Exercise 3.-Assume that you are a railway postal clerk on train No. 1 and have mail for cities through which your train does not pass, but the mail sacks for such cities must be thrown off at junction points on your run. The cities not on your run are served by trains No. 3 and No. 5, which connect with the line on which your train runs. Write the name of the city at which you would transfer mail to another train if necessary, so as to have the mail reach the city for which it is intended at the earliest possible time, regardless of the number of times it changes cars. Consider that all trains stop one minute and assume that one minute is sufficient time to transfer mail from one train to another. A map showing the railroad lines and towns and a time-table will be furnished in the examination room, but it is possible to answer all the questions from the time-table alone. Train No. 1 arrives Cleff at 6.00 a. m. You are a railway postal clerk on train No. 1. Assuming that all trains are on time, write the name of the city at which you would transfer a mail sack for Ward, and the time it would arrive at Ward City. Time of arrival. Fern 9.00 a. m. In the examination a larger number of towns and branch lines will be shown on the map and time table, and competitors will be required to indicate the city and time of arrival for certain mail when train No. 1 is delayed a given time, thus changing the place at which the mail must be transferred in order to reach the city to which it is addressed at the earliest possible time. Exercise 4.-Sheets will be given containing addresses of letters in the handwriting of various senders. The competitor will also be furnished with a list of the names and addresses for which the letters may have been intended, but only one of which is correct. Competitors will be requested to indicate by check mark the person for whom the letter was intended. General Tests, Including Spelling, Arithmetic, and Location of Cities. Spelling. Sentences will be given containing misspelled words designed to test the competitor's ability to spell correctly. In each of the sentences below the word printed in italics has been misspelled. Spell it correctly on the line at the right. 1. The steemur carried 500 bags of mail to Europe... 2. The trains on this ralerode are always on time... Arithmetic.-1. If a post office handled 153,840 pieces of mail during the month of June, what was the average number of pieces handled per day during the month?... 2. A postal clerk assorted 1,900 pieces of mail in 50 minutes. The first 25 minutes he assorted 42 pieces per minute. How many pieces per minute did he assort during the last 25 minutes? .... 3. A railway postal clerk has 100 bags of mail on his train. If he throws off 10 bags at Station A, twice as many at Station B, and three times as many at Station C as at Station A, how many has he left? .... steamer railroad 5,128 Location of cities.-Questions will be asked relating only to location of cities by States, and to relative positions of cities. 22. An Opinion of an Attorney General Not only is the Attorney-General the chief prosecuting officer for the United States, but he acts as the official legal advisor to the President and the heads of the executive departments. He is frequently requested by these officers to interpret the United States statutes or the Constitution in regard to some particular matter. His opinions, rendered in answer to these requests, are collected in the series of volumes (now over thirty) known as the "Opinions of the Attorney-General." In view of the high position which the Attorney-General occupies, his opinions have more weight than those of a private attorney, and are frequently cited to the courts as the official administrative interpretation of the law. In many instances these opinions are practically final, for if the Attorney-General decides that there is no legal justification for carrying on a certain prosecution, that usually ends the matter-at least for his term of office. While it is true that the Attorney-General does not always write the opinions himself (they are frequently prepared in the office of the Solicitor-General), he is responsible not only for the views set forth but likewise for the phraseology employed. The following opinion contains the advice given the State Department in respect to its negotiations with the English Foreign Office regarding navigation on the Rainy River, which forms the boundary between Minnesota and Canada. It is typical of the more strongly reasoned statements; and it will be noticed that both the Constitution and the Federal statutes are interpreted in it. SOURCE-27 Opinions of the Attorney General (1909), 327. CONSTRUCTION OF LONG SAULT RAPIDS DAM, RAINY RIVER. SIR: .. The Government of Great Britain has presented to this Government an application for its consent to the construction by the Canadian government of a lock and dam at the foot of Long Sault Rapids in Rainy River. This river is an international stream forming the boundary line between the State of Minnesota and the northwestern portion of the Province of Ontario. Near Rainy Lake are the Falls of Fort Frances, and about 422 miles below those falls are the Long Sault Rapids, where the water descends 7 or 8 feet in 11⁄2 miles. By the construction of a dam of the character described, at the foot of these falls, the Rainy River can be made navigable to the Falls of Fort Frances. It will be necessary, however, that a portion of this dam be constructed on American territory; and the complication arises out of the proposal that consent be given to a foreign government to occupy territory in the manner and for the purpose described, which is a part of the United States, and at the same time, of the State of Minnesota. You request of me an opinion on the questions of law presented by this state of facts, and in reply I will suggest and answer such questions of law as appear to me to be material. First. The President and the Senate, by the exercise of the treaty power and without the consent of the State of Minnesota, can grant to the Canadian government the easement desired. There is much conflict of opinion as to whether or not any part of the territory of a State can be ceded by treaty without the consent of the State, and the question has never been authoritatively settled by the United States Supreme Court. The various opinions upon both sides of the question may be found in 1 Butler's Treaty Making Power, pages 412 et seq.; 2 Butler, etc., pages 238 and 239; and 5 Moore's International Law Digest, 171-175. But I do not think this question here arises, as I do not understand that it is contemplated to deprive the State of Minnesota of its sovereign jurisdiction over this strip of territory, but only to confer upon Canada the right of a private owner of the soil or an easement therein. That it is consistent for one sovereign power to hold the title to land lying within another, and said land be subject to the jurisdiction of the latter power the same as if held by a private individual, is shown in Ft. Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe (114 U.S. 525, 538). It is true that in this case the discussion was confined to the relationship between the United States and a State under such circumstances, but the difference presents only a question of policy and not of power. I think the title to or easement in the necessary amount of land may be, by treaty, vested in the Canadian government, although the land adjoining the river at that place be owned by a private individual. . Second. Congress can, by legislative enactment, authorize the Canadian government to occupy the land in question. Under the commerce clause of the Constitution, Congress can exercise plenary power over all navigable waters of the United States for all purposes relating to commerce and navigation. And inasmuch as the structure contemplated is for the purpose of improving navigation, there can be no doubt that Congress has power to authorize the construction of the same, and also to authorize the condemnation of property for that purpose, if condemnation be necessary. Third. With reference to compensating the private owners for the land that must be taken possession of for the construction of the dam, I find the following to be the law: If no injury should arise from the construction of the dam other than mere occupancy of such portion of the bed and bank of the stream as may be necessary for its construction, such would not constitute a taking of private property for a public use in the constitutional sense, and no liability for compensation would arise therefrom. (Gibson v. United States, 166 U. S. 269, 276; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 160-165.) But if, in consequence of the construction of the dam, adjoining lands should be overflowed, and their value permanently destroyed, such would be a taking of private property in the constitutional sense, and it would be necessary to pay proper compensation therefor. (Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166; United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 468-474.) Riparian owners of navigable streams hold title thereto, subject only to the use of their property so far as such use may promote the interests of commerce. I am of the opinion, therefore, that if the entire title to such strip of land should be taken, and not a mere easement therein, the owner would be protected by the Constitution, and proper compensation would have to be paid him. The above principles apply whether the taking be done under treaty or act of Congress. While a treaty is a supreme law, it is only so in so far as it does not conflict with the Constitution, and when private property is taken by treaty it must be compensated for. (2 Butler's Treaty Making Power, sec. 442; Meade v. United |