the disposition of the matter to which the opinion relates, that being something wholly within the administra

tive sphere of such head of department. (1855) 17 Op. Atty. Gen. 332.

The Attorney General will not, at the request of the Solicitor of the Treasury, consider and express his views as to the correctness of an opinion prepared by the latter upon a question submitted to him by the Secretary of the Treasury. (1884) 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 57.

The Attorney General will not interpret a regulation of practice made by the Commissioner of Patents for his own guidance and that of his subordinates, for the convenient, intelligent, and orderly disposal of the business of his office. Such regulations, which the heads of bureaus and departments can make, modify, or annul at will, or enforce or waive, as seems expedient, may well be left for their interpretation to the head of the department or bureau to which they pertain. (1887) 18 Op.

Atty. Gen. 521.

The Attorney General is not authorized to give to the Secretary of the Treasury his opinion as to the proper construction of a pension appropriation act, because the Treasury Department is bound to follow the rulings of the Department of the Interior in considering that act. (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 178.

The Attorney General cannot reverse the decision of the Civil Service Commission or require it to issue a certificate of reinstatement. (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 270, 312.

The question as to whether the Civil Service Commission shall issue a certificate for reinstatement of an officer of the Treasury Department is not one arising in the administration of the Treasury Department and, therefore, not a question upon which it would be proper for the Attorney General to express an opinion at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 312.

The Attorney General declined to give an opinion as to whether the so-called eight-hour law is applicable to certain contracts for public works. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 463, 465, 500; (1910) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 534.

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion as to whether certain employés of the Mississippi Commission are "laborers" or "mechanics" within the meaning of the act of August 1, 1892 (27 Stat. 340), for the reason that those words are used in the statute in their ordinary sense, and the determination of that question is, therefore, a matter of administration only, involving the ascertainment of a question of fact, upon which the Attorney General is not authorized to express an opinion. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 487.

Where terms are used in a statute in their ordinary acceptation and the duty of applying it in a particular matter is one of administration merely, that duty cannot be devolved upon the Attorney General.

Id.

The Attorney General has no author

ity to give an opinion upon the reasonableness of fees demanded by persons proposing to act as attorneys for Indian litigants. (1893) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 620.

The construction of regulations of the Civil Service Commission is a matter entirely within the province of the Commission, and should not be attempted by the Attorney General. (1893) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 649.

The nature of the evidence required from applicants for leave and sufficiency of reasons for extending or limiting hours of labor are matters within the discretion of the Secretary as to which the Attorney General cannot advise. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 728.

The Attorney General declined to pass upon the original merits of a doubtful question, where the departmental practice had been in accordance with a decision of the Board of General Appraisers. Such practice should not be changed without a decision of the court. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 730.

The Attorney General cannot give an official opinion upon the construction of customs regulations which may be modified at any time by the Secretary of the Treasury. (1895) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 255.

A request for an opinion failing to state definite facts showing by what persons, in what manner, and during what period of the year fur seals are being killed in the passes of the Aleutian Islands, it is impossible to determine whether the administrative duty imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury by section 1956, R. S., post, § 8850, is or is not qualified by the provisions of Act April 6, 1894. (1897) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 583.

It is not the duty of the Attorney General and he cannot, from the meager facts submitted, determine the question of good faith or intention on the part of the deserting sailors from the British steamship Columbia, as to whether they came to this country pursuant to their calling, intending to ship again, or as immigrants. That duty rests with the Treasury Department. (1901) 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 521.

The question as to whether or not a citizen of Porto Rico, legally a resiIdent of New York, is eligible for appointment in the Marine Hospital Service under a departmental regulation which requires the applicant to be a citizen of the United States, or, if of foreign birth, to furnish proof of American citizenship, does not involve any question of law within the meaning of section 356, R. S. (this section), and therefore is not one properly calling for an opinion of the Attorney General. The requirement not being demanded by law, its interpretation may properly be left to the department or bureau responsible for its existence and execution (18 Op. Atty. Gen. 521; 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 649; 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 255,

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion upon the question of the propriety of the Secretary of the Interior permitting Boysen to go upon the reservation and make examinations prior to the completion and approval of the surveys of the ceded portion; it not being within his province to pass upon the propriety of the exercise by the Secretary of the Interior of his official discretion. (1905) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 524.

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion upon the question whether proceedings by court-martial would bar proceedings in the civil courts for an assault or other crime involved in the offense of hazing, for the reason that it would be of no assistance to those officers in the proper discharge of their duties, and should such action be taken the matter would peculiarly be one for the consideration of his department. (1905) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 543.

The question as to whether charges suggested by the Secretary of Agriculture for the use of ground and rights of way within the National Forest Reserves, are reasonable or not, is not one which can properly be determined by the Attorney General. (1907) 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 421.

The Attorney General advised the Secretary of the Treasury as to the legality of a course of action contemplated by him, in order that immediate notification might be given to the parties to be affected thereby in the hope that such notification might result in a change of existing practices which would render the contemplated action unnecessary; but he expressed a doubt as to his authority to render such an opinion. (1908) 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 37.

The R. P. Clarke Company is bound by the contract it entered into with the "several departments and independent establishments of the government" to furnish to the Department of Agriculture, for the use of the Forest Service, such amount of either of the varieties of cloth described in the contract as may be ordered by said department during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, notwithstanding the fact that it was not estimated by the general supply committee that any such cloth would be required by that department. (1909) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 47.

The Attorney General cannot properly express an opinion as to whether or not the bonds of certain surety companies should be accepted, as that is a question of administrative policy. (1909) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 127.

11. Questions actually arising. It is not his duty to give an opinion concerning infringements of the rights of patentees by dealers in the patented articles of manufacture; it not being required of the officers in charge of

the Patent Office to decide upon the legal effect of patents issued in conformity to the laws, nor to inform patentees of their rights. (1822) 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 575.

The Attorney General having no power to give an official opinion at the request of the head of a department, except on matters that concern the official powers and duties thereof, all opinions given by him in respect to claims under the Cherokee treaty have been extraofficial and unauthorized. (1838) 3 Op. Atty. Gen. 368.

The Attorney General is neither required nor authorized to give an opinion to the head of a department except in cases actually pending for decision by him in such department. (1857) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 82; (1860) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 421: (1861) 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 50; (1862) 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 220, 267; (1865) 11 Op. Atty. Gen. 189; (1868) 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 433; (1871) 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 535; 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 138; (1889) 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 332, 412, 414; (1890) 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 695; (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 50, 249; (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 383, 420, 440; (1893) 20 Op.

Atty. Gen. 536, 583, 588, 618; (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 703, 729; (1894) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 37, 106, 109; (1895) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 167, 178, 186, 219, 240; (1896) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 320, 369; (1897) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 478, 506, 509, 510, 568; (1897) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 77; (1908) 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 37,

49.

It is not the duty of the Attorney General to give an opinion to the Secretary of the Treasury upon questions relating to the past action of the Board of Supervising Inspectors, which was had on a matter properly submitted to such board under the provisions of R. S. § 4491, post, § 8267, and which is not reviewable by the Secretary. (1884) 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 77.

It is not deemed proper for the Attorney General to give an official opinion where the question submitted by the head of a department relates to duties of territorial officers in a matter touching which such department has no administrative concern. (1887) 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 7.

The Attorney General declines to give an opinion upon the question whether a bond taken by the collector of a port from one of his subordinates, for his own protection, is valid in the absence of a statute authorizing it; it not appearing to be a question in which the United States are concerned or one arising in the administration of a depart

ment.

(1890) 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 556. The Attorney General deems it improper to give an official opinion upon a Which does not arise out of actually existing in the ad

question

any case

ministration of the department seeking

advice, notwithstanding such question may involve the construction of the immigration and contract labor laws (9

Op. Atty. Gen. 82, 355, 421; 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 50; 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 531 568). (1889) 19 Op. Atty. Gen. 331.

The Attorney General is not authorized to review, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, the decisions of the Civil Service Commission on the construction of departmental rule X in regard to reinstatement, for the reason that under that rule the matter of certification rests with the Commission and, the Commission having decided adversely to the applicant, there is now no question in the matter pending before the Interior Department. (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 158.

The Attorney General is not authorized to give his opinion to the Secretary of the Treasury as to the proper construction of a pension appropriation act, inasmuch as it appears that the Treasury Department is bound by the rulings of the Department of the Interior in construing that law, and therefore no question is pending in the Treasury Department arising in the administration of that Department (17 Op. Atty. Gen. 339, followed). (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 178.

The question as to whether the Civil Service Commission shall issue a certificate for reinstatement of an officer of the Treasury Department is not one arising in the administration of the Treasury Department, and is therefore not a question upon which it would be proper for the Attorney General to express an opinion at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 312.

The question as to the right of an irrigation company to construct a dam across the Yakima river, which is one of the boundaries of the Yakima Indian reservation, is not one arising in a matter before the Interior Department, as the Secretary has no authority to settle that question; it is essentially judicial in character, and therefore the Attorney General has no power to give an opinion thereon. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 314.

The Attorney General is not authorized to give his opinion upon the application of the eight-hour law to a proposed contract, where the contractors whose bids have been accepted desire to be advised before signing the contract what portion of the work that law will affect, as it is not a question which the Secretary of the Treasury is called upon to decide. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 463.

The Attorney General declines to give an opinion as to the applicability of the so-called eight-hour law to a certain contract for public work, for the reason that the contractor, not the Secretary of the Treasury, is liable for the violation of the law. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 465, 500.

The Attorney General cannot state as a basis for future departmental action, the classes of Chinese persons

whose occupations would place them within the category of laborer. He can only answer as to each case when it arises. (1893) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 602.

The question as to the right of a state judge to compel an employé of the federal government to perform jury duty, not decided, as no such serious occasion is shown to have arisen as would justify the Attorney General reviewing the ruling of a state judge. (1893) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 618.

The Attorney General cannot properly give an opinion as to whether if a certain Chinaman should visit. his native country he could thereafter lawfully return to the United States, as it is not a question arising in the administration of an Executive Department. (1893) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 667.

While certain regulations posted in the Department of Agriculture seem to be valid, yet until the lawfulness of some particular regulation is actually called in question no opinion respecting its legality can properly be asked for or given. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 703.

The Attorney General cannot properly be asked, for the information of the owners of a vessel, whether if they rebuilt their vessel in Canada it could be thereafter reregistered as a vessel built in the United States, for the reason that it is not a question arising in the administration of the Treasury Department. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 723.

The Attorney General's opinion cannot be asked by the Secretary of the Interior upon questions relating only to the duties of the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes appointed under section 16 of the act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stat. 645), as he, the Secretary, has no control over the proceedings of the Commission. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 724.

The Attorney General cannot be asked to examine and approve codes of rules or forms of applications, etc., adopted by a department, to apply to cases arising in the future. (1894) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 738.

Certain steamship companies disputed the validity of the Treasury Department's regulations, holding them liable under the Immigration Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1084), for the maintenance and transportation to the seaboard of certain alien immigrants who had reached the interior of the country: Held that, as there was no way of enforcing the statute against the steamship companies except through the courts, the question is not one arising in the administration of that department and the Attorney General cannot properly express his opinion thereon. (1894) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 6.

The rule of the Attorney General in declining to give an opinion in a case where it is doubtful whether a ques

tion of law is raised in the administration of the department requesting it was disregarded in an instance where it appeared that proper cases raising such a question were pending in several of the other Executive Departments. (1897) 21 Op. Atty. Gen. 579.

The Attorney General is not authorized to answer an inquiry made of the Treasury Department with reference to an increase in the amount of subsidiary silver coinage, whether regarded as an abstract question of law or an inquiry into the legality of the course of a predecessor in office in matters not now demanding official action. (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 85.

The question of the validity of a proposed regulation of the Treasury Department providing that in case a Chinese laborer who has left the United States upon a valid return certificate is delayed beyond one year from the date of his departure by reason of sickness or other disability beyond his control the consular representative of the United States shall certify to such facts before the Chinaman shall be admitted into this country, not being a question actually or presently arising in the administration of the Treasury Department, the Attorney General declines to express his opinion thereon. (1901) 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 582.

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion upon the question whether the joint resolution of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 750), construing the Pension Act of June 27, 1890 (26 Stat. 182), has any retroactive force, for the reason that the question is not predicated upon an actual case arising in the Interior Department, and for the further reason that that department has an officer clothed with authority to determine questions of that nature in the first instance coming up on appeal from the Pension Bureau. (1903) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 556.

The Attorney General declines to answer the question whether citizens of the Philippine Islands are entitled to the benefits of the patent laws of the United States, there being no case involving that question pending before the department making the inquiry. (1904) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 179.

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion upon the question submitted by the Civil Service Commission as to whether the Secretary of the Interior in employing persons to make the transcripts of records and plats in the General Land Office authorized by Act April 28, 1904 (33 Stat. 483), may select such persons without regard to the civil service act and rules, for the reason that the Secretary of the Interior and the Civil Service Commission have had no conference respecting the question and no disagreement thereon, as is required by the executive order of November 29, 1904, before the matter may be submitted to the Attorney Gen

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion upon the question propounded by the Secretary of the Interior as to whether the preliminary draft of Title LXVIII, "Railway and Telegraph Companies," submitted to him by the Commission to Revise and Codify the Laws of the United States, correctly embodies the provisions of existing law upon the subject, for the reason that the inquiry does not present a question of law arising in the administration of his department. (1906) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 584.

The Attorney General held that it was inappropriate for him to review certain briefs and correspondence submitted to him by the Postmaster General with a request for an opinion thereon, as to do so would require him to consider questions of fact and some questions of law which clearly had not arisen in the administration of the Post Office Department. (1908) 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 49.

The Attorney General cannot properly render an opinion to the head of an executive department regarding the eligibility of a temporary clerk to permanent appointment under the civil service, as that is not a question arising in the administration of a department which its head is called upon to determine. (1910) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 393, 431.

The question as to whether lands used for Indian schools, but not within Indian reservations, may be considered as Indian country for the purposes of the enforcement of Act Jan. 30, 1897 (29 Stat. 506), whereby it is made an offense to introduce liquor into the Indian country, is one not arising in the administration of the Interior Department, and therefore it would be improper for the Attorney General to give an official opinion thereon. (1911) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 226.

12. Hypothetical questions.-The Attorney General will not answer a purely hypothetical question. (1871) 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 531; (1872) 13 Op. Atty. Gen. 568; (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 288; (1910) 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 239.

The question as to whether the consul's jurisdiction is limited to the cognizance of matters occurring within the territory nearer his consulate than to any other consulate of the United States in China is not one which it is proper for the Attorney General to answer, as it does not arise in the administration of an Executive Department, and is therefore purely hypothetical. (1892) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 391.

The question as to whether the parts of a vessel which a British subject proposes to take to Alaska by ocean steamer for use on the Yukon river will be subject to duty, being a hypothetical one, is not answered. (1898) 22 Op. Atty. Gen. 77.

1 U.S.COMP.'16-18

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion upon the question whether the Postmaster General should enter into a contract with the Return Postage Clearing Company for the institution of the "reply envelope and postal card" scheme, for the reason that the question is hypothetical in its nature and involves considerations of administrative discretion and judgment, and of practicability and advisability, which must be determined solely by the Postmaster General. (1902) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 118.

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion as to whether a proposed instruction to customs officials to inquire into the bona fides of a journey and the ownership of goods imported can be enforced on proof that the object of the journey was to purchase goods, as the latter is a hypothetical as well as a judicial question. (1903) 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 94.

The question whether a suit by the government to enforce recovery from the owners of an American fishing vessel for the expense of transporting its destitute crew to the United States would be successful is speculative and hypothetical, and beyond the power and functions of the Attorney General under the statutes to answer. The question is one which must be determined by the courts. (1908) 26 Op. Atty. Gen. 631.

The Attorney General also declines to answer the question whether an appeal would lie from the judgment of a naturalizing court to one of the higher courts of North Dakota for the same reasons, and for the additional reason that the question relates merely to a hypothetical case. (1911) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 99.

The Attorney General declines to express an opinion as to what, if any, steps must be taken under the proviso by the contracting officer, and what is the status of claims presented for payment for labor and material furnished under a contract, in the event that a contractor who had actually announced an eight-hour workday before obtaining his contract should afterwards for any reason revert to a longer workday, as the question is hypothetical. (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 488.

The question whether the commodities clause would apply to the ship ment of coal over the Atchison, To. peka & Santa Fé Railway Company by the Folsom Morris Coal Mining Company, although purely hypothetical, deals rather with the establishment of a policy than the determination of a particular case, and hence it is permissible for the Attorney General to call the attention of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to the law on the subject (1912) 29 Op. Atty. Gen. 587.

13. Judicial questions.-The judiciary cannot enjoin the executive branch of the government from performing any (273)