A copy in duplicate of the Attorney General’s opinion which is
contained in a letter dated May 25, 1936, addressed to the Secretary
of the Interior is enclosed herewith.
[Enclosure]
The Attorney General (Cummings) to the Secretary of the Interior
(Ickes)
Washington, May 25,
1936.
My Dear Mr. Secretary: I have the
honor to comply with your request of April 25 for my opinion
upon a question requiring interpretation of the Mineral Leasing
Act, approved February 25, 1920, c. 85, 41 Stat. 437, 438 (U. S.
C., Title 30, Sec. 181), and arising in connection with the
following inquiry, addressed to the Secretary of State by the
British Ambassador.
[Here follows the text of note No. 367, December 30, 1935, from
the British Ambassador, printed on page
736.]
The Petroleum (Production) Act (July 12, 1934, 24 & 25 Geo.
5, c. 36; Halsbury’s Statutes of England, v. 27, p. 442) contains no express provision regarding
the issuance of licenses to aliens. Section 2 authorizes the
Board of Trade to grant licenses to “such persons as they think
fit,” and Section 6 requires the Board to prescribe by
regulation “the manner in which and the persons by whom”
applications for licenses may be made. Under the latter section
the regulations are required to be laid before each House of
Parliament, with power in either House to annul them by
resolution within twenty-eight days.
Therefore the matter is controlled by the regulations, apparently
of statutory force. I quote below the pertinent portions of the
regulations, which are paraphrased and interpreted (in part) in
the Ambassador’s communication.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Page 739]
Your Department has adopted the tentative view that Great Britain
is a reciprocal country within the contemplation of the Mineral
Leasing Act, and you so informed the Secretary of State, in
response to an inquiry, but suggested that the matter should be
referred to me, and you have now requested my opinion.
The applicable provision of the Act of February 25, 1920, is
contained in Section 1 thereof, which reads as follows:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This statute authorizes the granting of leases to American
citizens and corporations, but recognizes the fact that stock in
such corporations may be held by nationals of foreign countries,
and forbids it only as applied to citizens (including
corporations) of other countries whose laws, customs or
regulations deny similar or like privileges to citizens or
corporations of this country.
The British requirements are generally comparable in that, while
they appear to authorize the holding of licenses only by British
subjects and corporations, they permit stock ownership in such
corporations by citizens and corporations of countries which
accord comparable rights to British nationals.
Our statute contains nothing corresponding with the provision of
the British regulations that, in the case of corporations
controlled by aliens, at least one of the directors shall be a
British subject and a majority of the persons employed in or
about the licensed area shall be British subjects, but I do not
regard the British requirements in this respect as affecting the
status of Great Britain as a reciprocal country within the
contemplation of the statute. The requirements are not unduly
restrictive or harsh, and some such provisions, particularly
with respect to directors, may be found in the corporation laws
of our States.
The state laws have no direct connection with the right to remove
mineral deposits from the public domain of the United States,
but have a practical bearing to the extent that persons who
invoke the laws of a particular State must meet the requirements
of those laws, at least in matters relating to organization and
affecting the right to exist as a body corporate. To undertake
an examination of the corporate organization laws of the several
States and Territories in this connection would be impracticable
and would serve no useful purpose. They are either restrictive
or liberal in varying degrees and in different particulars, but
a corporation organized under any of them may obtain a lease
under the Federal statute.
The legislative history of the Mineral Leasing Act has been
examined, but nothing therein warrants particular mention. I
have also inquired into the practice during the sixteen years
that the Act has been effective and find that the question of
eligibility of nationals of
[Page 740]
particular countries has received the
attention of the Department of State and of the Department of
the Interior in only a limited number of instances. The question
does not appear to have arisen heretofore in connection with
nationals of Great Britain, as distinguished from nationals of
outlying portions of the British Empire. Leases have been issued
to corporations controlled by citizens of some of the Provinces
of Canada, but involving statutes other than the British
Petroleum (Production) Act. It is sufficient to say that no
ruling heretofore made and brought to my attention bears
adversely upon the question of the status of Great Britain as a
reciprocal country under the Mineral Leasing Act.
Considering the foregoing, it is my opinion that Great Britain is
to be regarded as a reciprocal country under the provisions of
the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, provided that the
Petroleum (Production) Act and the regulations made thereunder
are so construed and applied by the British authorities as to
permit participation by American citizens and corporations under
conditions no less favorable than those hereinbefore indicated,
based upon my understanding of the statute and regulations and
the statements of the British Ambassador, and assuming that the
matter is not adversely affected by other British statutes,
regulations, or amendments which have not come to my attention
or may hereafter be adopted.
I am sending a copy of this opinion to the Secretary of State
because of his interest and since he also has submitted the
matter for my consideration.
Respectfully,
