OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOE. 711 



examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether such exchanges had 

 met the requirements oi the act. 



The regulations for carrying out the act were reviewed as to their 

 legaHtj and necessary modifications suggested. 



UNITED STATES WAREHOUSE ACT (39 Stat. 486; 41 Stat. 266; 42 Stat. 1282). 



There has been considerable activity under the warehouse act 

 during the last fiscal year. The amendment of the act of February 

 2.3, 1923, necessitated the preparation of new bond and license forms. 

 Various other forms were prepared in special cases under State and 

 Federal laws. Five hundred bonds submitted in connection with 

 applications for warehouse licenses were examined and action taken 

 to cure such defects as rendered them doubtful of enforcement. 

 Revised regulations for cotton warehouses were reviewed in this 

 office. 



PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT (42 Stat. 159). 



An attorney from this office was assigned to assist the attorney 

 for the Packers and Stockyards Administration in the Armour- 

 Morris merger case. Other matters arising in the administration of 

 the act have been referred to this office for consideration and advice, 



FOOD PRODUCTS INSPECTION LAW (42 Stat. 507, 532). 



The inspection service authorized by this law was extended to 

 additional products during the year by the Bureau of Agricultural 

 Economics. Assistance was given the bureau in the preparation of 

 cooperative agreements and regulations necessary to effect the 

 additional service thus provided. Several claims for inspection 

 charges due under this law were prepared and filed m bankruptcy 

 proceedings. 



COTTON FUTURES ACT (39 Stat. 476). 



Amendments to the regulations and a revision of the cotton stand- 

 ards promid^ated under the act were reviewed as to their legal 

 sufficiency. In a suit between private parties (Brown v. Thome. 

 260 U. S. 137), which was removed to the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, that court held that section 4 of the act does not 

 require that a memorandum of sale be signed by both parties, but 

 is sufficient if signed b}" the part}- against whom demand is made. 

 It was argued that the act was unconstitutional in view of the deci- 

 sion (Hill V. Wallace. 2.^59 U. S. 44), holding the future trading act 

 invalid, but the court did not pass upon that question. 



FEDERAL WATER POWER ACT (41 Stat. 1063). 



A nmnber of opinions, prepared by the chief counsel of the Federal 

 Power Commission on legal questions arising in the administration 

 of the Federal water power act, submitted to this department for 

 consideration, were carefully examined and returned with appro- 

 priate comment. 



78007— AGR 192.3- 46 



