corporation were duly qualified British subjects, they could not register the vessel in their individual names as owners, but must register it as belonging wholly to the corporation as owner (p. 816)."

This view is also supported by the unbroken practice since 1858 of the departments called upon to construe the acts in question.

The Secretary of the Treasury in his letter of April 14, 1884, upon which Mr. Brewster's opinion was based, said: 'The practice and ruling of this department has been to regard all companies incorporated under State law as entitled to hold vessels of the United States as property so as to take out marine documents for them by virtue of said sections and the laws from which they were reproduced in the Revised Statutes, without considering the citizenship of the stockholders or incorporators since the repeal of the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1825, by act of June 11, 1858."

And from the letter of the Commissioner of Navigation which you transmit to me, it appears that such is still the practice of your department.

Article 6 of the Customs and Navigation Regulations of 1869 and 1874, appearing in the editions of 1884, 1892, 1899, and 1908 as article 7, provides:

"Marine documents may be issued for vessels owned by an incorporated company within the United States, in the name of the president or secretary of such company, and they will not be vacated or affected by the sale of a share or shares of a stockholder or stockholders in such company, even though such stockholders be foreigners."

Article 5 of the same regulations (editions of 1899 and 1908) gives as class 1 of the vessels entitled to receive documents under the existing laws

"Those built in the United States, wholly owned by a citizen or by an incorporated company of the United States."

I beg to advise you, therefore, that in my opinion a vessel belonging to a domestic corporation is entitled to registry or enrollment, even though some stock of the company be owned by aliens.

89760°-VOL 29-13-13

In this opinion I have assumed that "The Thousand Island Steamboat Co." is a bona fide corporation existing under the laws of the State of New York, although some doubt as to that fact appears in the papers which you transmitted to me. Of course, if the corporate life of that company had been terminated or its charter forfeited, the reasoning in this opinion would not apply.

I beg to return herewith the papers and files in the case as requested by you.

Respectfully,

The cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities being reserved as a part of the Republic of Panama in the grant of the Canal Zone to the United States, the ports of Panama and Colon are foreign ports within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 830), providing for ocean mail service between the United States and foreign ports.

Vessels using the Government docks at Cristobal and Balboa, which are in close proximity to but outside the limits of the cities of Colon and Panama and within the Canal Zone, would be carrying mails between the United States and foreign ports within the spirit and letter of said act of March 3, 1891.

In entering into contracts for carrying foreign mails under the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 830), the Postmaster General, in the promotion of the commercial interests of the United States, has authority to reject any bid not in his opinion reasonable for attaining such purpose and may notify prospective bidders in advance of his purpose not to entertain such bids and may reserve the right to rescind the contract if a material condition thereof be disregarded by the contractors.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

July 12, 1911.

SIR: Referring to your letter of the 16th ultimo, transmitting for my consideration certain papers relating to the proposed ocean mail service between New York and Colon on the Atlantic and between San Francisco and Panama on the Pacific, I beg to return the same with an expression of my opinion on certain questions suggested therein.

The service referred to is to be established under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 830), entitled "An act to provide for ocean mail service between the United States and foreign ports, and to promote commerce." The first section of that act authorizes and empowers the Postmaster General "to enter into contracts for a term not less than five nor more than ten years in duration, with American citizens, for the carrying of mails on American steamships, between ports of the United States and such ports in foreign countries, the Dominion of Canada excepted, as in his judgment will best subserve and promote the postal and commercial interests of the United States, the mail service on such lines to be equitably distributed among the Atlantic, Mexican Gulf, and Pacific ports." Section 2 provides for the advertising and letting of said contracts. Section 3 requires that the steamship shall be of American build, officered by American citizens, and manned in certain proportions by American crews. This section also divides such steamships into four classes, and specifies the manner and material of their build, tonnage and rate of speed, particulars which differs with the class. Section 4 provides that the ships shall be constructed according to plans and specifications approved by the Secretary of the Navy, and of sufficient strength to be readily convertible into cruisers. Section 5 fixes the maximum rate of compensation to be paid for such ocean mail service to the ships of each class "for each outward voyage." It is unnecessary to refer to the other provisions of the statute.

The first question suggested is "whether the ports of Colon and Panama will, after the canal is constructed, remain foreign ports?"

The treaty with the Republic of Panama, by which "the use, occupation, and control" of the Canal Zone is granted to the United States "in perpetuity," provides (33 Stat. 2234, 2235)

"that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant."

Being thus reserved as a part of the Republic of Panama, such cities are territory of that country and therefore

foreign ports. I am not advised of any provision that will change their status when the canal is constructed.

It appears from the papers transmitted by you that it will be more convenient for the vessels contracting for this mail service to use principally the Government docks, which are being constructed at Cristobal on the Atlantic side and Balboa on the Pacific side; and the question arises whether by using these docks, which are in close proximity to but outside the limits of the cities of Colon and Panama and within the Canal Zone, the vessels would be carrying mails to foreign ports. It is stated in this connection that docking the large vessels at the cities of Colon and Panama would result in serious loss of time, and that the actual call at these places could be obviated by the use of a tender to meet the vessels upon entering the "harbor adjacent to these ports" to receive and deliver the mail in Colon and Panama, the vessels then proceeding to the Government docks at Cristobal and Balboa.

It has been held that the purpose of the act of March 3, 1891, is "to promote the carriage of the ocean mails in ships of American register, and thereby to promote ocean commerce in American bottoms," and that this statute, "designed to promote foreign commerce, is entitled to a liberal construction, with a view to carrying out the purpose of its enactment." (20 Op. 98, 101.)

In my opinion, the service proposed is in substantial compliance with the letter and spirit of the statute, as being between "ports of the United States" and "ports of foreign countries." The word "port" is not limited in its application to the city which bears the same name, but has been defined as including the entire harbor, within its inclosures and projections of land, where ships take refuge and seek shelter (United States v. Morel, 26 Fed. Cas. 1310; De Longuemere v. New York Fire Insurance Co. 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 120, 124; Mobile Marine Dock Co. v. Mc Millan, 27 Ala. 77, 99; Martin v. Hilton, 9 Metc. 371, 378). Construing the word "port" as synonymous with "harbor" the vessels unquestionably would be carrying the mails to a foreign port if they entered the harbor, since the treaty reserves to Panama not only the cities of Panama and Colon, but also "the harbors adjacent to said cities." In

any event, I think that carrying the mails upon such vessels within such close proximity to said cities that they might safely be landed in a small boat would be a substantial compliance with the terms of the act.

Referring doubtless to the provision of section 5 of the statute, which limits the compensation to the outward voyage and makes its rate depend upon the class of the ship, in which calculation speed is an important factor, the Second Assistant Postmaster General, in his memorandum of June 16, 1911, accompanying your letter, states that "in case the large vessels do not actually enter the docks of Colon and Panama, but transship the mails to the tenders referred to, the actual distance to the point of transshipment will be paid for." This would be a necessary requirement under the act.

Advice is also desired as to the authority of the Postmaster General in connection with sections 15 and 16 of the proposed instructions to bidders, which read:

"15. No award of contract for the mail service on the routes herein described will be made to any bidder who shall be engaged in any competitive transportation business by rail, or who shall be engaged in the business of exporting or importing goods, wares, merchandise, or other property on his own account, or who shall bid for on behalf of or in the interest of any person or corporation engaged in such business, or either of them, or having the control thereof through stock ownership or otherwise.

"16. The right is reserved to the Postmaster General to cancel without indemnity to the contractor any contract entered into under the advertisement if at any time the performance of the same shall rest within the control of any competitive railroad company or of any person or persons in control of the same through stock ownership or otherwise, or if any party to any such contract shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."