tion of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same as required by the fourth paragraph of section four of the act of June 29, 1906?

"Second. This objection having been overruled, if proper exception had been taken and all necessary and proper steps to take an appeal had been taken in time, would an appeal lie to one of the higher courts of the State of North Dakota?"

In reply to the first question, I beg to call your attention to the department's letter to you of March 16 last, relating to the propriety of instituting proceedings for the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization issued to Lysne, in which it was said:

"This department concurs in the view of the district attorney that under the circumstances stated the certificate of naturalization was not illegally procured within the meaning of section 15 of the act of June 29, 1906, authorizing cancellation proceedings. The question of character in naturalization proceedings is one of fact, to be determined by the court. The statute expressly provides that "it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to citizenship" that he has, during the five years immediately preceding the date of his application, behaved as a man of good moral character. It does not undertake to prescribe any rules of evidence for the court to follow in reaching its conclusion.

"In the present case it appears that the court heard and duly considered all the facts respecting the applicant's character. To be sure there may be good reasons to take the view that the court's conclusion was not warranted by the facts, but the essential thing is that it did appear to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant was qualified. Such being the case, if the proceedings were regular in all other respects, it is manifest that the requirements of the naturalization law have been complied with, and there is no ground for cancellation proceedings."

As indicated in this letter, the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish Lysne's character is a judicial one, upon which, especially since it has been de

cided by the court, it would be improper for the Attorney General to express an opinion. As said by Acting Attorney General Aldrich (20 Op. 383), in declining to render an opinion upon a certain question and referring to the provision of section 356 of the Revised Statutes that "the head of any executive department may require the opinion of the Attorney General on any question of law arising in the administration of his department"

"Furthermore, the questions propounded are judicial in character, and must be decided by the courts, if decided at all, and therefore an expression of opinion on them by me would have no more weight than the opinions of any unofficial person (19 Op. 56; 13 Op. 160). But the law intended that the opinions of the Attorney General should have authority, and this object can only be accomplished by confining them to questions strictly appertaining to executive administration."

It is also to be observed that the case to which your inquiry relates is not one pending in your department and requires no official action on your part. For that reason, if for no other, the Attorney General would be compelled, in deference to a well-established practice of this department, to decline to pass upon the question referred to. (20 Op. 536; 21 ib. 109, 509, 568.)

For like reasons, it would be improper for me to attempt to answer your second question-whether an appeal would lie from the judgment of the naturalizing court to one of the higher courts of the State of North Dakota. Furthermore, the time to appeal in Lysne's case having expired, it is manifest that this question relates merely to a hypothetical case, and upon such cases the Attorney General has uniformly declined to express an opinion. (20 Op. 288; 22 ib. 77; 25 ib. 93.)

Respectfully,

GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.

The SECRETARY OF COMMERCE AND LABOR.

LEGALITY OF BOND ISSUE FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.

The issuance of bonds in the sum of $125,000 for the purpose of providing funds for certain municipal improvements in the municipality of Cebu, P. I., when made in accordance with the provisions of the act of the Philippine Legislature, approved March 29, 1911, as herein construed, is valid.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

May 25, 1911.

SIR: I beg to respond to your letter of the 18th instant, in which you inclose a copy of your communication of the 19th ultimo requesting my opinion as to the legality of bonds in the sum of $125,000 to be issued by you on behalf of the municipality of Cebu, Philippine Islands, under authority of an act of the Philippine Legislature, for the purpose of providing funds for certain municipal improvements. It does not appear from the files that the original of your letter of April 19, above mentioned, was ever received at this department.

Section 66 of the Philippine civil government act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 691, 707), as amended by the act of February 6, 1905 (33 Stat. 689, 690), is as follows:

"SEC. 66. That for the purpose of providing funds to construct necessary sewer and drainage facilities, to secure a sufficient supply of water and necessary buildings for primary public schools in municipalities, the Government of the Philippine Islands may, where current taxation is inadequate for the purpose, under such limitations, terms, and conditions as it may prescribe, authorize, by appropriate legislation, to be approved by the President of the United States, any municipality of said islands to incur indebtedness, borrow money, and to issue and sell (at not less than par value in gold coin of the United States) registered or coupon bonds, in such amount and payable at such time as may be determined to be necessary by the Government of said islands, with interest thereon not to exceed five per centum per annum: Provided, That the entire indebtedness of any municipality shall not exceed five per centum of the assessed valuation of the real estate in said municipality, and any obligation in excess of such limit shall be null and void."

Sections 67, 68, and 69 of the civil government act above mentioned (32 Stat. 707, 708) read as follows:

"SEC. 67. That all municipal bonds shall be in denominations of fifty dollars, or any multiple thereof, bearing interest at a rate not exceeding five per centum per annum, payable quarterly, such bonds to be payable at the pleasure of the Government of the Philippine Islands, after dates named in said bonds not less than five nor more than thirty years from the date of their issue, together with the interest thereon, in gold coin of the United States of the present standard value, or its equivalent in value in money of the said islands; and said bonds shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes or duties of the Government of the Philippine Islands, or any local authority therein, or the Government of the United States.

"SEC. 68. That all moneys which may be realized or received from the issue and sale of said bonds shall be utilized under authorization of the Government of the Philippine Islands in providing the municipal improvements and betterments which induced the issue and sale of said bonds, and for no other purpose.

"SEC. 69. That the Government of the Philippine Islands shall, by the levy and collection of taxes on the municipality, its inhabitants and their property, or by other means, make adequate provision to meet the obligation of the bonds of such municipality, and shall create a sinking fund sufficient to retire them and pay the interest thereon in accordance with the terms of issue: Provided, That if said bonds or any portion thereof shall be paid out of the funds of the Government of said islands, such municipality shall reimburse said Government for the sum thus paid, and said Government is hereby empowered to collect said sum by the levy and collection of taxes on such municipality."

The above-mentioned act of February 6, 1905, also provides (33 Stat. 689):

"That all bonds issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands, or by its authority, shall be exempt from taxation by the Government of the United States, or by the Government of the Philippine Islands or of any political

or municipal subdivision thereof, or by any State, or by any county, municipality, or other municipal subdivision of any State or Territory of the United States, or by the District of Columbia."

An act of the Philippine Legislature inclosed by you, enacted December 27, 1910, and approved, as you state, by the President on March 29, 1911, pursuant to the requirements of section 66, above quoted, authorizes "the municipality of Cebu, Province of Cebu," "to incur an indebtedness of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars in gold coin of the United States," authorizes the Secretary of War to issue "in the name and on behalf of the municipality of Cebu, Province of Cebu, its bonds covering the said indebtedness for the purpose of providing funds to construct necessary sewer and drainage facilities, to secure a sufficient supply of water, and necessary buildings for primary public schools in said municipality of Cebu," and provides:

"The bonds thus authorized shall be issued and dated January first, nineteen hundred and eleven, shall bear interest at the rate of four per centum per annum, payable quarterly in gold coin, and shall be redeemable at the pleasure of the municipality of Cebu after ten years from date of issue, and payable thirty years after date of issue in said gold coin. Both principal and interest shall be payable at the Treasury of the United States. The said bonds shall be in registered form, in denominations of one thousand to ten thousand dollars, in proportions to suit the purchasers thereof, and shall be registered and transferable at the office of the Treasury Department of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia. The said bonds are declared, by section one of said act of Congress approved February sixth, nineteen hundred and five, to be exempt from the payment of all taxation by the Government of the United States, or by the Government of the Philippine Islands, or of any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or by any State, or by any county, municipality, or other municipal subdivision of any State or Territory of the United States, or by the District of