In view of the premises I do not feel that the possible inconvenience of dividing the records of these grants among two or more departments can be conceded any weight in determining the result. Should inconvenience arise in practice, a means of overcoming it may easily be devised by Congress, if not by the executive departments themselves. I have the honor to advise you that the authority to grant the easements contemplated by the legislation set forth at the beginning of this opinion is vested in the Secretary of Agriculture when and in so far as the lands to be affected constitute portions of the national forests. Very respectfully, Approved. ERNEST KNAEBEL, GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM. The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR and APPOINTMENT TO POSITIONS IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED TO CENSUS OFFICE. Employees transferred to the Census Office from other branches of the departmental classified service, under section 7 of the census act of July 2, 1909 (36 Stat. 3), are eligible to appointment in any of the departments to positions of the same class or grade as those held by them at the date of their transfer to the Census Office, but not to higher positions. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to respond to the note of your secretary of the 31st ultimo, communicating your request for my opinion as to the proper construction of the following proviso in section 7 of the census act of July 2, 1909 (36 Stat. 1, 3): 66* * * And provided further, That employees in other branches of the departmental classified service who have had previous experience in census work may be transferred without examination to the Census Office to serve during the whole or a part of the decennial census period, and at the end of such service the employees so transferred, shall be eligible to appointment to positions in any Department held by them at date of transfer to the Census Office, without examination * * It appears from the papers transmitted to me that the Secretary of Commerce and Labor recently requested the Civil Service Commission to approve the transfer to the Bureau of Manufactures in his department of a clerk now serving in the Census Office as the result of a transfer from the Treasury Department. The commission has refused to sanction the proposed transfer on the ground that under the proviso above quoted such clerk must be first transferred back to the Treasury Department before he can become eligible to transfer to your department. An examination of the legislative history of the proviso of the census act in question leads me to the conclusion that the Civil Service Commission has placed too narrow a construction upon its language. This proviso, previous to the form in which it was finally enacted, provided, with respect to the employees authorized by it to be transferred to the Census Office from other branches of the departmental classified service, that at the conclusion of their services in the Census Office they should "be eligible to appointment to positions of similar grade in any department without examination." (44 Cong. Rec. pt. 1, p. 91.) This was construed by some Members of the House, when the bill was under consideration, to mean that such employees could be transferred back to the department from which they came at a compensation equal to that received by them in the Census Office, wherein their promotion might be unduly rapid, and thus "by only a short service in the Bureau of the Census get high promotion in the departments." Therefore, it was moved that the words "of similar grade" be stricken out and the words "held by them at the date of transfer to the Bureau of the Census" be inserted after the word "department (ib. 94). On the other hand, the proposed amendment was combated upon the ground that it was unfair to the transferred employees, who, it was said, were entitled to some consideration in respect to promotion on account of any service which they might render in the Census Office (ib. 94, 95). The amendment was adopted, but neither in its original nor amended form did the proviso in question purport to restrict the right of appointment granted to the particular department from which the employees referred to were transferred. The words "in any department" were still retained in the proviso as amended. It is true the Members of the House participating in the discussion of the amendments seem to have had in mind the return of the transferred employees to the same department. But that was not the point at issue, and the language of the act is not so limited. If the statute were narrowly construed, it would limit the appointment of a transferred employee to the identical position in the particular department from which he was transferred to the Census Office. But manifestly Congress did not have such an intention, as it could not be expected that that identical place could or would be held open for him. Besides, this would be reappointment, whereas the right granted is the broad one of appointment. The real purpose of the proviso, as finally enacted, was, I think, to authorize one who had been transferred to the Census Office from another branch of the departmental classified service to be appointed, without examination, to a position in any of the departments of the same class or grade as that held by him at the date of his transfer to the Census Office, but not to a higher position. I can perceive no good reason for adopting a construction which would deprive such an employee of the status as to appointment or transfer to which his former position in the classified service entitled him. On the contrary, the manifest purpose of the proviso was to protect such employees from being injured in these respects by reason of their transfer to the Census Office. Respectfully, THE PRESIDENT. GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM. POSTAL SAVINGS SYSTEM-DUPLICATION OF ACCOUNTS— EXCHANGE OF DEPOSITS FOR POSTAL SAVINGS BONDS. A person is prohibited by section 4 of the postal savings depositories act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 815), from having more than one deposit account with the postal savings system. As the opening of a second postal savings account is unauthorized, it can not be treated as a proper basis for the exchange of deposits for postal savings bonds under the provisions of section 10 of the above-mentioned act. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, February 7, 1912. SIR: I have your favor of 3d instant, in which you advise me that on July 31, 1911, a resident of Hanford, Cal., opened an account at the postal savings depository at that place and accumulated deposits amounting to $300; that subsequently he moved to Corcoran, Cal., where on November 6 he opened another account and made deposits which by December 2 amounted to $200; that this duplication of accounts came to light through applications filed by the depositor for postal savings bonds at both the Hanford and Corcoran offices, he having requested $300 worth of bonds at the former and $200 worth at the latter place; that while no deposits were made at the Hanford office after the account was opened at Corcoran, and in no instance did he exceed the maximum amount authorized by law to be deposited monthly, the question arises as to whether the depositor is to be regarded as having violated that part of section 4 of the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 815), which provides that no person shall at the same time have more than one postal savings account in his or her own right," and you ask an expression of my opinion on this subject. In my opinion it is quite clear that the depositor had no right to open the deposit account at Corcoran, Cal. At the time of opening it he had one deposit account with the postal savings system, to wit, that at Hanford, and the opening of the second account was in absolute violation of the provision quoted in your letter from section 4 of the postal savings act of June 25, 1910. Section 14 of that act empowers the Postmaster General to make, and, with the approval of the board of trustees, to promulgate such rules and regulations not in conflict with law, as he may 66 deem necessary to carry the provisions of the act into effect. By the amendment of March 4, 1911 (36 Stat. 1340), it is further provided that the Postmaster General"shall also from time to time make rules and regulations with respect to the deposits in and withdrawal of moneys from postal savings depositories and the issue of passbooks or such other devices as he may adopt as evidence of such deposits or withdrawals, and the provisions of the act approved June twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and ten, are hereby modified accordingly." By virtue of the authority so granted, the Postmaster General did promulgate regulations covering the postal savings system, and these regulations contain provisions respecting the opening of deposits, the payment of interest from them, the evidence to be furnished to the depositor in the shape of certificates of deposit to be issued in his name, etc. Among such regulations are certain instructions to the postmasters at the postal savings depository offices, describing the method of opening an account, and requiring every person who applies to open an account to fill out and sign an application on a certain envelope form prescribed in the regulations, which application must be signed by the person who desires to open the account. The form of application so prescribed contains, among other things, a statement that "I hereby make application to open a postal savings account, subject to the rules and regulations prescribed by the Postmaster General, and further state that I have no other postal savings account. Witness my hand this day of," and so on. I am informed by the secretary of the postal savings system that, in the case presented by your letter, the depositor in question, in his application to open his account at Corcoran, Cal., signed an application in the above form, thus representing over his own signature that he had no other account with any postal savings bank, whereas, in fact, he had another account in the postal savings bank at Hanford, Cal. Under these circumstances, I am clearly of opinion that the opening of the second account, namely, that at Corcoran, Cal., was entirely unauthorized, was made in violation of the regulations duly prescribed by |