yet reported, that such additional duties are to be treated in precisely the same way as a balance of regular duties. Your doubt appears to be referable to the fact that said section 32, after permitting the remission of additional duties where there is a manifest clerical error, directs that they shall not be refunded in case of exportation or on any other account. But the words italicized must, I think, be held to imply the exception of the ground of manifest clerical error which the law has just granted as a reason for relief. As the right, therefore, to refund has been expressly recognized by section 24 of the Customs Administrative Act on regular duties, and the appropriation therefor is in existence, and it has been held judicially that additional duties are to be assimilated in treatment to regular duties, I beg to advise you that the additional duties herein, which accrued by reason of a manifest clerical error upon an entry within a year of the present time, may be legally refunded by you. In other words, under the facts and laws stated, you have, in my opinion, the authority to refund as a necessary consequence of the authority to remit. The opinion of my predecessor of March 13, 1896 (21 Opin., 320), does not affect this case, because, as will be observed, that opinion refers to penal duties, and cites section 7 of the Customs Administrative Act in its original form, which did not provide that additional duties should not be construed to be penal, as is now the law under the amendment to said. section made by the act of July 24, 1897. The prior opinions to which the opinion of March 13, 1896, refers, as will be noted on inspection, do not materially influence the present question either on the facts or with respect to the laws applicable. Very respectfully, JOHN K. RICHARDS, Acting Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. LEAVE OF ABSENCE-ARSENAL EMPLOYEES. The act of February 1, 1901 (31 Stat., 746), which grants fifteen working days' leave of absence each year without forfeiture of pay during such leave to every employee of the navy-yards, gun factories, naval sta tions, and arsenals of the United States, includes all employees, wher ever they may be, who are engaged in connection with the production or care of war materials. It is the nature of the duties performed by the employee, and not the place where performed, that constitutes the test as to their inclusion. The term "arsenals of the United States Government," includes powder and ordnance depots, the Gun Factory, and the National Armory. An "arsenal," in its generic meaning, is "a place for the storage, or for the manufacture and storage, of arms and all military equipment, whether for land or naval service." "Armory," comes literally within the definition of an arsenal, it being "a place where arms and instruments of war are deposited for safekeeping." "Powder and ordnance depots," are but convenient departmental designations of depositaries of certain specific kinds of military equipment. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, May 10, 1901. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter asking my opinion upon the construction of the act of February 1, 1901, wherein it is provided— "That each and every employee of the navy-yards, gun factories, naval stations, and arsenals of the United States Government be, and is hereby, granted fifteen working days' leave of absence each year without forfeiture of pay during such leave: Provided, That it shall be lawful to allow pro rata leave only to those serving twelve consecutive months or more: And provided further, That in all cases the heads of divisions shall have discretion as to the time when the leave can best be allowed without detriment to the service, and that absence on account of sickness shall be deducted from the leave hereby granted" (Public No. 28)— your statement being that— "Under the Ordnance Department of the Army are arsenals, powder and ordnance depots, the Gun Factory, and the National Armory, and civilian employees in the service of the Ordnance Department under ordnance officers acting as inspectors at the works of private establishments having contracts with the Government". and your question, whether said act includes only the employees at the establishments designated by the War Department as arsenals and the Gun Factory or does it also include employees of the powder and ordnance depots, the National Armory, and civilian employees in the service of the ordnance department at works of private establishments having Government contracts. In my opinion the act covers the employees of all the departmental divisions of the Ordnance Department to which your letter refers. I think those establishments which are not designated are included in the words "arsenals of the United States Government." The evident legislative intent was to extend the benefits of the act to a distinctive class of Government employees, and this intent is effectuated by giving to the word "arsenals" its generic meaning, to wit: "a place for the storage or for the manufacture and storage of arms and all military equipment, whether for land or naval service." An "armory" comes literally within the definition of an arsenal, it being "a place where arms and instruments of war are deposited for safekeeping," and "powder and ordnance depots" are but convenient departmental designations of depositaries of certain specific kinds of military equipment. As to employees of the Ordnance Department assigned to duty at factories fabricating Government war materials, it is my opinion the nature of their duties and not the place where performed constitutes the test as to their inclusion. The act is not limited to employees at but covers employees of the designated and included establishments. Therefore such employees of the Ordnance Department, wherever they may be, who are engaged in connection with the production or care of war materials, are in my opinion entitled to the benefits of the act. Very respectfully, The SECRETARY OF WAR. P. C. KNOX. IMPORTATION OF COPYRIGHTED MUSIC. Paragraph 503 of the free list of the tariff act of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat., 196), merely provides when and under what circumstances the articles therein specified are exempt from duty on importation, and does not repeal or modify any part of the copyright law. By sections 4964 and 4965, R. S., as amended March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1109), the importation of any of the copyrighted articles enumerated therein, including music, is made a penal offense, and consequently is prohibited. What is implied in a statute, is just as much a part of it as if expressed. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, June 5, 1901. SIR: I have the honor to reply to your note of May 29, 1901, in which, after referring me to various sections of the Copyright act of 1891 and the Tariff act of 1897, you request my official opinion, in substance, whether, notwithstanding the prohibitions of the Copyright act, paragraph 503 of the free list of the Tariff act of 1897 authorizes the importation of copyrighted music for the purposes and in the manner specified in that paragraph. The principal question is, whether the Copyright act forbids the importation of copyrighted music. If it does, the second question would be, whether paragraph 503 of the Tariff act authorizes what the Copyright act forbids. The Copyright act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1109), amending section 4956 of the Revised Statutes, provides that * * * "During the existence of such copyright the importation into the United States of any book, chromo, lithograph, or photograph, so copyrighted, or any edition or editions thereof, shall be, and is hereby, prohibited." "Except in the cases specified in paragraphs five hundred and twelve to five hundred and sixteen, inclusive, in section two of the act entitled 'An act to reduce the revenue and equalize the duties on imports, and for other purposes, approved October first, eighteen hundred and ninety,' and, “Except in the case of persons purchasing for use and not for sale, who import subject to the duty thereon, not more than two copies of such book at any one time which are hereby exempted from prohibition of importation." (26 Stat., 1107, 1108.) * * * It was, of course, competent, in such acts to forbid the importation of all such copyrighted articles, or to forbid the importation of only some of them. Whether the acts have done the one or the other must be determined by inspection. By Revised Statutes, section 4952, as amended (26 Stat., 1109), the following articles may be copyrighted, viz, a "book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut, print, photograph or negative thereof, or of a painting, drawing, chromo, statue, statuary, and of models or designs intended to be perfected as works of the fine arts," while by section 3 of that act, amending Revised Statutes, section 4956, the prohibition of importation extends only to a "book, chromo, lithograph, or photograph." It is obvious, therefore, that Congress intended by this section to prohibit the importation of only a small portion of the articles which might be copyrighted, and equally apparent that the prohibition intended and expressed is only of the four articles there named; and, if this were the only prohibition, it is quite certain that it would not prohibit the importation of copyrighted music nor musical compositions. But, while this is the only express prohibition, it is not the only prohibition of importation contained in the copyright act of March 3, 1891. By amended sections 4964 and 4965, Rev. Stat. (26 Stat., 1109), the importation of any of the enumerated copyrighted articles is made a penal offense. This can mean nothing less than the prohibition of what is thus made penal; for what is implied in a statute, is just as much a part of it as if expressed. The result is that, while by amended section 4956 the importation of only four kinds of copyrighted articles is forbidden, with certain exceptions there specified, yet, by amended sections 4964 and 4965, the importation of any and all copyrighted articles is prohibited, including the second prohibition of the four first named, and to this second prohibition there is no exception at all, unless the exceptions to cases in section 4956, extend also to the cases in sections 4964 and 4965. Under this kind of legislation, it is impossible to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to what Congress really did intend by it. I am of opinion, however, that the importation of all the copyrighted articles mentioned in amended sections 4956, |