Viewing page 232 of 270

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Comments: The decision mentioned is cited by the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Navy is support of his views that the statue in question should be construed literally in favor of the validity of existing regulations affecting joint operations of the Army and Navy, which appear in some particulars to be in conflict with the literal terms of the enactment. In that decision the Court held, in substance, that departmental regulations should not be disregarded or annulled unless plainly inconsistent with the law, or, in other words, by inference. That if an apparent conflict between regulations and statute could be removed by any reasonable interpretation of the statute, the validity of the regulation should be upheld. Although this principle is by no means conclusive in its present application, it does tend in some measure to support the argument advanced. As to whether any of the existing regulations are in conflict with the statute, I express no opinion at this time, because I regard a discussion of that question as beyond the requirements of the present directive.

11. a. I have been orally informed that Mr. Davison, Assistant Secretary of War, desires to have included in this paper, a specific expression of my opinion respecting the precise questions submitted by the Secretary of the Navy to the Attorney General, and quoted in the former's letter of June 6, 1929, to the Secretary of War, as follows:

"(1) Whether the Army appropriation act of June 6 1920 (41 Stat. 954), or any other statute, is properly to be construed as restricting naval control of serial operations over the sea from shore stations established and maintained by the Navy?
"(2) If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, whether the statute which is construed to have such effect is to that extent invalid as constituting an unauthorized restriction upon the constitutional power of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the army and Navy?"

b. In my opinion, question (1) should b answered in the affirmative. As above indicated, I am convinced that the Congress intended by the enactment in question to prohibit naval conduct and control of serial operations from shore stations, excepting serial operations conducted for experimentation, constructions or training in the development and maintenance of flee-based aviation, and excepting also serial operations from temporary shore stations established by fleet-based aviation during naval maneuvers or active operations. If I am correct in this view, it follows that the statute.

-10-