(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Report of the attorney general for the year ending .."

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 
Room 904 
100 Cambridge Street^ 
Boston, Massachusetts 02202 



Public Document 



No. 12 



Qtammmtturattl} of Mnjmnt^mHtB. 



REPORT 



ATTORNEY- GENERAL 



Year ending January 20, 1909. 




BOSTON: 

WRIGHT & POTTEE PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 

18 Post Office Square. 

1909. 



Cotmrnttmrcaluj of iKaaaarfjuartta 



Office of the Attorney-General, 

Boston, Jan. 20, 1909. 

To the Honorable the President of the Senate. 

I have the honor to transmit herewith my report for the 
year ending this day. 

Very respectfully, 

DA1STA MALOKE, 

Attorney-General. 



<£ommontojcaItfr jof l$assaxlrosrfts. 



OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 
State House. 



Attorney-General. 
DANA MALONE. 

Assistants. 



Frederic B. Greenhalge. 
Fred T. Field. 



James F. Curtis. 
Andrew Marshall. 



Chief Clerk. 
Louis H. Freese. 



VI 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1909. 



Statement of Appropriation and Expenditures. 



Appropriation for 1908, 



. $50,000 00 



Expenditures. 
For law library, ....... 

For salaries of assistants, ..... 

For additional legal services, ..... 

For collection of Spanish war claims against national gov 

ernraent, ........ 

For clerks, ........ 

For office stenographers, ..... 

Telephone operatives, ...... 

For messengers, ....... 

For grade crossing cases, experts, etc., . 

For office expenses, ...... 

For court expenses, 1 ...... 

For costs in New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 

merger case, ....... 



Total expenditures, 
Cost collected, 

Net expenditures, . 



$488 90 

12,382 79 

350 12 

9,075 00 

2,583 26 

2,300 00 

408 33 

1,762 00 

2,226 36 

2,319 34 

3,724 18 



3,453 89 



$41,074 17 
1,234 38 



$39,839 79 



1 Of this amount, $1,234.38 has been collected as costs of suits, and paid to the Treas- 
urer of the Commonwealth. 



Gktmtmmuttaltt} txf iMaaaarljttarttH. 



Office of the Attorney-General, 

Boston, Jan. 20, 1909. 

To the General Court. 

In compliance with Revised Laws, chapter 7, section 8, 
I submit my report for the year ending this day. 

The cases requiring the attention of the office during the 
year, to the number of 3,398, are tabulated below: — 

Inheritance tax cases, 1,071 

Corporation returns enforced without suit, .... 58 

Dissolutions of corporations, voluntary petitions for, . . 41 

Extradition and interstate rendition, 91 

Grade crossings, petitions for abolition of, . . . 159 
Informations at the relation of the Tax Commissioner, . . 345 
Informations at the relation of the Commissioner of Cor- 
porations, 460 

Informations at the relation of the Treasurer and Receiver- 
General, 480 

Indictments for murder, 25 

Land Court petitions, 6 

Land-damage cases arising, etc., Armory Commissioners, . 2 
Land-damage cases arising from the alteration of grade 

crossings, 15 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the 

Harbor and Land Commission, 3 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the 

Charles River Basin Commission, 70 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the 

Massachusetts Highway Commission, 12 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the 

Metropolitan Park Commission, 6 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the 

Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, .... 47 

Legislative council agents, 42 

Mt. Tom Reservation, 

Mt. Greylock Reservation, 1 



viii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Miscellaneous eases arising from the work of the above-named 

commissions, 34 

Miscellaneous cases, 143 

Public charitable trusts, 102 

Public administrators petitions, 158 

Saving-s bank accounts, withdrawal of, 1 

Settlement cases for support of insane paupers, ... 25 



Capital Cases. 
Indictments for murder pending at the date of the last 
annual report have been disposed of as follows : — 

Assad Alexander Kalie, indicted in Essex County, 
September, 1907, for the murder of Joseph Zaharan, at 
Lawrence, on July 13, 1907. He was arraigned Sept. 24, 
1907, and pleaded not guilty. John T. S. Mahoney, Esq., 
was asigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. On 
Feb. 28, 1908, the defendant retracted his former plea., and 
pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This plea was accepted by 
the Commonwealth, and the defendant was thereupon sen- 
tenced to State Prison for not less than seven nor more than 
eight years. The case was in charge of District Attorney 
W. Scott Peters. 

Loreto de Gravio, indicted in Essex County, Septem- 
ber, 1907, for the murder of Valentino de Pietro, at Lynn, 
•on May 16, 1907. He was arraigned Oct. 11, 1907, and 
pleaded not guilty. John Ingram, Esq., was assigned by 
the court as counsel for the defendant. On Oct. 26, 1908, 
the defendant retracted^ his former plea, and pleaded guilty 
to manslaughter. This plea was accepted by the Common- 
wealth, and the defendant was thereupon sentenced to two 
years in the House of Correction. The case was in charge 
of District Attorney W. Scott Peters. 

Louis Tennis, indicted in Suffolk County, March, 1907, 
for the murder of Philip Tennis, at Boston, on Jan. 17, 
1907. He was arraigned March 11, 1907, and pleaded not 
guilty. Hon. Herbert Parker and Eobert Silverman, Esq., 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. ix 

were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
On Feb. 17, 1908, the defendant retracted his former plea, 
and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This plea was accepted 
by the Commonwealth, and the defendant was thereupon 
sentenced to State Prison for a term of not more than twenty 
nor less than eleven years. The case was in charge of Dis- 
trict Attorney John B. Moran. 

Giuseppe A. Zeccolo, indicted in Middlesex County, 
September, 1907, for the murder of Charles Eeed, at Water- 
town, on July 12, 1907. He was arraigned Dec. 24, 1907, 
and pleaded not guilty. Lafayette Gr. Blair, Esq., and Frank 
M. Zottoli, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for 
the defendant. On May 15, 1908, the defendant retracted 
his former plea, and pleaded guilty to murder in the second 
degree. This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and 
the defendant was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for 
life. The case was in charge of District Attorney John J. 
Higgins. 

Ferdinando de Ribasso, indicted in Middlesex County, 
December, 1907, for the murder of Mary D. de Ribasso, at 
Somerville, on Sept. 14, 1907. He was arraigned Dec. 10, 

1907, and pleaded not guilty. Harvey H. Pratt, Esq., was 
assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant, May 15, 

1908, the defendant retracted his former plea, and pleaded 
guilty to murder in the second degree. This plea was ac- 
cepted by the Commonwealth, and the defendant was there- 
upon sentenced to State Prison for life. The case was in 
charge of District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Pasquaee Coluccieleo and Raffaele Reppecci., in- 
dicted in Middlesex County, June, 1907, for the murder of 
Luigi Marro, at Newton, on May 24, 1907. They were ar- 
raigned Nov. 7, 1907, and pleaded not guilty. John J. 
Mansfield, Esq., and Frank Keezer, Esq., were assigned, by 
the court as counsel for the defendants. On April 16, 1908, 
the defendants retracted their former plea, and pleaded 



x ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

guilty to manslaughter. These pleas were accepted by the 
Commonwealth, and the defendants were sentenced to State 
Prison for life. The case was in charge of District Attorney 
John J. IJiggins. 

John A. Steele, indicted in Suffolk County, December, 
1907, for the murder of Edward Cohen, at Boston, on Dec. 
5, 1907. On Jan. 15, 1908, the defendant was adjudged 
insane, and committed to the Insane Asylum at Bridgewater. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney John B. Moran. 

Joseph Martino, indicted in Essex County, September, 

1907, for the murder of Joseph de Cicco, at Haverhill, on 
July 10, 1907. He was arraigned Sept. 24, 1907, and 
pleaded not guilty. The indictment in this case was nol- 
prossed. The case was in charge of District Attorney W. 
Scott Peters. 

Indictments for murder found since the date of the last 
annual report have been disposed of as follows : — 

John J. Killian, Oscar L. Kelsox and George Fran- 
cis Gilmore, indicted in Middlesex County, March, 1908, 
for the murder of Charles E. Bushee, at Somerville, on Jan. 
12, 1908. They were arraigned March 6, 1908, and pleaded 
not guilty. William R. Scharton, Esq., Thomas A. Mullen, 
Esq., and E. C. Creed, Esq., were assigned by the court as 
counsel for the defendants. On May 18, 1908, the de- 
fendants retracted their former plea, and pleaded guilty to 
murder in the second degree. This plea was accepted by the 
Commonwealth, and the defendants were thereupon sentenced 
to State Prison for life. The case was in charge of District 
Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Joseph F. Blight, indicted in Middlesex County, March, 

1908, for the murder of John J. Keefe, at Lowell, Dec. 21, 
190.7. He was arraigned March 6, 1908, and pleaded not 
guilty. James E. Owens, Esq., appeared as counsel for the 
defendant. On March 27, 1908, the defendant retracted his 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 12. xi 

former plea, and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This 
plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and the defendant 
was thereupon committed to State Prison for not less than 
three nor more than five years. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Emma A. Huntley, indicted in Middlesex County, Feb- 
ruary, 1908, for the murder of Carlene A. Huntley, at Som- 
erville, Dec. 9, 1907. She was arraigned Eeb. 7, 1908, and 
pleaded not guilty. No counsel was assigned to act for the 
defendant. It appeared, upon examination by alienists, 
that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission 
of the crime, and she was therefore committed to the State 
Insane Hospital at Danvers. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Arthur B. Smith, indicted in Suffolk County, February, 
1908, for the murder of John T. Lynch, at Boston, on Jan. 
16, 1908. He was arraigned June 19, 1908, and pleaded 
guilty to murder in the second degree. James F. Creed, 
Esq., was assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and the 
defendant was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for life. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney John B. Moran. 

William C. Brown, indicted in Worcester County, May, 
1908, for the murder of Lillian G. Brown, at Clinton, April 
25, 1908. He was arraigned Nov. 12, 1908, and pleaded 
guilty to murder in the second degree. Thomas L. Walsh, 
Esq., was assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and the de- 
fendant was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for life. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney George S. Taft. 

Elizabeth T. Stevens, indicted in Essex County, May, 
1908, for the murder of Mary Stevens, at Haverhill, on Feb. 
6, 1908. She was arraigned June 23, 1908, and pleaded not 
guilty. Francis H. Pearl, Esq., was assigned by the court 



xii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

as counsel for the defendant. In June, 1908, the defendant 
was tried by a jury before Stevens, J. The result was a ver- 
dict of not guilty, by reason of insanity. The defendant 
was thereupon committed to the Danvers Insane Hospital 
for life. The case was in charge of District Attorney W. 
Scott Peters. 

Salvatobi A. Stbozzi and Maby A. Stbozzi, indicted in 
Middlesex County, June, 1908, for the murder of Peter J. 
Wilson, at Somerville, on March 24, 1908. They were ar- 
raigned June 5, 1908, and pleaded not guilty. Peter S. 
Maher, Esq., was assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. In November, 1908, the defendants were tried 
by a jury before Hardy, J. The result was a verdict of 
guilty of manslaughter against Salvatori A. Strozzi and a 
verdict of not guilty against Mary A. Strozzi. The defendant 
was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for a term not ex- 
ceeding twelve years. The case was in charge of District 
Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Felice Chiocchio and Nicola Chiocchio, indicted in 
Worcester County, January, 1908, for the murder of Paolo 
Previti, at Leominster, Dec. 12, 1907. They were arraigned 
Jan. 31, 1908, and pleaded not guilty. Franklin Freeman, 
Esq., and Thomas H. Sullivan, Esq., were assigned by the 
court as counsel for the defendants. In November, 1908, 
the defendants were tried by a jury before Gaskill, J. The 
result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, 
and on the same day the defendants were sentenced to State 
Prison for life. The case was in charge of District Attorney 
George S. Taft. 

Vito Coxstaxzo, indicted in Suffolk County, February, 
1908, for the murder of Mamie Zarella, at Boston, Jan. 5, 
1908. He was arraigned June 24, 1908, and pleaded guilty 
to murder in the second degree. Frank Keezer, Esq., was 
assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. This 
plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and the defendant 
was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for life. The case 
was in charge of District Attorney John B. Moran. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xiii 

Walter R. Amesbuby, indicted in Norfolk County, 
April, 1908, for the murder of Anna B. Amesbury, at Hyde 
Park, Dec. 25, 1907. He was arraigned April 23, 1908, 
and pleaded not guilty. John P. Leahy, Esq., was assigned 
by the court as counsel for the defendant. On Jan. 11, 1909, 
the defendant retracted his former plea, and pleaded guilty 
to murder in the second degree. This plea was accepted by 
the Commonwealth, and the defendant was thereupon sen- 
tenced to State Prison for life. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney Thomas E. Grover. 

The following indictments for murder are now pend- 
ing:— 

Ming Sing, Hom Woom, Leon Gong, Wong Duck, 
Wong How, Joe Guey, Dong Bok Ling, Yee Wat, Yee 
Jung and Waeby Chables, indicted in Suffolk County, Au- 
gust, 1907, for the murder of Chin Mon Quin, Wong Shu 
Chin, Chin Leet and Lee Kai Nom, at Boston, on Aug. 2, 
1907. They were arraigned Sept. 3, 1907, and pleaded not 
guilty. Charles W. Bartlett, Esq., Harvey H. Pratt, Esq., 
and J. C. Woodman, Esq., were assigned by the court as 
counsel for the defendants. In February, 1908, the de- 
fendants were tried by the jury before Pierce and Brown, 
JJ. The result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the 
first degree against all the defendant's except Yee Wat, who 
died in jail before the verdict was rendered. In the case 
against Wong Duck, Wong How and Dong Bok Ling, a mo- 
tion for new trial was granted by the court. The indictment 
against Yee Jung was nol-prossed, and the defendant dis- 
charged. With reference to the other five defendants, 
exceptions are now pending. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney John B. Moran. 

Chesteb S. Jobdan, indicted in Middlesex County, Sep- 
tember, 1908, for the murder of Honora C. Jordan, at Som- 
erville, Sept. 1, 1908. The defendant has not yet been ar- 
raigned. The case is in charge of District Attorney John 
J. Higgins. 



xiv ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

John J. Herlihy, indicted in Hampden County, Decem- 
ber, 1908, for the murder of David Moran, at Southwick, 
on Sept. 11, 1908. The defendant has not yet been arraigned. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney Stephen S. Taft. 

Salvatori Caracoccia, indicted in Essex County, May, 
1908, for the murder of Giuseppe Bellavia, at Lynn, Jan. 
20, 1908. He was arraigned June 23, 1908, and pleaded 
not guilty. Michael L. Sullivan, Esq., and J. Frank Wil- 
liams, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. No further action has been taken in this case. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney W. Scott Peters. 

Napoleon J. Rivet, indicted in Middlesex County, June, 
1908, for the murder of Joseph Gailloux, at Lowell, on Feb. 
29, 1908. He was arraigned June 7, 1908, and pleaded not 
guilty. William H. Bent, Esq., and Joseph H. Guillett, 
Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Jessie Hay, indicted in Essex County, September, 1908, 
for the murder of her infant child, at Lawrence, April 25, 
1908. She was arraigned Sept. 30, 1908, and pleaded not 
guilty. No further action has been taken in this case. The 
case is in charge of District Attorney W. Scott Peters. 

Salvatore Signorelli, indicted in Essex County, Sep- 
tember, 1908, for the murder of Mario Magri, at Lawrence, 
on Aug. 13, 1908. No action has been taken in this case. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney W. Scott Peters. 

Hattie Simmons, indicted in Bristol County, November, 
1908, for the murder of William P. Simmons. She was 
arraigned Nov. 24, 1908, and pleaded not guilty. Charles 
Mitchell, Esq., and Emanuel Sullivan, Esq., were assigned 
by the court as counsel for the defendants. No further action 
has been taken in this case. The case is in charge of District 
Attorney James M. Swift. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xv 

William C. Howard, indicted in Bristol County, Novem- 
ber, 1908, for the murder of Ida Howard. He was ar- 
raigned Nov. 24, 1908, and pleaded not guilty. James M. 
Morton, Jr., Esq., and Edward F. Bannon, Esq., were as- 
signed by the court as counsel for the defendant. No fur- 
ther action has been taken in this case. The case is in charge 
of District Attorney James M. Swift. 

Litigation of the Commonwealth with the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. 

The Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth, on 
May 8, 1908, rendered a decision in the case of Attorney- 
General ex rel. v. New York, Neiv Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, a petition in equity under the provision of 
St. 1906, c. 372. In view of the importance of this decision 
and of the principles upon which it turned, I deem it advis- 
able to review at some length the history of the issue between 
the Commonwealth and the company which led to the litiga- 
tion referred to in my report of last year as the " New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company Cases," of one 
of which this decision is the result. 

The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com- 
pany, as it existed prior to June, 1907, was a consolidated 
corporation created by concurrent legislation of the State of 
Connecticut and of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
into which were merged the New York & New Haven Rail- 
road Company, created by the union of the Hartford & 
Springfield Railroad Company, a corporation of Massachu- 
setts, and the Hartford & New Haven Railroad Company, 
a corporation of Connecticut, and the New York & New 
Haven Railroad Company, a corporation created under the 
laws of the State of Connecticut. 

The validity of certain acts of the consolidated corporation 
known as the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company, authorized by the laws of the State of Connecticut 
but prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth, was the 
issue upon which this litigation was based. St. 1906, c. 463, 
part II., § 57, provides that, unless authorized by the Gen- 



xvi ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

eral Court or by the provisions of the five sections which 
follow, a railroad corporation " shall not, directly or indi- 
rectly, subscribe for, take or hold the stock or bonds of, or 
guarantee the bonds or dividends of, any other corporation." 
The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, 
acting under authority of statutes of the State of Connecticut, 
but without authority from this Commonwealth, in the year 
1903 entered upon the policy of owning and controlling, 
chiefly by the purchase and holding of stock, street railway 
companies in Connecticut and Massachusetts. This policy 
was begun by the acquisition on June 3, 1903, Of 2,501 
shares of the Worcester & Connecticut Eastern Railway Com- 
pany, which subsequently became the Consolidated Railway 
Company of Connecticut, and the acquisition on May 24, 
1904, of 2,499 shares, which, with the shares previously 
acquired, constituted the entire capital stock of such corpora- 
tion. In May, 1905, the General Assembly of Connecticut 
amended the charter of the Consolidated Railway Company 
of Connecticut, and conferred upon it such extensive powers 
as to convert it in effect into a holding corporation (Con- 
necticut Special Act, 1905, c. 706). Prior to the date last 
given, the Consolidated Railway Company had acquired all 
of the stock of the Worcester & Southbridge Street Railway 
Company, the Worcester & Blackstone Valley Street Rail- 
way Company, the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Com- 
pany, the Worcester & Webster Street Railway Company, 
and a majority of the stock of the Berkshire Street Railway 
Company. These were not the only corporations so acquired 
by the Consolidated Railway Company of Connecticut; but. 
as instancing the method of acquisition by the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company through the in- 
strumentality of the Consolidated Railway Company and of 
other organizations created for such purpose, they were made 
a basis for the legal proceedings to which I shall subsequently 
refer. 

The Legislature of the year 1905, upon being advised of 
the situation with respect to the ownership by the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company of stock in Mas- 
sachusetts street railway corporations, began an inquiry into 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xvii 

the facts relative to such acquisition. Upon April 28 of that 
year the House of Representatives received an opinion from 
my predecessor relative to the acts in question, which were 
therein stated to be illegal (see 2 Op. Atty.-Gen., 570) ; and 
npon the 5th of May following, an order was passed by the 
House of Representatives directing the Board of Railroad 
Commissioners " to require forthwith from the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company a statement in 
detail of the stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness 
of any street railway corporation which it held, for which 
it had subscribed or which it had guaranteed on the first 
day of May, 1905, and the dates on which they were ac- 
quired." The Commissioner of Corporations was also 
directed to require forthwith from the Consolidated Street 
Railway Company of Connecticut a list of the names and 
residences of such of the largest holders of stock on the first 
of May, 1905, as together owned a majority of such stock. 
To these orders replies were received on May 19 and May 16, 
respectively. 

The Legislature of the succeeding year, on the 19th of 
June, submitted to me for my opinion a proposed bill en- 
titled " An Act relative to Investments by Railroad Corpora- 
tions in Street Railway Companies ; " but such bill did not 
become a law, and by the re-enactment and codification of 
the railroad laws of that year, as St. 1906, c. 463, no change 
was made in the provision relating to the acquisition by a 
railroad corporation of stock in other corporations. At this 
session St. 1906, c. 372, which was drafted by me, was also 
enacted, which authorized the Attorney-General to proceed 
by an information in equity against any corporation which 
should assume or exercise a franchise or transact a business 
not authorized by the laws of the Commonwealth. 

Under the authority of this statute, on Oct. 3, 1906, I 
began proceedings by filing an information in equity at the 
relation of the Commissioner of Corporations, alleging that 
the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company 
had directly or indirectly subscribed for, taken and held the 
stock and bonds, and had guaranteed the bonds and dividends, 
of the domestic street railway corporations already referred 



xviii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

to, without authority in law and in violation of the provi- 
sions of St. 1906, c. 463, part II., § 57, and praying for 
an injunction to restrain the respondent from the commission 
or continuance of the acts alleged in the information to be 
illegal. At the same time there were filed an information 
in the nature of quo warranto, brought by the Attorney- 
General in his own name, containing substantially the same 
allegations, and two bills in equity directed against the Worces- 
ter & Webster Street Railway Company and the Webster 
& Dudley Street Railway Company, respectively, under the 
provision of St. 1906, c. 463, part III., § 58, which provides 
that if a foreign corporation which owns or controls a ma- 
jority of the capital stock of a domestic street railway com- 
pany issues stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness 
based upon or secured by the property, franchise or stock 
of such domestic street railway company, unless such issue 
is authorized by the law of this Commonwealth, the Supreme 
Judicial Court shall have jurisdiction in equity in its dis- 
cretion to dissolve such domestic corporation. The informa- 
tions directed against the New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company were brought upon the theory that the 
respondent itself had acquired and was holding stock of the 
domestic street railway companies, and that the Consolidated 
Railway Company of Connecticut was but an instrumentality 
or device of the respondent.. The bills in equity against 
the Worcester & Webster and Webster & Dudley street rail- 
way companies were brought upon the alternative theory that 
the stock of the domestic street railway companies in ques- 
tion was held by the Consolidated Railway Company, a 
foreign corporation, which could be effectively reached only 
through the dissolution of the domestic corporation, the stock 
of which it held. In the case of the information in the 
nature of quo warranto, the court, in an opinion handed 
down on Jan. 14, 1908 (see 197 Mass. 194), upon demurrer, 
decided that subsequent to the passage of St. 1906, c. 372, 
the Attorney-General could not maintain an information at 
law in the nature of quo warranto to prevent by injunction 
the exercise by a corporation of powers ultra vires where 
he does not desire any other judgment against it ; and the 
suits against the Worcester & Webster Street Railway Com- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xix 

pany and the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company, 
respectively, are in effect disposed of by the later decision 
in Attorney-General ex rel. v. New York, New Haven & 
Hartford Railroad Company (198 Mass. 413). In the last 
proceeding referred to, Attorney-General ex rel. v. New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, brought under 
the provisions of St. 1906, c. 372, the contentions of the 
Commonwealth were sustained throughout, as will appear 
from a consideration of the opinion. A decree was entered, 
as follows : — 

Decree. 

This ease came on to be further heard after a rescript, and was 
argued by counsel, and thereupon, upon consideration thereof, and 
in accordance with said rescript, it appeared that, at the time of 
the filing of the master's report herein, the Worcester & South- 
bridge Street Railway Company, the Worcester & Blackstone Val- 
ley Street Railway Company, the Worcester & Webster Street 
Railway Company, the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company, 
the Berkshire Street Railway Company and the Springfield Street 
Railway Company, all being street railway corporations incor- 
porated under and by virtue of the laws of this Commonwealth, 
and mentioned in the information, were, directly or indirectly, held, 
controlled and managed in the interests of the defendant, and/ 
that the capital stock of the said street railway companies was then, 
directly or indirectly, held by the defendant; and said cause having 
been reserved for the full court upon the entry of said master's 
report, and having been argued before the full court upon the 
same footing, and a rescript having been sent down upon the same 
footing, and nothing to the contrary having appeared up to the 
time of the sending down of said rescript, — 

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows : — 
The defendant is, and its officers, directors, attorneys, agents and 
employees, respectively and collectively, are hereby enjoined and 
restrained : — 

1. From subscribing for or taking, directly or indirectly, the 
capital stock of the Worcester & Southbridge Street Railway Com- 
pany, the Worcester & Blackstone Valley Street Railway Company, 
the Worcester & Webster Street Railway Company, the Webster & 
Dudley Street Railway Company, the Berkshire Street Railway 
Company and the Springfield Street Railway Company, or either 
of them, all being street railway corporations incorporated under 
and by virtue of the laws of this Commonwealth, and mentioned 
in the information. 

2. From assuming or exercising the franchise or privilege of 



xx ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

subscribing for, or taking, directly or indirectly, the stock of said 
street railway corporations, or either of them. 

3. From holding, directly or indirectly, the stock of said street 
railway corporations, or either of them, after the first day of July, 
in the year 1909. 

4. From assuming or exercising the franchise or privilege - of 
holding, directly or indirectly, the stock of said street railway cor- 
porations, or either of them, after the first day of July, in the 
year 1909. 

Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall affect 
existing leases executed in accordance with the provisions of chap- 
ter 293 of the Acts of the year 1901 of this Commonwealth. 

And it is further ordered, That this decree be entered as of the 
eighth day of May, in the year 1908. 

And it is further ordered, That the Attorney-General recover his 
costs, taxed at $2,585.40, and there be execution therefor, — 

from which the respondent appealed, and that appeal is now 
pending before the full court. 

While these proceedings were pending, to wit, in June, 
1907, the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company acquired the control of about 109,000 shares of 
the stock of the Boston & Maine Railroad, a consolidated 
corporation chartered in this Commonwealth and in the 
States of Maine and New Hampshire. To this acquisition 
of control the attention of the Legislature was directed, and 
St. 1907, c. 585, entitled " An Act to restrain the Con- 
solidation of Railroad Corporations/' was enacted. This 
statute in express terms forbade any corporation owning, 
leasing or operating a railroad within the Commonwealth 
to acquire, directly or indirectly, the shares of the capital 
stock of any domestic railroad company not lawfully leased, 
owned or operated by it prior to the first day of May, 1907, 
except under specific authority of the Legislature, and con- 
taining a further provision that " no such corporation nor 
any person in its behalf shall, prior to the first day of July, 
nineteen hundred and eight, vote any such stock which it now 
holds or may acquire in its own name or in that of any per- 
son or corporation acting in its interest, nor attempt to vote 
the same, at any meeting of the stockholders of such domestic 
railroad company, nor exercise, nor attempt to exercise, di- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxi 

rectly or indirectly, any control, direction, supervision or 
influence whatsoever over the acts or doings of such domestic 
railroad company by virtue of such holding of stock therein." 
As a result of the passage of this statute, the situation re- 
mained unchanged, and no action was taken with reference 
to it by the Legislature of the year 1908. In view of the 
provisions of this statute and of earlier acts of like effect 
forbidding the acquisition of the stock of a domestic railroad 
or railway corporation, and in the absence of legislative 
action in the premises, I filed an information in equity under 
the provisions of St. 1906, c. 372, based upon the acquisition 
by the New York, New Haven & Llartford Railroad Com- 
pany of the ownership or control of shares of stock in the 
Boston & Maine Railroad, which action is now pending in 
the Supreme Judicial Court. 

The decision in the case of Attorney -General ex rel. v. 
Neiu York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company 
(198 Mass. 413), above referred to, is undoubtedly authority 
for the proposition that a corporation chartered in Massa- 
chusetts is and must be subject to Massachusetts laws, either 
general or special, so long as it continues to enjoy a Massa- 
chusetts charter, unless and only to the extent that the Com- 
monwealth may by legislation expressly or by necessary 
implication waive its jurisdiction in the premises; and it 
follows that the supervision and control of the Common- 
wealth over corporations like the New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company is not limited to acts done 
by them within the Commonwealth, but extends to and in- 
cludes action elsewhere upon matters which affect the cor- 
poration as a whole in its relation both to private persons 
and to public authority. 

The New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Com- 
pany, under authority of a special act passed by the Con- 
necticut Legislature in 1907 (House Joint Resolution No. 
357), amending the charter of the New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, providing that such railroad 
" may at any time hereafter merge, consolidate and make 
common stock with any or all corporations engaged in trans- 
portation, wherever organized, whose property it shall hold 



xxii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

under lease, or a majority of whose capital stock it shall 
own/' merged and consolidated with the Consolidated Rail- 
way Company of Connecticut; and by a subsequent act the 
merged or consolidated corporation so created received the 
name of " New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company." The result of this consolidation was to vest 
in the corporation now known as the New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, so far as the authority of 
Connecticut was effectual to do so, powers, privileges and 
franchises so far in excess of those granted to the Massa- 
chusetts corporation of the New York, New Haven & Hart- 
ford Railroad Company by any legislative act of this 
Commonwealth as to convert the corporation into a holding 
company, and materially to affect the relations of the con- 
solidated corporation either with private persons who might 
become its stockholders, or the holders of bonds, notes or 
other evidences of indebtedness issued by it, or with the 
public authority of the Commonwealth, since such consolida- 
tion is in violation not only of such public policy but also 
of express statutory provision. The result of this consolida- 
tion was to convert a corporation chartered by the Legis- 
lature of this Commonwealth as a railroad corporation into 
a company authorized by the State of Connecticut, so far 
as such authority is effectual, to own the stock and bonds 
of any other corporation, and to own and control any and 
all properties or instrumentalities directly or indirectly 
connected with the business of transportation, or, in short, 
into a holding company. 

The general railroad and railway law, St. 1906, c. 463, 
contains in section 47 of part II., which was first enacted 
in St. 1874, c. 372, § 177, the following provision: — 

If a railroad corporation owning a railroad in this common- 
wealth and consolidated with a corporation owning a railroad in 
another state increases its capital stock, or the capital stock of 
such consolidated corporation, except as authorized by this act, 
without authority of the general court, or without such authority 
extends its line of railroad, or consolidates with any other corpora- 
tion, or makes a stock dividend, the charter and franchise of such 
corporation shall be subject to forfeiture. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxiii 

The action of the New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company in obtaining legislation in Connecticut 
which merges such corporation w T ith and in the Consolidated 
Railway Company of Connecticut, a corporation of that 
State, is, in my opinion, a clear violation both of the express 
provision of section 47 above quoted, and of the public policy 
as denned in that and in other sections of the statutes dealing 
with the supervision and control of railroads by the Com- 
monwealth. This merger or consolidation was accomplished 
during the pendency of the proceedings brought by the Com- 
monwealth which I have herein described, and without the 
consent of this Commonwealth. The corporation has also, 
without the authority of the Commonwealth and in direct 
violation of said section 47, between 1898 and 1907 increased 
its capital stock from $47,500,000 to $121,878,000. It 
seems clear, therefore, that both the policy of the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company and the results 
of that policy are contrary alike to the declared public policy 
of the Commonwealth and to the statutes thereof, and the 
charter and franchise of said corporation is therefore sub- 
ject to forfeiture, and it only remains to determine what 
proceeding is most safe and most certain in the premises. 
Since the decision of the court in Attorney-General ex rel. 
v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company 
(198 Mass. 413), I have given most careful consideration 
to the question whether or not it was my duty to seek, by 
appropriate proceedings in the Supreme Judicial Court, a 
forfeiture of the charter of said corporation. If the question 
were purely one of law, involving only the construction of 
the statute and the enforcement of its terms, its determina- 
tion would present no great difficulty; but in the present 
instance it is impossible to separate law and policy, or to 
consider the enforcement of the law without equally con- 
sidering the situation which that enforcement may, and 
indeed must, cause. In an opinion of this year, given to the 
Bank Commissioner, dated September 27, I discussed one 
phase of such situation, — the status of the bonds, coupon 
notes or other evidences of indebtedness of the corporation 
with respect to the legality of investment therein by savings 



xxiv ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

banks when issued in excess of its capital stock, and upon 
the evidence presented was forced to conclude that there 
were several issues which were not present legal investments 
for our savings banks, because not issued in accordance with 
the laws of this Commonwealth (see St. 1906, c. 463, part 
II., § 66). The stock, bonds or other evidences of indebted- 
ness of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company are held not alone by savings banks, but by many 
investors throughout the Commonwealth and elsewhere; and 
it is needless to say that to such investors, whether savings 
banks, trustees or individuals, the forfeiture of the charter 
of such corporation would bring heavy financial loss and pos- 
sible suffering, and would probably cause great inconvenience 
to the public generally. These and other like questions in- 
volving public policy and the convenience of the public, and 
the serious and important considerations which are material 
to them, are peculiarly within the field of legislative in- 
quiry and action. The Legislature undoubtedly has the 
power, upon the one hand, either to pass such laws as may 
ratify and confirm the acts of the New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, if in view of all the circum- 
stances such course is deemed best, or, upon the other hand, 
to repeal its charter. If the issue as to the forfeiture of 
the charter between the Commonwealth and the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company is to be deter- 
mined by the courts, proceedings when brought for that pur- 
pose might be delayed for one, two or even three years; and 
the uncertainty with respect to the status of the evidences 
of indebtedness of the corporation which must necessarily 
be created by such proceedings might be indefinitely pro- 
longed, with unfortunate results both to the corporation itself 
and to the innocent holders of its stock or bonds. The 
Legislature, on the contrary, may act directly and speedily, 
considering both the requirements of the public and the needs 
of the corporation, and may apply such relief as may be 
appropriate for both. I am constrained to say, therefore, 
that in my opinion such ultimate relief as may be afforded 
by legal proceedings is inadequate, in view of all the cir- 
cumstances, and that the proper tribunal to decide the im- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxv 

portant and difficult questions to which the situation now 
existing has given rise is the Legislature of the Common- 
wealth; and I call the subject to your attention for such 
action as you deem proper. 

In this connection I desire also to call to the attention 
of the Legislature the provisions of St. 1906, c. 463, part 
II., §§ 47 and 57, neither of which sections contains any 
provision imposing a penalty for the violation of its terms 
and restrictions ; and in any proceeding to enforce such terms, 
where the Commonwealth does not seek the last redress 
afforded by the forfeiture of the charter of an offending 
corporation, the only remedy is by injunction, which is suffi- 
cient to enforce a tardy compliance with the law, but imposes 
no punishment for its violation. It results, therefore, that 
a corporation may with impunity violate these provisions 
for its own benefit, and may by protracted litigation secure 
sufficient time to accomplish its purposes in the premises, 
notwithstanding that the ultimate decision may be adverse 
and a restraining injunction may issue. In view of this 
condition, I suggest for the consideration of the Legislature 
that it may be advisable to provide sufficient penalties for 
either or both of the sections of the statute above cited, to 
secure compliance with, and to render unprofitable violations 
of, the law. 

Legacy and Succession Taxes. 

It has been the policy of the Commonwealth to provide for 
speedy methods of collecting taxes due to it. The provisions 
for the collection of corporation taxes are, in general, ade- 
quate. The legacy and succession tax is becoming an im- 
portant source of revenue, and it is equally desirable that 
there be a speedy method of collecting these taxes. I there- 
fore recommend that the method of collecting taxes by infor- 
mation as well as in an action of contract, now applicable 
to corporation taxes, be made applicable also to the collection 
of legacy and succession taxes; and I recommend that in 
such proceedings for the collection of taxes assessed under the 
legacy and succession tax law of 1907, the certification of 
the amount of the tax by the Tax Commissioner be at least 
prima facie evidence as to liability and amount. 



xxvi ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

St. 1907, c. 563, § 13, provides for a penalty of not more 
than $1,000 for the neglect or refusal by an executor, admin- 
istrator or trustee to file an inventory and appraisal in the 
probate court or with the Tax Commissioner. The purpose 
of this provision is to require that the information necessary 
for the computation of the tax be furnished for the use of 
the Tax Commissioner. The force of the statute is to a 
considerable degree lost if there is no effectual method for 
the collection of this penalty. I therefore recommend legis- 
lation which shall authorize collection by information sub- 
stantially as provided for the collection of penalties and 
forfeitures imposed by the corporation law. 

Decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court for the Com- 
monwealth. 

In my report of last year I directed the attention of the 
Legislature to the conditions then existing with reference to 
the official publication in the Massachusetts reports of the 
decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court for the Common- 
wealth, and recommended additional legislation to secure 
the prompt and seasonable publication of such decisions, and 
to provide the reporter of decisions with adequate means in 
the premises. Under St. 1908, c. 358, which was passed in 
consequence of this recommendation, I am advised that the 
reporter of decisions has fully complied with the require- 
ments of said statute, and at this date has furnished for 
publication all of the opinions available for that purpose. 
In order to insure a continuance of efficiency in this respect, 
I recommend an additional appropriation of $500, for clerk 
hire and incidental expenses, which I am informed is needed 
by the reporter of decisions for such purpose. 

Unclaimed Deposits in Savings Banks. 
In my report for the year 1906 I suggested the passage 
of a law that unclaimed deposits in savings banks, where 
the depositor could not be found, be paid to the Treasurer 
of the Commonwealth, subject to be repaid to the person 
having and establishing a lawful claim thereto. In accord- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT— No. 12. xxvii 

ance with this suggestion, St. 1907, c. 340, which appears 
in the codification of the savings bank law as St. 1908, c. 590, 
§§ 56 and 57, was passed. This statute provides that the 
probate court shall on the application of the Attorney-General 
order that amounts of money deposited with a savings bank 
" to the credit of depositors who have not made a deposit 
on said account or withdrawn any part thereof or the interest, 
or on whose pass books the interest has not been added, which 
shall have remained unclaimed for more than thirty years 
after the date of such last deposit, withdrawal of any part 
of principal or interest, or adding of interest on the pass 
book, and for which no claimant is known or the depositor 
of it cannot be found, shall, with the increase and proceeds 
thereof, be paid to the treasurer and receiver general, to be 
held and used by him according to law, subject to be repaid 
to the person having and establishing a lawful right thereto, 
with interest at the rate of three per cent per annum from 
the time when it was so paid to said treasurer to the time 
when it is paid over by him to such person." 

On May 5, 1908, an application was filed in the probate 
court of the county of Suffolk for an order that The Provi- 
dent Institution for Savings in the Town of Boston pay to 
the Treasurer of the Commonwealth the unclaimed deposits 
held by it. The bank objected to the making of the order, 
on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional, as im- 
pairing the obligation of the contract contained in its charter 
and as depriving if and the depositors of property without 
due process of law. The case was argued before the full 
bench of the Supreme Judicial Court at its November sitting, 
and a decision was rendered Jan. 12, 1909, to the effect that 
the act was constitutional, and that the decree of the probate 
court, ordering that the unclaimed deposits be paid to the 
Treasurer, should be affirmed. This case involves $114,- 
729.14. Unless it should be carried to the Supreme Court 
of the United States on writ of error, the Attorney-General 
will be in a position to file other applications under this 
statute. The applications now filed and ripe for filing will, 
it is estimated, result in the payments of about $500,000 to 
the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. 



xxviii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Orders for the Reduction of the Price of Gas. 

The case of Haverhill Gas Light Company v. Barker and 
others is still pending in the Circuit Court of the United 
States. This is a bill in equity to restrain the Board of 
Gas and Electric Light Commissioners and the Attorney- 
General from enforcing an order of the commissioners fixing 
the price at which gas should be sold by the Haverhill Gas 
Light Company at 80 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. The com- 
pany attacks the order on the ground that it is unconsti- 
tutional, in that it requires the sale of gas at so low a rate 
as to deprive the company of its property without due process 
of law. The case has been referred to a special master, to 
find the facts and report thereon to the court. As many of 
the issues involved in this case were involved in the case 
of the Consolidated Gas Company v. City of New York et al., 
which has been pending in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, no hearings have been had before the master. A 
decision has recently been rendered in the New York case, 
though the full text of the opinion has not been made public. 
This decision sustained the order of the New York Gas Com- 
mission, requiring the company to sell gas at 80 cents per 
1,000 cubic feet. It is expected that the decision, when the 
grounds of it have been made known, will be decisive of 
many of the questions raised in the case brought by the 
Haverhill Gas Light Company. 

In May of the present year a bill in equity was filed in 
the Circuit Court of the United States by the Salem Gas 
Light Company, to restrain the Board of Gas and Electric 
Light Commissioners and the Attorney-General from en- 
forcing a similar order fixing the price at which gas should 
be sold by this company at $1.10 per 1,000 cubic feet. The 
issues involved in this case are similar to those involved in 
the case brought by the Haverhill Gas Light Company, and, 
though this case is practically ripe for hearing, no hearings 
have been had pending the decision of the case of the Con- 
solidated Gas Light Company v. City of New York et al., 
already referred to. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxix 

Chapter 86 of the Kesolves of 1908. 

By Resolves of 1908, chapter 86, the Attorney-General 
was authorized to inquire and determine to what extent, if 
any, the sovereignty of the Commonwealth had been violated 
by the Berkshire Power Company, a Connecticut corporation, 
which has erected and is now maintaining a dam across the 
Housatonic River in the State of Connecticut, and is alleged 
to have overflowed lands and highways in the town of Shef- 
field in this Commonwealth. In pursuance of this indication 
of the desire of the Legislature, I have personally inspected 
the territory affected, and further investigation upon the 
question involved is now in progress. 

Grade Crossings. 

At my suggestion, the Legislature, by St. 1908, c. 372, 
authorized the Attorney-General to employ a competent 
engineer, at an expense not exceeding $5,000 in one year, to 
examine under his direction the plans submitted to commis- 
sioners for the abolition of grade crossings, the actual work 
of construction and the accounts of expenditures submitted 
to auditors therein; and on June 4, 1908, I appointed Mr. 
Henry W. Hayes of Arlington as engineer of grade crossings 
for the Commonwealth. Mr. Hayes, beside being a competent 
civil engineer, had had a long experience and training in the 
work of railroad construction, and was thoroughly familiar 
with methods of railroad accounting, and he has proved of 
the greatest assistance in the work required of this depart- 
ment in connection with the abolition of grade crossings. 
There being no room available in the State House, an office 
was established for him at Room 35, No. 8 Beacon Street, 
where it is intended to have filed copies of the reports of the 
special commissions for the abolition of grade crossings, with 
all plans and other papers relating to such cases ; and a card 
index has been almost completed, which is designed to show 
the essential points in the history of each case. 

The total number of hearings on grade crossing matters 
at which the Commonwealth has been represented during 
the year was 65, and in several instances plans and estimates 



xxx ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

have been prepared and submitted to commissions on behalf 
of the Commonwealth. The engineer of grade crossings has 
inspected work of construction in progress at crossings in 
Boston (Dudley Street), East Boston, Worcester (west of 
South Worcester station), New Bedford, Belmont, Hyde 
Park (Eairmount), Barnstable, Williamstown and Somer- 
ville (Somerville Avenue) ; and a careful examination has 
been made of numerous statements of expenditures presented 
to auditors. In many cases objections have been made in 
behalf of the Commonwealth to what were deemed extrava- 
gant or unwarranted schemes for the elimination of crossings 
at grade presented to special commissions, and also to items 
which the Commonwealth deemed to have been improperly 
included in statements presented to auditors, — objections 
which I believe have already resulted and will result in con- 
siderable saving to the Commonwealth. The saving resulting 
by reason of the employment of the engineer will, in my 
opinion, be much greater than the expenditure for his salary 
and expenses. 

Masters in Chancery. 

By chapter 187 of the Acts of 1906 it was provided that 
masters in chancery should thereafter have jurisdiction and 
the right to act in any county. 

Under this law Suffolk masters have taken bail in counties 
removed from their places of residence. In some cases the 
sureties have been found worthless. 

This act should be amended so that the interests of the 
Commonwealth will be more securely guarded in bail cases, 
either by a provision for notice to the district attorney, or 
a limitation on the right to act on such cases. 

Capital Trials. 
My attention has been called to a recommendation made by 
two of my predecessors, that section 8 of chapter 157 of the 
Revised Laws be so amended that capital trials may be con- 
ducted by one or more justices of the Superior Court, rather 
than by two or more, as is now required. I am informed 
by the court that the change is desired because the detail 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxxi 

of two justices, with the amount of work now pending, gen- 
erally causes a suspension of one sitting of the court some- 
where. I call the matter to your attention for such action 
as you may see fit to take. 

Claims against the Commonwealth. 
I recommend an amendment to chapter 201 of the Re- 
vised Laws, as amended, so that claims of any amount 
against the Commonwealth shall be tried by three judges of 
the Superior Court, upon motion therefor by the Attorney- 
General; where no such motion is made, such cases may be 
tried by one judge of the Superior Court. I also recom- 
mend that, upon motion of the Attorney-General, an auditor 
or master may be appointed in such cases. 

Department of the Attorney-General. 
Notwithstanding the fact that many of the pending suits 
for land damages occasioned by takings of the various met- 
ropolitan boards and commissions have been disposed of, the 
work of this department has steadily increased. In 1904 
the department had upon its dockets 1,969 cases; in 1905, 
2,534 cases; in 1906, 2,858 cases; in 1907, 2,610 cases, and 
in 1908, 3,398 cases. In 1906 and 1907 some 250 suits 
for damages for land taken by, or upon causes arising out 
of the work of, the Metropolitan Park Commission, the 
Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board and the Highway 
Commission have been tried or otherwise disposed of; and, 
with the exception of the cases arising out of the construction 
of the Charles River dam, numbering 72, there are few 
cases of this character now pending. Upon the other hand, 
the passage of St. 1907, c. 340, which provides for the 
payment to the Treasurer and Receiver-General, upon ap- 
plication of the Attorney-General, of money upon deposit 
in savings banks which has remained unclaimed for more 
than thirty years, and of St. 1907, c. 284, which made the 
Commonwealth a party to all proceedings in connection with 
the settlement of estates by public administrators, has 
largely increased the volume of business of this department. 



xxxii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1909. 

Those statutes, together with the new legacy tax act (St. 
1907, c. 563), were responsible for the addition of 617 
cases to the dockets, and the collection of unpaid collateral 
legacy taxes, under the old law, for 230 cases. Again, the 
business corporation law, so called (St. 1903, c. 437), has 
resulted in materially adding to the work of the department ; 
and in the collection of taxes assessed thereunder and in 
other collections on behalf of the several departments of the 
Commonwealth the sum of $359,532.61 has been recovered 
and paid into the treasury of the Commonwealth. 

Since the passage of St. 1904, c. 344, in the case of towns, 
and St. 1908, c. 98, in the case of fire districts, by-laws of 
towns and fire districts become effective only after the ap- 
proval of the Attorney-General. During the past year I 
have finally acted upon by-laws adopted by 28 towns and 
by 1 fire district. Numerous other by-laws have been with- 
drawn for revision or correction after conferences with this 
department. 

In addition to work in connection with cases such as those 
I have already referred to, this department performs the 
important function of consulting with and advising State 
officers, boards^ and commissions; and, while the work so 
performed does not appear in the table of cases, it occupies 
much time and entails a great deal of work. Without count- 
ing informal and oral opinions, of which there are many, 
there were rendered during the past year 99 opinions in 
writing. Twenty-one cases have been argued before the 
full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court. 

Annexed to this report are the principal opinions submitted 
during the current year. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DANA MALONE, 

Attorney-General. 



OPINIONS. 



Veteran in the Service of the Commonwealth — Retirement — 
Compensation — Salary. 

In St. 1907, c. 458, § 1, providing that " a veteran of the civil war 
in the service of the commonwealth, if incapacitated for active 
duty, shall be retired from active service, with the consent of the 
governor, at one-half the rate of compensation paid to him when 
in active service, to be paid out of the treasury of the common- 
wealth," the word " compensation " is to be limited to salaries 
the exact amount of which is determined by law, and may not 
include living expenses or other like advantages, in addition to such 



Jan. 20, 1908. 
To His Excellency Curtis Guild, Jr., Governor. 

Sir : — In answer to Your Excellency's letter, enclosing a 
communication from the superintendent of the Medfield Insane 
Asylum, in regard to the pension case of an employee of said 
institution, I reply as follows : — 

This question depends upon the meaning of section 1 of 
chapter 458 of the Acts of 1907, which provides that: — 

A veteran of the civil war in the service of the commonwealth, 
if incapacitated for active duty, shall be retired from active service, 
with the consent of the governor, at one-half the rate of com- 
pensation paid to him when in active service, to be paid out of the 
treasury of the commonwealth. 

In the case submitted for my consideration, the veteran was 
paid a salary of $1,500 a year, and in addition received his board 
and lodging; and he now claims to be entitled to be retired at 
one-half such salary plus one-half the cash value of the board 
and lodging he was receiving at the time of his application. 

E. L., c. 6, § 58, provides that : — 

Salaries payable from the treasury shall, unless otherwise pro- 
vided, be paid on the first of each month and shall be in full for 
all services rendered to the commonwealth by the person to whom 
they are paid. 



2 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

This section itself, it seems to me, is decisive of the question 
now under consideration. The living expenses and like advan- 
tages which certain employees of the Commonwealth may enjoy 
are given to them not as salary, but as privileges which the 
nature or place of their duties require the Commonwealth to 
grant to them to secure the highest degree of efficiency. Such 
privileges may at any time be discontinued and the employee 
required to defray his own living expenses, should such a course 
be possible without injuring the efficiency of the employee or of 
any employee who may occupy the same position. It is not 
probable that the Legislature intended to reduce such items as 
living expenses to a monetary value without providing some 
means other than the claims of the employee himself for deter- 
mining the exact value of such privileges ; and it must follow, I 
think, that the word " compensation " is to be limited to salaries, 
the exact amount of which is determined by law and may always 
be speedily ascertained by the Governor and Council. 
Very respectfully yours, 

Dana Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



Taxation — Street Railway Corporation — Receiver — Returns 
to Local Assessors — Liability for Tax. 

St. 1906, c. 463, Part III., § 133, requiring a street railway corporation 
to make a return to the board of assessors of every city and town 
of the amount of gross receipts for the year ending on the pre- 
ceding 30th of September, and of the length of track operated, 
requires a street railway company to make such return, notwith- 
standing such company has gone into the hands of a receiver, 
and its franchises and property have been sold prior to Septem- 
ber 30, under the provisions of St. 1906, c. 463, Part III., $ 144, 
to another corporation, organized for the purpose of owning and 
operating such road; and the tax provided for by section 134 of 
Part III. of such statute may be assessed upon it and may be col- 
lected from the purchasing company. 

Jan. 27, 1908. 
Hon. William D. T. Trefry, Tax Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion upon certain 
facts growing out of the sale of the property and franchises of 
the South Middlesex Street Railway Company to the Middlesex 
& Boston Street Railway Company. You state that the South 
Middlesex Street Railway Company went into the hands of a 
receiver, and that its propert}^ and franchises were sold by the 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 3 

receiver in July, 1907; that the Middlesex & Boston Street 
Railway Company was organized to own and operate said road, 
and that the former company did not, on Sept. 30, 1907, own 
or operate any track. 

Your questions are, first, whether the South Middlesex Street 
Railway Company is required to make a return to the local 
assessors for the year ending Sept. 30, 1907, of the length of 
track operated by it in public ways and places, and of its gross 
receipts, in accordance with the provisions of St. 1906, c. 463, 
Part III., § 133 ; and, second, whether this company is liable 
to taxation under the provisions of section 134 of this statute, 
and, if so, whether the tax may be collected from the purchasing 
company. 

I am of opinion that the original company is required to make 
a return in accordance with the provisions of section 133 of the 
statute cited, and is liable to taxation under section 134 thereof. 

The statute requires a return of the amount of the gross re- 
ceipts for the year ending on the preceding thirtieth day of 
September, and of the length of track operated. It is not neces- 
sary that the company making the return should be operating 
the road on the thirtieth day of September. The statute requires 
a statement of the gross receipts for the year ending at that 
time. Unlike the statute providing for the corporate franchise 
tax (St. 1906, c. 463, Part III., § 125), it does not require that 
the length of track operated be taken at any particular time. 
There is no reason why the original company should not make 
the return required by statute. 

Furthermore, there is no reason why it should not be liable 
for the tax. This tax is not based upon the value of the fran- 
chise at the time of assessment (see Commonwealth v. Lancaster 
Savings Bank, 123 Mass. 493), but is a payment for the use of 
the streets and highways. Such a tax may be laid on a corpora- 
tion in the hands of a receiver as well as a property tax. 
City National Bank v. Charles Baker Company, 180 Mass. 40. 

If the tax is not laid on the original company, it cannot be 
laid at all. It is a tax imposed in lieu of payment for the care 
and repair of streets and highways. Springfield v. Springfield 
Street Railway, 182 Mass. 41, 45 ; Boston v. Union Freight Rail- 
road Co., 181 Mass. 205; McDonald v. Union Freight Railroad 
Co., 190 Mass. 123. It is in lieu of pajrment for the care and 
repair of streets and highways for the year covered by the gross 
receipts returned. Since it is based on gross receipts per mile, 



4 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

the cities and towns in which the railway is operated will receive 
nothing in lieu of payment for care and repairs for the period 
during which the road was operated by the original company, 
unless a tax is assessed upon such company. Clearly, the Legis- 
lature did not intend that the cities and towns within which a 
street railway was operated should be required to bear the burden 
of caring for and repairing streets and highways merely because 
the franchises and property of the railway company were sold 
during the tax year. 

Though the return must be made by the original company, 
and the tax assessed upon it, the tax may, in my opinion, be 
collected from the purchasing company. I assume that the 
franchises and property of the company were purchased under 
authority of St. 1906, c. 463, Part III., § 144, which provides 
that the purchaser shall hold and possess the railway, franchises 
and property " subject to the same duties and liabilities as the 
original street railway company ; " but it provides that no action 
shall be brought against such purchasers " to enforce any lia- 
bility incurred by said original company, except debts and liabil- 
ities owing from said original company to any city or town 
within which the railway is operated, and taxes and assessments 
for which said original company is liable under the statutes 
relating to street railways, which shall be assumed and paid by 
said new company." 

The liability for the commutation tax imposed by the sections 
above cited upon the original compan} r is, in my opinion, such a 
liability as the purchasing company is required to assume, and 
is such a liability incurred by the original company as may be 
the ground for an action against the new company. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



Pauper Law — State Pauper — Aid rendered in Place of Settle- 
ment of ]Yife — City or Town — Reimbursement by Com- 
monwealth — Notice. 

Where a town seeks reimbursement under the provision of E. L., c. 85, 
§ 16, that " if a state pauper has a wife who is also a pauper having 
a legal settlement in the commonwealth, he shall be supported by 
the place where his wife has her settlement, and the commonwealth 
upon written notice to the state board of charity within sixty days 
after aid is first given to him shall reimburse such place," such 
town must show that notice was given strictly in accordance with 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 5 

the terms of the provision for reimbursement; and a town is not 
entitled to be reimbursed for expenses incurred for a period of 
sixty days prior to the date of notice, when more than sixty days 
have elapsed since aid was first rendered. 

Feb. 14, 1908. 
J. F. Lewis, M.D., Superintendent of State Adult Poor. 

Dear Sir : — My opinion is requested by you with respect to 
a claim made by the overseers of the poor of the town of Easton, 
under the following circumstances : — 

On Aug. 12, 1907, the town of Braintree notified the State 
Board of Charity that an unsettled male pauper was receiving 
pauper relief; and on Aug. 16, 1907, Braintree notified the town 
of Easton that the former was aiding the family, and claimed 
that the wife of the pauper and his children had settlements in 
Easton. These settlements apparently are not denied by the 
town of Easton. Some time subsequent to the latter date the 
State Board notified the overseers of the poor of Braintree that 
it considered the case in question closed, for the reason that the 
wife had a settlement in Easton, and that if any claim is made 
upon the Commonwealth it should come from that place. On 
Dec. 3, 1907, the town of Easton notified the State Board, 
making a claim for the man's share of the aid given, to which 
the State Board replied that the notice was too late, not coming 
within sixty days after aid was first rendered to the pauper in 
question in accordance- with the provisions of section 16 of 
chapter 85 of the Revised Laws. The town of Easton contends 
that it is entitled to reimbursement for the period of sixty days 
prior to its notice, irrespective of the time which has elapsed 
subsequent to the rendering of the first aid. 

R. L., c. 85, § 16, provides that : — 

If a state pauper has a wife who is also a pauper having a legal 
settlement in this commonwealth, he shall be supported by the place 
where his wife has her settlement ; but the commonwealth upon writ- 
ten notice to the state board of charity within sixty days after 
aid is first given to him, shall reimburse such place the cost of such 
support based upon the expense of supporting him had he been 
committed to the state hospital. 

In my opinion, the contention of the State Board of Charity 
must be sustained. I think the words of the statute are clear 
and unambiguous, to the effect that the Commonwealth shall 



6 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

only reimburse cities and towns npon written notice within sixty 
days after aid is first given. I find nothing in the history of 
this section which tends to put any other interpretation upon 
the words used. 

Very truly yours, 

Dana M alone, Attorney-General. 



Insurance — Investment of Funds — Secured Loans — Mort- 
gages. 

Under the provisions of St. 1907, e. 576, § 37, that the capital of any- 
domestic insurance company other than life, and three-fourths of 
the reserve of any domestic stock or mutual life insurance company, 
shall be invested as therein prescribed, a domestic life insurance 
company may invest its funds in loans secured by assessable stock 
of any trust company or bank; or in loans secured by stock, bonds 
and other collateral, whether or not such collateral is designated in 
St. 1907, c. 576, § 37, clauses 1 to 5, inclusive; or in loans upon 
mortgages of real estate to an amount exceeding 60 per cent, of 
the fair market value of the property mortgaged at the time of 
such loan. 

Feb. 20, 1908. 

Hon. Frank H. Hardison, Insurance Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — My opinion is requested by you upon the fol- 
lowing questions : — ■ 

1. Whether or not it is lawful for a domestic life insurance com- 
pany to invest any of its funds in loans secured by assessable stock 
of any trust company or bank as collateral. 

2. Whether or not it is lawful for such a company to invest any 
of its funds in loans secured by stocks, bonds or other collateral not 
designated in sub -divisions 1 to 5, inclusive, of section 37 of chapter 
576 of the Acts of 1907. 

3. Whether or not it is lawful for such a company to invest any 
of its funds in loans upon mortgages of real estate to an amount 
exceeding 60 per cent, of the fair market value of the property 
at the time of such loan. 

In my opinion, all of these inquiries must be answered in the 
affirmative. 

St. 1907, c. 576, § 37, provides: — 

The capital of any domestic insurance company other than life, 
and three fourths of the reserve of any domestic stock or mutual 
life insurance company, shall be invested only as follows : — - 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 7 

4. In loans upon improved and unencumbered real property in 
any state of the United States, provided that no loan on such real 
property shall exceed sixty per cent of the fair market value thereof 
at the time of such loan, . . . 

7. In loans secured by collateral security consisting of any of 
the above. 

The word " above " here refers to the earlier clauses providing 
for investment in United States or State bonds, municipal bonds, 
school and water district bonds, railroad or street railway bonds 
and notes. 



8. No domestic life insurance company shall invest any of its 
funds in any unincorporated business or enterprise, nor in the 
stocks or evidence of indebtedness of any corporation, the owners 
or holders of which stock or evidence of indebtedness may in any 
event be or become liable on account thereof to any assessment ex- 
cept for taxes, nor shall such life insurance company invest any 
of its funds in its own stock or in the stock of any other insurance 
company. No such company shall invest in, acquire or hold directly 
or indirectly more than ten per cent of the capital stock of any cor- 
poration, nor shall more than ten per cent of its capital and surplus 
be invested in the stock of any one corporation. . . . nor shall any- 
such company enter into any agreement to withhold from sale any 
of its property, but the disposition of its property shall be at all 
times within the control of its board of directors. 

9. Nothing herein shall prevent such company from investing or 
loaning any funds not required to be invested as provided hi sub- 
divisions one to seven, inclusive, of this section in any manner that 
the directors of such life insurance company may determine: pro- 
vided, however, that such funds shall not be invested in the purchase 
of stocks or evidence of indebtedness prohibited by sub-division 
eight of this section, and provided that no loan of such funds shall 
be made to an individual or firm unless it is secured by collateral 
security. 

It is clear that the capital and one-fourth of the reserve of a 
domestic life insurance company is limited only as to invest- 
ments by clauses 8 and 9. The prohibited investment under 
section 8 means the purchase and ownership by a domestic life 
insurance company of stock or evidence of indebtedness of a 
company liable to assessments other than taxes. That prohibi- 
tion does not extend to loans made by a domestic company, 
which are limited only by the proviso of clause 9, to the effect 



8 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

that no loan shall be made unless it is secured by collateral 
security. In m}^ opinion, the whole of the capital stock and 
one-fourth of the reserve of a domestic life insurance company 
may be invested in loans to individuals or firms secured by stock 
of a trust company or bank which is assessable otherwise than 
for taxes. 

The same reasoning applies to the second question. In my 
opinion, there is no limitation upon the class or nature of the 
collateral security required under the above quoted proviso of 
clause 9. Consequently, the whole of the capital and one-fourth 
of the reserve of such a company may be invested in loans 
secured by stocks, bonds or other collateral not designated in 
clauses 1 to 5, inclusive. 

As to the third inquiry, I do not think that mortgages of 
real estate are controlled by clause 9, and, except as otherwise 
expressly provided by clause 4 of this section, a company may 
invest any of its funds in loans upon mortgages of real estate 
to such an amount as it sees fit, and is not limited to 60 per 
cent, of the fair market value. 

Very truly yours, 

Dana M alone, Attorney-General. 



Secretary of the Commonwealth — History of Unit of Military 
Organization of Massachusetts Volunteers — Approval by 
Proper Veteran Association — Purchase of Copies. 

St. 1893, c. 413, § 1, as amended by St. 1899, c. 388, authorizing the 
purchase by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, subject to the 
restrictions therein prescribed, of 500 copies of a history of any 
regiment, battery or other unit of military organization of Massa- 
chusetts Volunteers, prepared and published " under the sanction 
and authority of its proper veteran association," permits the pur- 
chase of the designated number of copies of such a publication 
sanctioned and approved by certain late officers of the organization 
appointed by the members thereof for the purpose, although no 
veteran association exists in connection with such organization. 

Feb. 25, 1908. 
E. F. Hamlin, Esq., Executive Secretary. 

Dear Sir : — I have your inquiry of February 20 respecting 
the authority of certain late officers of the Eighth Massachusetts 
Infantry, United States Volunteers, to approve, under the pro- 
visions of St. 1893, c. 413, § 1, the publication of a history of 
such regiment during the Spanish war, entitled " Twelve 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 9 

Months with the Eighth Massachusetts Infantry in the Service 
of the United States." Section 1 of the statute above cited is 
as follows : — 

Whenever, after the passage of this act, any regiment or battery, 
or other unit of military organization of Massachusetts volunteers, 
shall publish or shall have prepared for publication a history of 
such organization, under the sanction and authority of its proper 
veteran association, which history shall be shown to the satisfaction 
of the governor and council to be, so far as is practicable in such 
works, faithfully and accurately prepared and historically correct, 
to contain matter not previously published or accessible to the gen- 
eral historian, to be of sufficient reliability and importance to 
justify the purchase of copies as herein provided for, and to con- 
tain a complete roster of the organization, corrected to the date 
of publication, the secretary of the commonwealth, with the ap- 
proval of the governor and council, and at a price fixed by them, 
shall purchase five hundred copies of such history. Said history 
shall be in one volume, and the price thereof shall not exceed two 
dollars for a volume of four hundred octavo pages. 

The provisions of the statute above quoted were, by St. 1899, 
c. 388, made applicable to histories of organizations of Massa- 
chusetts volunteers which saw active service in the field during 
the Spanish war. 

The specific inquiry presented by your communication is 
whether or not the certificate of approval which you submitted 
is a sufficient compliance with the provision of St. 1893, c. 413, 
§ 1, requiring that such publication should be under the sanction 
and authority of the proper veteran association of the military 
organization whose history is in question. The undoubted pur- 
pose of such provision was to secure the approval of such veteran 
association, if any, to the publication of any history of the 
organization which it represents. In the present instance it is 
true that there was in existence no regular association of veterans 
of the Spanish war who had served in the Eighth Massachusetts 
Volunteer Infantry; but if, as I assume, the members of such 
regiment who would be eligible to membership in a veteran 
association associated themselves together and duly selected a 
committer to represent them, which committee examined the pub- 
lication and duly sanctioned and authorized the same, as appears 
from the certificate of approval above referred to, I am of opinion 
that the terms of the statute have been substantially complied 



10 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

with in the premises, and that the Secretary of the Common- 
wealth is authorized to deal with the publication already referred 
to as directed in St. 1893, c. 413, § 1. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana M alone, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Appropriation — Public Purpose — Lia- 
bility of Commonwealth for Act of Insane Person Released 
on Parole. 

The Commonwealth is not liable for any act of or injury caused by 
an insane person released from a public asylum on parole, by au- 
thority of St. 1905, c. 435, § 1; and an appropriation for the pur- 
pose of compensating the widow of a member of an unpaid 
commission in the service of the Commonwealth, who was killed 
by an insane person so released on parole, is not for a public pur- 
pose, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. 

March 11, 1908. 
Robert Luce, Esq., Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means. 

Dear Sir : — You ask my opinion on the following ques- 
tions : — 

1. Is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, if any, for injury 
caused by an insane person released from a public asylum on parole, 
such as may constitutionally be recognized by the Legislature through 
a compensatory appropriation? 

Chapter 435 of the Acts of 1905 provides in section 1 that: — 

The superintendent or keeper of any institution, public or private, 
used wholly or in part for the care of the insane, may permit any 
inmate thereof temporarily to leave such institution in charge of 
his guardian, relatives, friends or by himself, for a period not ex- 
ceeding six months, and may receive him when returned by any 
such guardian, relatives, friends or upon his own application within 
such period, without any further order of commitment. The ex- 
pense of such return of a pauper may be paid by the state board 
of insanity, if, in its opinion, a new commitment would otherwise 
be necessary. 

It is therefore clear that an insane person may be released 
from a public asylum on parole. Even if the superintendent 
acted improperly, no government has ever held itself liable to 
individuals for the misfeasance, laches or unauthorized exercise 
of power by its officers and agents. In the language of Judge 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 11 

Story, " it does not undertake to guarantee to any person the 
fidelity of any of the officers or agents whom it employs, since 
that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrass- 
ments and difficulties and losses which would be subversive of 
the public interests." Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 274. 
Therefore, whether the insane person was properly released or 
not, no liability attached on the part of the Commonwealth. 
If an appropriation of money to be raised by taxation is con- 
templated in a case of this kind, it would be by way of gift, 
and would clearly be an excess of legislative power. 

I am of opinion, therefore, that such appropriation cannot be 
constitutionally made. 

2. Would an appropriation to the widow of a member of an un- 
paid commission be an appropriation for a public purpose? 

The power of the government to affect the individual in his 
private rights of property is confined to purposes and objects 
alone which the government was established to promote, public 
uses and the public service. 

I am informed that the appropriation suggested is to the 
widow of one of the five members of the Commission on Com- 
merce and Industry, appointed pursuant to chapter 104 of the 
Resolves of 1907. This commission had been appointed about 
six months, and had not made its report when Edward Cohen, 
one of the members, was shot in an anteroom of the Executive 
Chamber at the State House. 

The power to give rewards after the event for conspicuous 
public service, if it exists at all, is limited to cases where a man 
has deserved greatly of the Commonwealth by military or civil 
services in which the public advantage of recognizing his merit 
should be the strong element, and " the public welfare alone 
must be the ground, as it is the only legal justification for this 
kind of payment." Opinion of Justices, 175 Mass. 602. Can it 
be fairly said that a member of a commission, paid or unpaid, 
who had been in the service of the Commonwealth only for a 
few months, whose report had not been made, has deserved 
greatly of the Commonwealth by conspicuous service which 
would be entitled to a reward by way of gift? It seems to me 
that it cannot be fairly thought that the public good will be 
served by such a grant, and that in such a case the only public 
advantage is such as may be incident and collateral to the 
relief of a private citizen. 



12 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

I am of opinion that an appropriation to the widow of such 
a person is not for a public purpose, and cannot be made under 
the Constitution. 

3. Would an appropriation to the widow of one not in the service 
of the Commonwealth, injured while in a public building-, whether 
or not through the negligence of any servant of the Commonwealth, 
be an appropriation for a public purpose? 

I understand that this question refers to the shooting by an 
insane person of Dennis D. Driscoll, who was not in the employ 
of the Commonwealth, but who was waiting in the anteroom of 
the Executive Chamber with Edward Cohen for the purpose of 
interviewing His Excellency the Governor on the question of the 
pardon of a prisoner in the State Prison at Charlestown. I am 
of opinion that a payment by the Commonwealth, to the widow 
of a person shot as aforesaid, of any sum of money merely by 
reason of his happening to be at the State House on an unofficial 
matter when he received his injury, would not be for a public 
purpose within the meaning of the law; and that there is no 
more reason for such payment than there would be if the person 
were elsewhere — upon the streets or in any building — when 
he was shot, and that such an appropriation would not be for a 
public purpose. 

Very truly yours, 

Daxa Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Lav; — Taxation — Appropriation of Public 
Funds — Public Purpose — Religious Society, School or 
Institution — Sectarian Control. 

A society, school or institution -which is under direct ecclesiastical or 
sectarian control, and is designed solely or even principally for the 
benefit of persons of a particular sect or denomination, cannot be 
held to be maintained for a public purpose such as would justify 
an expenditure of money raised by taxation; and an appropriation 
for the benefit of such society, school or institution from the public 
funds raised by taxation would be unconstitutional. 

April 6, 1908. 
Hon. John TV. Cole, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Sir : — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of an 
order adopted by the Honorable House of Representatives on 
the twenty-eighth day of February, 1908, requiring my opinion, 
as follows : — 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 13 

Ordered, That the Attorney-General be requested to submit to the 
House of Representatives his opinion in writing upon the following 
question: Under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, 
can a State, county, city, town, village or other civil division use 
its property or credit, or any money raised by taxation or otherwise, 
or authorize either to be used, for the purpose of founding, main- 
taining- or aiding by appropriation or in any other manner any 
church, religious denomination or religious society, or any institu- 
tion, school, society or undertaking which is under sectarian or 
ecclesiastical control ? 

The question is a somewhat broad one, but for the purposes 
of this inquiry I assume that the Honorable House of Repre- 
sentatives in substance desires my opinion on the question 
whether or not public moneys raised by taxation may, under the 
constitutional provisions, be expended by the Commonwealth or 
by any county, city or town thereof for the purpose of founding, 
maintaining or otherwise aiding any church, religious denomina- 
tion or religious society or any institution, school, society or 
undertaking which is under sectarian or ecclesiastical control. 
On this assumption I submit the following conclusions : — 

The right to appropriate public funds for specific purposes 
is no more extensive than the power to levy taxes for such 
specific purposes. The power of taxation has been defined and 
limited by the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Article 
IV. of section I. of chapter I., part second, declares that the 
purposes for which the power of taxation in its various forms 
may be exercised by the Legislature are " for the public service, 
in the necessary defence and support of the government of the 
said commonwealth, and the protection and preservation of the 
subjects thereof." Article XL of section I. of chapter II. re- 
stricts the issuing of moneys from the treasury to purposes of 
" the necessary defence and support of the commonwealth ; and 
for the protection and preservation of the inhabitants thereof, 
agreeably to the acts and resolves of the general court." 

In Lowell v. Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 460, it is said that: — 

The power to levy taxes is founded on the right, duty and respon- 
sibility to maintain and administer all the governmental functions 
of the State, and to provide for the public welfare. To justify any 
exercise of the power requires that the expenditure which it is in- 
tended to meet shall be for some public service, or some object which 
concerns the public welfare. 



14 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

And in Mead v. Acton, 139 Mass. 341, 344, the court said: — 

The right to tax is the right to raise money by assessing the 
citizens for the support of the government and the use of the State. 
The term " taxation " imports the raising of money for public use, 
and excludes the raising of it for private uses. (Opinion of the 
Justices, 186 Mass. 604.) 

The question is in each case, therefore, whether or not the 
purpose for which money is to be appropriated and spent is a 
public purpose, or, in connection with the precise question under 
consideration, whether or not the establishment, maintenance 
or aid of a church, religious denomination or religious society 
or of any institution, school, society or undertaking which is 
under sectarian or ecclesiastical control may be a public purpose 
which would justify the appropriation and use of public money. 

With respect to churches and religious societies or denomina- 
tions in general, the question is disposed of by a consideration 
of the existing provisions of the Constitution and of the history 
of their enactment. The original provision of the Constitution 
embodied in the bill of rights (article III.) expressly em- 
powered the Legislature to compel the several towns, parishes 
and other political divisions of the Commonwealth to provide 
for public worship, and failure so to do was in some cases sub- 
ject even to indictment. See Commonwealth v. Waterborough, 
5 Mass. 257. As a necessary consequence of this duty, the 
towns and parishes of the Commonwealth were authorized to 
raise money by taxation for the purpose of maintaining and 
supporting " public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and 
morality " in all cases where such provision was not voluntarily 
made. St. 1799, c. 87. And fines and penalties were provided 
for the failure so to do. It remained for the constitutional 
amendment duly adopted in 1834 to put an end to taxation for 
the support of churches or religious societies. The final words 
of this amending article (article XL of the articles of amend- 
ment) are as follows : — 

and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another 
shall ever be established by law. 

It is true that the Commonwealth still aids churches or re- 
ligious societies of every sect and denomination by a general 
exemption from taxation of their property (see E. L., c. 12, 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 15 

§ 5, cl. 7) ; but I am constrained to conclude that in respect of 
particular religious societies or churches an appropriation of 
public moneys raised by taxation for their benefit would be im- 
■constitutional and void, for the reason that such appropriation 
would not be for a public body, but for an association of individ- 
uals (see Kingman v. Brockton, 153 Mass. 255), and might be 
objectionable for the reason that it effected a subordination of 
one sect or denomination to another, contrary to the final pro- 
vision of article XL of the Amendments to the Constitution of 
the Commonwealth hereinbefore referred to. 

In the case of schools, so far as such schools fall within the 
limits of the system of education required to be established and 
maintained by the cities and towns of the Commonwealth the 
rule seems to be equally well established and definite. Article 
XVIII. of the Amendments to the Constitution is as follows : — 

All moneys raised by taxation in the towns and cities for the 
support of public schools, and all moneys which may be appropriated 
by the state for the support of common schools, shall be applied to, 
and expended in, no other schools than those which are conducted 
according to law, under the order and superintendence of the au- 
thorities of the town or city in which the money is to be expended; 
and such money shall never be appropriated to any religious sect 
for the maintenance, exclusively, of its own school. 

The terms " public schools " and " common schools," as used 
in this amendment, have been repeatedly defined. So in Jenkins 
v. Andover, 103 Mass. 94, 99, the court said : — 

These are the schools to which the eighteenth article applies, — 
schools which towns are required to maintain, or authorized to main- 
tain, though not required to do so, as a part of our system of com- 
mon education, and which are open and free to all the children and 
youth of the towns in which they are situated, who are of proper age 
or qualifications to attend them, or which adjoining towns may unite 
to support as a part of the same system. . . . This class of schools 
does not include private schools which are supported and managed 
by individuals; nor colleges or academies organized and maintained 
under special charters for promoting the higher branches of learn- 
ing, and not specially intended for, nor limited to, the inhabitants 
of a particular locality. 

In the case of all such schools an appropriation of public 
money to or for the benefit of any religious sect for the mainte- 



16 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

nance exclusively of its own school is expressly forbidden. See 
Jenkins v. Andover, above cited. 

Upon the other hand,, it has long been the custom of the Com- 
monwealth to aid by grants of land, by immunity from taxation, 
and even by direct appropriation of mone} r , the establishment 
and maintenance of colleges, technical schools and other institu- 
tions of higher learning. The distinction between an appropria- 
tion for public schools and for the institutions of higher learn- 
ing has been pointed out in Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen, 500, 
508, as follows : — 

The phrases " public schools " and " common schools " have ac- 
quired under the legislation and practice of this State a well-settled 
signification. They are never applied to the higher seminaries of 
learning, such as incorporated academies and colleges. These, in a 
certain broad and comprehensive sense, are public institutions, be- 
cause they are controlled by corporations and are usually open to 
all persons who are willing to comply with the terms of admission 
and tuition. But the broad line of distinction between these and 
the " public or common schools " is, that the latter are supported 
by general taxation, that they are open to all free of expense, and 
that they are under the immediate control and superintendence of 
agents appointed by the voters of each town and city. That the 
amendment was intended to apply only to these schools is manifest, 
not only from the terms in which it is expressed, but also from the 
history of its origin and adoption as part of the organic law. 

The assistance granted the higher institutions of learning,. 
therefore, is based upon the proposition that the constitutional 
provision did not apply to them, and that the establishment and 
maintenance of such institutions is a public purpose for which 
the Constitution does not forbid the appropriation of money 
raised by taxation. Upon the other hand, a school, society or 
institution which is under direct sectarian or ecclesiastical con- 
trol, and was designed solely, or even principally, for the benefit 
of persons of that particular sect or denomination, and for no 
others, could not be deemed to be maintained for a public pur- 
pose which would warrant an appropriation of the public funds. 

Replying to the specific question of the Honorable House of 
Representatives, the principles above described are in my opinion 
equally applicable to any institution, society or undertaking for 
which it is asked that public money be appropriated. I appre- 
hend that the question in each case must be whether or not the 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 17 

purpose which it is sought to aid is a public purpose, and such 
question is to be determined upon the facts then presented. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, A ttorney-General. 



( '/'/•// Service — Exemption — Officer — Clerk of Chief of Police. 

The clerk of the chief of police of the city of Worcester, who is ap- 
pointed by such chief of police, subject to confirmation by the city 
council, and whose duties are such clerical duties as may be pre- 
scribed by such chief of police, is not an " officer " within the 
meaning of R. L., c. 19, § 9, which excepts from the operation of 
the civil service law and rules " and officers . . . whose appointment 
is subject to confirmation by the . . . city council of any city," and 
the appointment of such clerk must be made in accordance with the 
requirements of such law and rules. 

April 13, 1908. 
Hon. Charles Warren, Chairman, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : — You request my opinion upon certain questions 
in regard to the position of clerk of the chief of police of the 
city of Worcester. You advise me that on Feb. 3, 1908, the city 
council of that city passed an ordinance which provides as 
follows : — 

Section 1. In the month of February, nineteen hundred and 
eight, and in the month of January of each alternate year thereafter, 
the chief of police shall appoint a clerk, subject to confirmation by 
the city council as hereinafter provided. 

Section 2. The appointment of clerk of the chief of police, 
made as provided in section one of this ordinance, shall take effect 
when confirmed by the city council of the city of Worcester, and 
approved by the mayor. 

Section 3. The clerk of the chief of police shall be under the 
sole direction of, and his duties shall be such as are prescribed by, 
the chief of police. 

Xo statement is made by you as to the duties prescribed for 
such clerk by the chief of police, but I assume that they are 
ordinary clerical duties. 

You make several inquiries, but in my view of the law a reply 
to one of them will, I think, be sufficient to enable you to per- 
form your duty in the premises. This question is as follows : — 

Is the appointment of a clerk of the chief of police, made under 
the above ordinance and without due requisition and certification 
under the civil service law and rules, a legal appointment? 



18 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

My answer is that such appointment is not a legal appoint- 
ment. The position of clerk of the chief of police is within the 
civil service rules, unless it is expressly excepted therefrom. The 
only exception which with any show of reason could be held to 
apply to a person holding that position is the exception of " offi- 
cers . . . whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the 
. . . city council of any city." R. L., c. 19, § 9. In my opinion, 
however, a clerk of a chief of police is not an " officer " within 
the meaning of the word as here used. 

That there is a distinction between public " office " and public 
"employment" is well settled. Brown v. Russell, 166 Mass. 14, 
25; Attorney-General v. Drolxan, 169 Mass. 53-1, 535. See, also, 
Opinion of the Justices, 166 Mass. 589. This distinction is 
recognized in the statutes of this Commonwealth relating to 
civil service. E. L., c. 19, §§ 9, 23, 25, 26, 28 and 32. Cf. St. 
1884, c. 320, §§ 2, 14. See, also, Brown v. Russell, supra; 
Opinion of the Justices, supra. The principal test as to whether 
or not a position is an office, as distinguished from an employ- 
ment, is whether or not it involves " a delegation of a portion of 
the sovereign power to, and possession of it by, a person filling 
the office." 1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 72. The position in question does 
not satisfy this requirement. The method of appointment and 
the period of service, whether fixed or otherwise, may properly 
be considered in determining whether or not a position is an 
" office " or an " employment," but are not decisive. " The deci- 
sive question is whether the real character and functions of the 
place in question make it an office or an employment in the 
sense of the law and in view of the distinction thereby estab- 
lished." 1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 72, 73. 

The line of distinction between offices and employments is 
clearly not the same as that between positions in the official 
service and in the labor service, under civil service rules. Many 
positions in the official service are not offices within the meaning 
of the word as used in section 9 of chapter 19 of the Revised 
Laws. 

In my view of the law I am sustained by an opinion of my 
predecessor, from which I have quoted above, in which he stated 
that in his opinion a clerk to the board of overseers of the poor 
of the city of Lawrence, holding a position which called merely 
for clerical service and assistance to the chief clerk, was not an 
" elective officer " within the meaning of the civil service law 
as it then stood. St. 1884, c. 320, § 15. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 19 

The principles which 1 have stated arc equally applicable to 

the position of night janitor of the city hall of Salem. The 
ordinary duties of a night janitor are not such as to constitute 
him an "officer" within the meaning of seel ion 9 of chapter 19 
of the Revised Laws. 

Very truly your,-. 

Dana Malum;. Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Lair — Public Funds — Appropriation — Public 
Purpose — Money not directly raised by Taxation. 

Since the relief of persons who have suffered loss by fire, or by other 
great and general calamity, is not a public purpose which will 
justify the expenditure of public funds, an appropriation of public 
money for such purpose is unconstitutional, and it is immaterial 
that the money sought to be so appropriated was not directly raised 
by taxation, but Avas received from the sale and rental of lands 
belonging to the Commonwealth. 

April 14, 1908. 

Hon. William D. Chapple, Chairman of the Senate Committee on 

Bides. 

Dear Sir : — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
a communication from the Senate committee on rules, requesting 
my opinion " as to the constitutionality of the enclosed bill 
accompanying the petition of William M. Robinson for legisla- 
tion for the relief of the sufferers by the recent fire in Chelsea." 
The bill submitted with such communication is in the form of 
a resolve, and is as follows : — 

Resolved, That there may be expended for the relief of sufferers 
from the recent fire in the city of Chelsea a sum not exceeding' one 
hundred thousand dollars, the same to be taken from the Common- 
wealth's flats improvement fund, created by chapter two hundred 
and thirty-seven of the acts of the year eighteen hundred and seventy- 
eight, and to be expended under the direction of the governor. 

It has long been established in this Commonwealth that money 
raised by taxation may be expended only for a public purpose. 
Lowell v. Oliver. 8 Allen, 247, 253; Mead v. Acton, 139 Mass. 
341, 344; Kingman et ah, Petitioners, 153 Mass. 566; Opinion 
of the Justices, 155 Mass. 598, 601 ; Opinion of the Justices, 186 
Mass. 603, 605; Opinion of the Justices, 190 Mass. 611, 613. 
And it is equally well settled that the relief of persons who have 



20 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

suffered loss by fire or by other great and general calamity is 
not in a legal souse a public purpose. So, in the case of Loir ell 
v. Boston, 111 Mass. 4,54:, at page 472, in considering the consti- 
tutionality of St. 1872, c. 364, an act authorizing the city of 
Boston to issue bonds and lend the proceeds on mortgage to the 
owners of land, the buildings upon which were burned by the 
great fire of 1872, the court, through Mr. Justice Wells, said : — 

As a judicial question the ease is not changed b} T the magnitude 
of the calamity which has created the emergency, nor by the great- 
ness of the emergency or the extent and importance of the interests 
to be promoted. These are considerations affecting only the pro- 
priety and expediency of the expenditure as a legislative question. 
If the expenditure is, in its nature, such as will justify taxation under 
any state of circumstances, it belongs to the Legislature exclusively 
to determine whether it shall be authorized in the particular case; 
and however slight the emergency, or limited or unimportant the 
interests to be promoted thereby, the court has no authority to re- 
vise the legislative action. 

On the other hand, if its nature is such as not to justify taxation 
in any and all cases in which the Legislature might see fit to give 
authority therefor, no stress of circumstances affecting the expedi- 
ency, importance or general desirableness of the measure, and no 
concurrence of legislative and municipal action, or preponderance of 
popular favor in any particular case, will supply the element neces- 
sary to bring it within the scope of legislative power. 

The proposed resolve does not. upon its face, disclose or indi- 
cate an expenditure of the sum appropriated thereby for any 
exclusively public purpose, and I conceive, therefore, that the 
precise inquiry upon which your committee seeks my opinion is 
the question whether or not the fact that the proposed appro- 
priation is to be made from a specific fund created from moneys 
received from the sale or use of the Commonwealth's lands (see 
St. 1878, c. 237) is sufficient to distinguish the present case in 
principle from those already cited, so as to permit an appropria- 
tion of public moneys for purposes not strictly public. 

L r pon this question I am constrained to advise your committee 
that in my opinion it is immaterial that the proposed resolve 
contemplates an expenditure of money wdiich was not raised 
directly by taxation, but which was received from the sale and 
rental of lands belonging to the Commonwealth. 

It must, I think, be obvious that monev so received is an asset 



1909.] PUBLIC 1 DOCUMENT — No. 12. 21 

of the Commonwealth and is public money available for public 
purposes, and that its employment for other than public pur- 
poses must necessarily require sums to replace it which can be 
raised only by taxation. Upon this point my opinion is con- 
firmed by the language of the highest court of the Common- 
wealth in considering St. 1904, c. 458, an act which provided 
for the payment of bounties to certain veterans of the civil war 
(Opinion of the Justices, 186 Mass. 603, 605), which was as 
follows : — ■ 

Section 6 authorizes an issue of bonds of the Commonwealth to 
provide for the payments to be made under the act, and authorizes 
an appropriation of money to pay the bonds, out of the sums that 
shall be received from the United States government for expenses 
incurred by the Commonwealth in connection with the civil war. 
Under St. 1903, c. 471, these sums are to be paid into the treasury 
of the Commonwealth for the reduction of the public debt, and 
the effect of the statute before us is to take from the treasury, for 
the payment of these bounties, money which ultimately can be re- 
placed only by taxation. We are therefore brought to the question 
whether it is in the power of the Legislature to tax the people of 
the Commonwealth to provide money for this purpose. 

Moreover, the question seems also to have been decided in 
Lowell v. Boston, above cited, where, on page 461, the court 
say: — 

The incidental advantage to the public or to the State, which 
results from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity 
of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the 
use of public money raised by taxation, or for which taxation may 
become necessary. 

Since the resolve under consideration provides for the expendi- 
ture of money from the public treasury for purposes not neces- 
sarily public, which can be ultimately replaced only by taxation, 
I am unable to distinguish between the present case and those 
cases which have been discussed; and I must, therefore, advise 
the honorable Senate committee on rules that in my opinion the 
resolve as submitted to me is not in conformity with the Consti- 
tution of the Commonwealth. 

Very truly yours, 

Dasta Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



22 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Corporation — Foreign Corporation — Laws of District of 

Columbia. 

St. 1907, c. 437, § 56, which defines a foreign corporation to be any 
corporation organized " under laws other than those of the common- 
wealth for purposes for which domestic corporations may be organ- 
ized under the provisions of section seven " of such chapter, extends 
to and includes a corporation chartered under the general laws of the 
District of Columbia. 

April 28, 190S. 

Charles A. Andrews, Esq., Deputy Commissioner of Corporations. 
Dear Sir : — You request my opinion upon the following 
question : — 

Is the fact that a corporation is organized under the general laws 
of the District of Columbia a reason sufficient to excuse said cor- 
poration from filing its annual certificate of condition and paying 
the excise tax as required of foreign corporations by chapter 437 of 
the Acts of 1903? 

1 am of opinion that your question should be answered in the 
negative. A corporation chartered by Congress legislating di- 
rectly for the District of Columbia is a foreign corporation 
within the meaning of St. 1907, c. 437, $ 56, which defines the 
term " foreign corporation " as including every corporation 
chartered " under laws other than those of the commonwealth 
for purposes for which domestic corporations may be organized 
under the provisions of section seven." See Daly v. National 
Life Insurance Co., 64 Ind. 1; Layden v. Knights of Pythias, 
128 X. C. 546. The regulation of such a corporation is not an 
interference with interstate commerce, nor is it an interference 
with the carrying on of governmental functions. 
Very truly yours, 

Daxa Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



Civil Service Commission — Certification of Pay Bolls of the 
City of Boston - — ■ Police Force. 

Members of the police force of the city of Boston are not persons " in 
the service or employment of the city of Boston," within the mean- 
ing of St. 1908, c. 210, providing in substance that the Civil Ser- 
vice Commission shall certify all pay rolls, bills and accounts for 
salary or compensation of persons in the service or employment of 
such city. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 23 

April 28, 1908. 
Hon. Charles Warren, Chairman, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir: — You ask my opinion as to whether the Police 
Commissioner and members of the police force of the city of 
Boston are persons " in the service or employment of the city of 
Boston," within the meaning of chapter 210 of the Acts of 1908, 
in substance providing for the certification by the Civil Service 
Commission of all pay rolls, bills and accounts for salary of 
persons in the service of the city of Boston. 

I am of opinion that they are not. St. 1906, c. 291, ^ 8, 
provides that : — 

All expenses for the maintenance of buildings, the pay of the 
police, clerks, stenographers and other employees, and all incidental 
expenses incurred in the performance of the duties of said com- 
missioner or in the administration of said police, shall be paid by 
the city of Boston upon the requisition of said police commissioner. 

The Legislature has established a special public officer, ap- 
pointed by the Governor, independent of any control or direction 
on the part of the city of Boston, as the head of the police depart- 
ment of such city. The city has no control over him or the police 
officers. That statute requires the payment of the bills upon the 
requisition of the Police Commissioner. Under these circum- 
stances, I am of opinion that chapter 210 of the Acts of 1908 
does not apply. See Mahoney v. Boston, 171 Mass. 4'? 7. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



Metropolitan Pari- Commission — Rules and Regulations for 
Government of Police Force — Punishment of Breach of 
Regulations by Forfeiture of Pay — Transfer — Civil Ser- 
vice — Veteran — Waiver by Officer of Benefit of Civil Ser- 
vice Rules. 

The Metropolitan Park Commission under existing provisions of law 
has authority to establish rules for the government of its police 
force, and under such rules to punish a police officer, who has com- 
mitted an offence, by a forfeiture of pay for a period not exceeding 
thirty days; or to transfer a police officer who is a veteran from 
a reservation or parkway in one city or town to a reservation or 
parkway in another city or town within the jurisdiction of such 
commission. 



24 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The authority of the Metropolitan Park Commission in the premises 
is not limited by St. 1904, c. 314, § 1, which provides that, persons 
holding office or employment in the public service of the Common- 
wealth, classified under the civil service rules, " shall hold such office 
or employment and shall not be removed therefrom, lowered in rank 
or compensation, or suspended, or, without his consent, transferred 
from such office or employment to any other except for just cause 
and for reasons specifically given in writing; or by St. 1905, c. 150, 
§ 1, and K. L., c. 19, § 23, which extends a like protection to 
veterans in the public service of the Commonwealth. 

An agreement signed by a police officer upon entering the service of 
the Metropolitan Park Commission, to the effect that he will obey 
and be bound by such rules and regulations as are or may be from 
time to time adopted by such commission, would not constitute a 
waiver by such officer of any rights under the statutes above quoted ; 
and such agreement is material only as evidence that at the time 
of entering the service of such commission the subscriber was 
aware of the rules and regulations then in force. 

May 25, 1908. 
Johx Woodbury, Esq., Secretary, Metropolitan Park Commission. 
Dear Sir : — In a letter of recent date you state that the 
Metropolitan Park Commission request my opinion as to the 
authority of the commission in certain matters pertaining to the 
administration of its police force, and you call my attention to a 
rule duly enacted by vote of the commission, and now in force, 
for the government thereof, to the effect that any member of such 
force may be punished by the Board in its discretion, either by 
reprimand, by forfeiture of pay for not exceeding thirty days for 
any one offence, by being reduced in rank, or by dismissal from 
the force on conviction by the commission of any one of a num- 
ber of enumerated offences, such as intoxication, any act of 
insubordination, neglect of duty, neglect or disobedience of 
orders, any legal offence, immoral conduct, etc. You also have 
called to my attention the following agreement, which every 
police officer upon entering the service of the commission is re- 
quired to sign : — 

In consideration of my employment as a member of the Metro- 
politan Park Police, I agree to obey and be bound by such rules 
and regulations as are or may be from time to time adopted for 
the government of the Police Department of the Metropolitan Park 
Commission. 

The specific questions to which you request answers, in the 
order in which you ask them, are : — 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT -No. 12. 25 

1. If the Board finds a police officer guilty of any offence under 
this rule, has it the authority to punish such officer by forfeiture of 
his pay for a period not exceeding' thirty days? 

2. Is such a forfeiture a lowering of " compensation " within the 
meaning of St. 1904, c. 314, § 1, or of St. 1905, c. 150, § 1? 

3. If such police officer so found guilty is a veteran within the 
meaning of R. L., c. 19, § 20, has the Board authority to impose 
upon him, without a hearing before the Board of Conciliation and 
Arbitration, a punishment not amounting to a transfer from his 
office or employment, an abolition of his office or a lowering of com- 
pensation, within the meaning of said chapter 150 of the Acts of 
1905? 

4. If the Board transfers a police officer who is a veteran from 
a reservation or parkway in one town where he has been performing 
police duty to a reservation or parkway in another city or town for 
service, is such transfer a transfer of office or employment within 
the meaning of. said act of 1905, so that such officer is entitled to a 
hearing before said Board of Conciliation and Arbitration? 

5. Whether or not the signing of the agreement quoted, by a 
police officer upon entering the service of the commission, has any 
effect upon his legal obligations to the commission and upon the 
authority of the commission over him? 

The answers to the first three questions depend, of course, 
upon the authority of the commission to make rules for the 
administration of its police force, and upon the authority of the 
commission in the enforcement of those rules to punish violations 
of the rules. 

It may be assumed as beyond dispute that the Legislature, in 
giving to the commission its powers, intended to confer upon it 
exclusive and complete authority and control over the reserva- 
tions and parkways acquired by it. St. 1893, c. 407, § 4; St. 
1894, c. 288, §§ 1 and 3. 1 Op. Atty.-Gen., 588, 590; 2 Op. 
Attv.-Gen., 363, 366. In furtherance of this object, the commis- 
sion is given power to employ a suitable police force, and the 
policing of the reservations and parkways obviously, therefore, 
becomes as much a part of the duty of the commission as the 
doing of any other duly authorized act of administration and 
maintenance. The express grant of authority to employ a suit- 
able police force would, however, be somewhat futile if it did 
not carry with it, at least by implication, the authority to enact 
reasonable rules for the effective administration of that police 
force. It obviously follows, also, that the power to enact rules 
and regulations would be a useless power if it were not accom- 



26 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

panied by the authority to enforce by reasonable means obedi- 
ence to those rules and regulations. The position of the com- 
mission in these matters is not to be distinguished from the 
position of every public officer in similar matters; and therefore 
the familiar principle is applicable, that public officers have not 
only the powers expressly conferred upon them by law, but also 
by necessary implication such powers as are requisite to enable 
them to discharge the official duties devolved upon them. 23 Am. 
& Eng. Ency. Law, 365. Vose v. Dearie, 7 Mass. 280. 

Moreover, the power of the commission to enforce by reason- 
able measures discipline in its police force results not only from 
the very nature of the authority and responsibility conferred 
upon the commission by law, but also from the nature of the 
office of a police officer. The police officer, in his employment, 
is not acting under a contract, strictly speaking, but he is essen- 
tially a State officer bound to preserve its peace and to execute 
its laws. Phillips v. Boston, 150 Mass. 491. The conditions of 
his employment are, therefore, not fixed by contract, and his 
duties and responsibilities are not to be interpreted by the rules 
governing the interpretation of contracts. He is responsible to 
the superior agency of the government which appoints him. and 
must conform in the performance of his duties to such reason- 
able conditions as such superior agency may prescribe. 

My opinion upon the question of the general authority of the 
commission, therefore, is that the commission has authority to 
establish rules for the government of its police force, and under 
those rules to punish a police officer who has committed an 
offence. This opinion seems to be amply sustained by Malcolm 
v. Boston, 173 Mass. 319. 

Your first question asks whether the commission have author- 
ity in the exercise of this general power to impose as a specific 
penalty forfeiture of pay for a brief period not exceeding thirty 
days. From what has already been said it follows that the com- 
mission have this authority, unless it has been taken from them 
by statutory modification of their general powers. The general 
powers of the commission have been somewhat qualified by the 
statutory requirements in the cases of persons not veterans who 
are employed under the civil service law. St. 1904, c. 314. pro- 
vides : — 

Section 1. Every person holding office or employment in the 
public service of the commonwealth or in any county, city or town 
thereof, classified under the civil service rules of the commonwealth, 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 27 

shall hold such office or employment and shall not be removed there- 
from, lowered in rank or compensation, or suspended, or, without 
his consent, transferred from such office or employment to any other 
except for just cause and for reasons specifically given in writing. 

Section 2. The person sought to be removed, suspended, lowered 
or transferred shall be notified of the proposed action and shall be 
furnished with a copy of the reasons required to be given by section 
one, and shall, if he so requests in writing, be given a public hearing, 
and be allowed to answer the charges preferred against him either 
personally or by counsel. A copy of such reasons, notice and an- 
swer and of the order of removal, suspension or transfer shall be 
made a matter of public record. 

But the effect of these qualifications is rather a prescription 
as to the method of enforcing the powers already possessed than 
a curtailing of the powers. The statute quoted was amended by 
St. 1905 ? c. 243, by adding to section 2 the following: — 

provided, however, that nothing contained in this act shall be con- 
strued to prevent temporary suspension for a period not exceeding 
thirty days made without compliance with the provisions of this act 
and pending further action under this act. 

In my opinion there is nothing in these statutes which de- 
prives the commission of the authority which it had under its 
general powers to punish an officer guilty of an offence by a 
forfeiture of his pay for a period not exceeding thirty days, and 
I therefore answer your first question in the affirmative. 

The answer to your second question is embraced in the answer 
to the first; but answering it upon the particular point raised, 
as to whether such a forfeiture is a lowering of compensation 
within the meaning of the statute cited, I am of opinion that it 
is not. The compensation of an officer is not lowered, within 
the meaning of the statute, unless the rate of compensation be 
lowered. 

The provision in regard to increasing or diminishing the pay 
manifestly refers to the salary which has been or may be estab- 
lished, and not to such reductions as may occur through fines or 
forfeitures established to preserve and promote the discipline and 
efficiency of the force. Morton, J., in Malcolm v. Boston, 173 
Mass. 321. 

Your third question raises the point of the authority of the 
commission over the members of its police force who are veterans 



28 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

within the meaning of E. L., c. 19, § 20, and are therefore 
entitled by law to certain special privileges. The authority of 
the commission over the veterans in its police force does not 
differ from its authority over other members of the force, except 
s< i far as that authority may have been qualified by statute. The 
only modification of the general authority of the commission as 
above stated, so far as it applies to veterans, is in St. 1905, 
c. 150, amending R. L., c. 19, § 23, so as to read as follows : — 

Xo veteran who holds an office or employment in the public ser- 
vice of the commonwealth, or of any city or town therein, shall be 
removed or suspended, or shall, without his consent, be transferred 
from such office or emplo3'ment, nor shall his office be abolished, nor 
shall he be lowered in rank or compensation, except after a full 
hearing of which he shall have at least seventy-two hours' written 
notice, with a statement of the reasons for the contemplated re- 
moval, suspension, transfer, lowering in rank or compensation, or 
abolition. The hearing shall be before the state board of concilia- 
tion and arbitration, if the veteran is a state employee, or before 
the mayor of the city or selectmen of the town of which he is an 
employee, and the veteran shall have the right to be, present and 
to be represented by counsel. Such removal, suspension or transfer, 
lowering in rank or compensation, or such abolition of an office, shall 
be made only upon a written order stating fully and specifically 
the cause or causes therefor, and signed by said board, mayor or 
selectmen, after a hearing' as aforesaid. 



In my opinion, none of the provisions of the act cited curtail 
the authority which the commission had under its general powers 
to impose upon a police officer, who is a veteran and has been 
found guilty of an offence, a punishment not amounting to a 
transfer of his office or employment, an abolition of his office 
or a lowering of his rank or compensation without a hearing 
before the State Board of Conciliation and Arbitration. I 
therefore answer your third question in the affirmative. 

The fourth question 1 answer in the negative. The transfer 
of a police officer who is a veteran, from a reservation or park- 
way in one town to a reservation or parkway in another city or 
town within the jurisdiction of the commission, assuming that 
his service is that of police duty in each place, is not a transfer 
of office or employment within the meaning of St. 1905, c. 150, 
above cited. His office under the transfer is still that of a police 
officer, and his employment is still that of police duty: the officer 
himself has been transferred from one locality to another, but 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT -No. 12. 29 

there cannot be said to have been a transfer cither of office or 
employment, within the meaning of the ad, the obvious pur] 
of which is to prevent changes of grade and classification. 

In reply to your inquiry as to the effect upon the legal obliga- 
tions of a police officer to the commission, and upon the authority 
of the commission over him, resulting from the signing of the 
agreement quoted upon entering the service of the commission, 
my opinion is that the signing of the agreement has little if any 
effect upon the legal obligations of the officer to the commission, 
and no legal effect upon the authority of the coin miss ion over 
him. Even if the agreement was made by the officer for what 
can actually be proved to be good consideration, it is hard to see 
any practical value to the commission in the technical civil right 
thus acquired in addition to the greater rights which it already 
possessed under its general authority, and it is clear that it does 
not affect the. authority of the commission over the officer. 

By signing such an agreement the officer cannot, in my opin- 
ion, be held to have waived any rights under the civil service 
law. The civil service law applicable to the case is to be regarded 
as a general law, and an agreement to waive the provisions of a 
general law of this nature is generally held to be invalid as 
opposed to public policy. See Washington National Bank v. 
Williams, 188 Mass. 103. 

The only practical value of the signing of such an agreement 
is that evidence is furnished that the officer, at the time of enter- 
ing the service of the commission, knew of the rules established 
by it, which evidence might become material in any hearing upon 
the case. 

Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



Insurance — Officer or Director of Insurance Company — In- 
vestment of Funds. 

By R. L., e. 118, § 25, relating to domestic insurance companies, it is 
provided that " no officer of the company, and no member of a com- 
mittee thereof, charged with the duty of investing its funds, shall 
■ borrow the same or be directly or indirectly liable for, or on account 
of, loans thereof to others; " and a director of such an insurance 
company who is also a member of the finance committee thereof 
violates such provision by renewing a mortgage loan or by giving 
a new loan to trustees of a real estate trust of which such director 
was both a trustee and a shareholder, the legal title to the trust 
estate being in the trustees and the equitable title thereto in such 
persons as are for the time being shareholders. 



30 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

June 3, 1908. 
Hon. Frank H. Hardison, Insurance Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You ask my opinion whether a director of a 
domestic insurance company, who was also a member of the 
finance committee and " charged with the duty of investing its 
funds." has violated the provisions of E. L., c. 118, § 25, by (a) 
renewing a mortgage loan to certain trustees of a real estate 
trust of which the director was both a trustee and a shareholder; 
and (b) making a new loan to another real estate trust of which 
the director was also a trustee and a shareholder. 

The dates of these occurrences are subsequent to the Eevised 
Laws, but prior to the going into effect of St. 1907, c. 576, and 
consequently the question is one to be determined by the lan- 
guage of the Eevised Laws. This section provides in part 
that : — 

No officer of the company and no member of a committee thereof 
charged with the duty of investing its funds shall borrow the same 
or be directly or indirectly liable for or on account of loans thereof 
to others; nor shall any director or other officer take or receive to 
his own use any fee, brokerage, commission, gift or other consid- 
eration for or on account of a loan made by or on behalf of such 
company. 

Copies of the declarations of trust have been submitted to me. 
In each declaration of trust the following provision appears : — 

The trustees shall have no power to bind the shareholders per- 
sonally. In every written contract they may make, reference shall 
be made to this declaration of trust. The person or corporation 
contracting with the trustees shall look to the funds and property 
of the trust for the payment under such contract, or for the payment 
of any debt, mortgage, judgment or decree, or of any money that 
may otherwise become due or payable by reason of the failure on 
the part of said trustees to perform such contract in whole or in 
part, and neither the trustees nor the shareholders, present or 
future, shall be personally liable therefor; 

and each declaration of trust provides that the term " share- 
holder " shall mean holder of record of a receipt or a certificate 
from the trustees thereunder. It is clear, I think, that the whole 
legal title to the trust estate is in the trustees, and that the whole 
equitable title is continuously in such persons as are for the time 
being shareholders under the declaration of trust. See Howe v. 
Morse, 174 Mass. 491, 503. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 31 

Copies of the mortgage notes have also been submitted to me, 
from which it appears that the trustees under the declarations 
of trust, to which reference was therein expressly made, did " as 
trustees thereunder, but not individually, promise to pay " the 
amount of the mortgage to the insurance company. 

As was pointed out in the case of Bowditrh v. New England 
Life Insurance Co., 141 Mass. 292, 295, referred to in your letter 
to me, the statute under discussion — 

is designed to forbid officers, who are charged with the duty of 
investing the funds of the corporation, borrowing of themselves, 
and thus to prevent the risk of the funds being invested by them, 
under the promptings of self-interest, upon insufficient security. In 
other words, the purpose is to protect the corporation and the 
policy holders from the dishonesty or self-interest of the officers. 
It is intended as a shield to the corporation. 

Adopting this exposition of the purpose of the statute, I am 
of opinion that the director mentioned by you, charged with the 
duty of investing the funds of a domestic insurance company, 
has violated the provisions above quoted, inasmuch as he, as 
trustee, and while an owner of shares in the trust, has borrowed 
money of the corporation, and thus created a debt for which the 
property of the trust is liable to be taken on execution. Al- 
though the director is not apparently directly or indirectly per- 
sonally liable for or on account of the loan, yet, as owner of both 
the legal title and a portion of the equitable title of the property 
which is directly liable, I conceive that he is brought within the 
rule laid down in the case above cited, because the loan might 
be made " under the promptings of self-interest, upon insufficient 
security." 

Subsequent to the doing of the acts referred to by you, the 
law was changed by St. 1907, c. 576, § 26, which now provides 
in part that: — 

All investments and deposits of the funds of the company shall 
be made in its corporate name, and no director or other officer 
thereof, and no member of a committee having any authority in the 
investment or disposition of its funds, shall accept, or be the bene- 
ficiary of, either directly or remotely, any fee, brokerage, commis- 
sion, gift or other consideration for or on account of any loan, de- 
posit, purchase, sale, payment or exchange made by or in behalf of 
such company, or be pecuniarily interested in any such purchase, 
sale or loan, either as borrower, principal, co-principal, agent or 



32 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

beneficiary except that if a policy holder he shall be entitled to all 
the benefits accruing under the terais of his contract. 

In my opinion, the acts of the director above set forth would 
be clearly in violation of the law as it stands to-day. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



State Highway — Defect or Want of Repair — Liability of Com- 
monwealth — Construction or Repair — Use of Liquid As- 
phalt — Damage. 

By the provision of E. L., c. 47, § 13, that " the commonwealth shall 
be liable for injuries sustained by persons while traveling on state 
highways in the manner and subject to the limitations, conditions 
and restrictions provided in sections eighteen, twenty and twenty- 
one of chapter fifty-one, except that notice of the injury shall be 
given to a member of the commission or to its secretary," no lia- 
bility is imposed upon the Commonwealth for damages to the person 
or property of a traveler upon a State highway other than for 
damages caused by reason of a defect or a want of repair or of 
a sufficient railing in or upon such highway. To constitute such 
defect or want of repair there. must be something in the condition 
of the highway, either by reason of defective construction or want 
of repair or in the nature of an obstruction, which is dangerous 
to the safety of the person or property of the traveler; and where 
the property of such traveler upon a State highway is damaged by 
splashes of liquid asphalt used in connection with the construction 
or repair of such highway, the statute above cited affords no remedy. 

June 16, 1908. 

A. B. Fletcher, Esq., Secretary, Massachusetts Highway Com- 
mission. 
Dear Sir : — The Massachusetts Highway Commission has 
referred to me for such action as I may deem proper certain 
claims for damage to the wearing apparel and vehicles of trav- 
elers upon State highways, occasioned by preparations used in 
the repair and maintenance of such highways. Of these claims, 
the case presented in the communication from one Leon Samuels 
appears to be typical. The facts as stated by the claimant are : — 

It appears that while going through a certain portion of the road 
which was under repair, a part which was tarred over had proper 
signs thereon, denoting that it was not open for travel; another 
part, however, which was completely covered with dirt and gravel, 
had no such signs, thereby indicating that it was open for travel. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 33 

In crossing said supposedly completed part in her automobile, she 
[the wife of the claimant] was splashed with tar which apparently 
had not hardened into condition to make the road fit for traffic, 
and as a result her automobile coat, Panama hat, pair of gloves 
and chiffon veil were completely ruined, and occasioned a loss of $100. 

Other claims are made by H. C. Poore and G-. F. Saumsiegle, 
respectively, for damages occasioned by liquid asphalt used in 
surfacing a State highway. In both of these cases the report of 
the division engineer states that proper signs and warnings were 
displayed, calling attention to the condition of the road at the 
time. 

The liability of the commission is fixed by E, L., c. 47, § 13, 
which is as follows : — 

The commonwealth shall be liable for injuries sustained by per- 
sons while traveling on state highways, in the manner and subject 
to the limitations, conditions and restrictions provided in sections 
eighteen, twenty and twenty-one of chapter fifty-one, except that 
notice of the injury shall be given to a member of the commission 
or to its secretary. The commonwealth shall not be liable for an 
injury which may be sustained upon the sidewalk of a state highway 
or during the construction of such highway. The amount which may 
be recovered for any such injury shall not exceed one-fifth of one 
per cent of the state valuation last preceding the commencement of 
the action of the city or town in which the injury was received, nor 
shall it exceed four thousand dollars. 

Section 18 of chapter 51 of the Eevised Laws, above referred 
to, is as follows : — 

If a person sustains bodily injury or damage in his property by 
reason of a defect or a want of repair or a want of a sufficient rail- 
ing in or upon a way, causeway or bridge, and such injury or damage 
might have been prevented, or such defect or want of repair or 
want of railing might have been remedied by reasonable care and 
diligence on the part of the county, city, town or person by law 
obliged to repair the same, he may, if such county, city, town or 
person had or, by the exercise of proper care and diligence, might 
have had reasonable notice of the defect or want of repair or want 
of a sufficient railing, recover damages therefor from such county, 
city, town or person; but he shall not recover from a county, city 
or town more than one-fifth of one per cent of its state valuation 
last preceding the commencement of the action nor more than 
four thousand dollars, and no action therefor shall be maintained 
by a person whose carriage and the load thereon exceeds the weight 
of six tons. 



34 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

It has been held that there is no liability upon a city or town 
for damages to the person or property of a traveler upon its 
ways, except such as is fixed and imposed by statute. Monies v. 
Lynn, 121 Mass. 442. And such damage must be caused by 
reason of " a defect or a want of repair or a want of a sufficient 
railing in or upon a way, causeway or bridge." The question 
to be determined is, therefore, whether the application of liquid 
asphalt or tar in connection with the construction of a highway 
in and of itself constitutes a defect or a want of repair in the 
highway, within the meaning of the statute. 

It is, I think, obvious that the application of the substance 
above mentioned to the highway cannot constitute " a want of 
repair," if, as must be assumed, it is a proper material to be 
used in the repair and maintenance of the surface of a highway, 
and is properly applied without negligence upon the part of the 
contractor or of the agents of the Commonwealth. 

The statutes have nowhere defined what is to be considered as 
a « defect." 

The duty of a town is to make the highway safe and convenient 
for travelers. Raymond v. Lowell, 6 Cush. 524; Horton v. Ips- 
wich, 12 Cush. 488. In the present case no question of the safety 
of the traveler arises, since the injury is analogous to that occa- 
sioned by the spattering of mud or water from the moist surface 
of the highway, which latter does not constitute a defect. See 
Stone v. Huboardston, 100 Mass. 49, 56; McAuley v. Bos- 
ton, 113 Mass. 503; Williams v. Lawrence, 113 Mass. 506; 
McGowan v. Boston, 170 Mass. 384. Taking all the cases to- 
gether, I am of opinion that, in order to constitute a 
defect within the meaning of the statute, it is necessary that 
there should be something in the condition of the highway, 
either by reason of defective construction or want of repair or 
in the nature of an obstruction, which is dangerous to the safety 
of the traveler, and not merely damaging to the appearance 
of his attire or to the conveyance in which he travels. Here 
the road was properly posted, so as to draw the attention of the 
traveler to its condition of recent repair and to put him upon 
his guard in passing across it, and the only result of the applica- 
tion of the material by which damage was occasioned would have 
been, had these warnings been heeded, the inconvenience of 
seeking another route of travel. For mere inconvenience, occa- 
sioned even by a defect, there appears to be no remedy given 
under the statutes. Brailey v. Southoorough, 6 Cush. 141; Hoi- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 35 

man v. Towrisend, 13 Met. 297, 299; Smith v. Dedham, 8 Cush. 
522. 

I am further of the opinion that even if the method of the 
application of the liquid asphalt to the way in question was im- 
proper or negligent upon the part of the contractor or agents of 
the Commonwealth, such negligence would not make the exist- 
ence of liquid asphalt upon the surface of the way a defect, 
within the meaning of the statute. For mere negligence of cities 
or towns, not constituting defects in the way, the statute in 
question affords no remedy. See Billings v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 
329, 333. 

I am therefore of the opinion that the claims in these instances 
have no basis in law, and that the Commonwealth is not liable 
therefor. 

Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



Labor — Employment of Children — Child under Fourteen 
Years of Age — Certificate of Ability to Read and Write — 
Factory or Workshop. 

Under the provisions of R. L., c. 106, § 28, as amended by St. 1905, 
c. 267, § 1, that " no child under the age of fourteen years and 
no child who is over fourteen and under sixteen years of age who 
does not have a certificate as required by the following four sections 
certifying to the child's ability to read at sight and to write legibly 
simple sentences in the English language shall be employed in any 
factory, workshop or mercantile establishment," no school committee 
or superintendent of schools or other person is authorized to issue 
to a child under fourteen years of age the certificate above referred 
to, and such child may not at any time be employed in a factory 
or workshop. 

July 3, 1908. 

Gen. J. H. Whitney, Chief, Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir : — Your communication of recent date requests my 
opinion upon certain questions relative to the interpretation to 
be given to E, L., c. 106, § 28, as amended by St. 1905, c. 267, 

§1. 

The statute above referred to, as amended by St. 1905, c. 267, 

§ 1, is as follows : — 

No child under the age of fourteen years and no child who is 
over fourteen and under sixteen years of age who does not have a 



36 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

certificate as required by the following four sections certifying to 
the child's ability to read at sight and to write legibly simple sen- 
tences in the English language shall be employed in any factory, 
workshop or mercantile establishment. No child under the age of 
fourteen years shall be employed at work performed for wages or 
other compensation, to whomsoever payable, during the hours when 
the public schools of the city or town in which he resides are in 
session, or be employed at work before six o'clock in the morning 
or after seven o'clock in the evening. 

A modification of St. 1905, c. 267, has, however, been made by 
St. 1906, c. 284, § 2, which is as follows: — 

Minors to whom said chapter two hundred and sixty-seven applies 
shall be permitted to work on Saturdays between the hours of six 
in the morning and seven in the evening, in mercantile establishments. 

The specific questions upon which my opinion is required 
are: — 

Can a child under fourteen years of age, and who has a certificate 
from the authorized school authorities certifying the child's ability 
to read at sight and to write legibly simple sentences in the English 
language, be legally employed in any factory, workshop or mercantile 
establishment during the hours when the public schools of the city or 
town in which he resides are not in session? 

If a child under fourteen years of age can read at sight and write 
legibly simple sentences in the English language, can the school 
committee, superintendent of schools, or person authorized by the 
school committee, issue him a certificate as provided in section 32, 
chapter 106, Revised Laws? 

Since both questions refer to the possession by a child of a 
certificate issued by the school authorities certifying to the ability 
of the child to read and write, it may simplify the issues if I 
state at the outset that in my opinion the. provisions of the stat- 
utes quoted and the subsequent sections of chapter 106 of the 
Revised Laws, relative to the certificate mentioned, have no ap- 
plication whatever to a child under fourteen years of age. 

It therefore follows that the fact stated in your first question, 
that the child under fourteen years has a certificate of ability to 
read and write, can have no bearing upon the question as to the 
legality of the employment of the child in a factory, workshop or 
mercantile establishment during the hours when the public 
schools of the city or town in which he resides are not in session. 

By the provisions of R. L., c. 106, § 28, as amended by St. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 37 

1905, c. 267, §-1, quoted above, the employment of any child 
under fourteen years of age in any factory, workshop or mer- 
cantile establishment, was absolutely prohibited. 

The employment of a child over fourteen years of age, but 
under sixteen, was prohibited, unless that child had attained to 
a prescribed degree of education, and could obtain a certificate 
from the proper authorities certifying to that fact. 

The obvious intent of the statute was to preserve the original 
provision of the statute preventing the employment of a child 
under fourteen years of age, under any circumstances, in a work- 
shop, factory or mercantile establishment; and, further, to pro- 
vide additional opportunity for the- education of children by 
creating a second class of children, consisting of those more than 
fourteen but less than sixteen years of age, who might not be 
employed in the establishments specified until they were able to 
pass a prescribed educational test. 

Construing the provisions of the statute, therefore, in accord- 
ance with the clear purpose of the act, it is obvious that the pro- 
visions relative to the educational qualification refer only to the 
second class mentioned, — the children between fourteen and 
sixteen years of age. 

Construing the provisions of the statute according to the well- 
recognized rule of statutory construction, — that a limiting 
clause is to be confined in its application to the last antecedent 
unless the subject-matter of the act requires a different construc- 
tion, — the same conclusion is reached. 

The modification of St. 1905, c. 267, by St. 1906, c. 284, § 2, 
quoted above, permits the employment of the minors to whom 
St. 1905, c. 267, applies, on Saturdays between the hours of 6 in 
the morning and 7 in the evening in mercantile establishments, 
and leaves unchanged the law as to employment in factories and 
workshops. 

Upon your first question, therefore, my opinion is that a child 
under fourteen years of age may not be employed in a factory 
or workshop at any time, and may be employed in a mercantile 
establishment only on Saturdays between the hours of 6 in the 
morning and 7 in the evening. 

Upon your second question my opinion is, that no school com- 
mittee, superintendent of schools or other person is authorized 
by the statutes to issue to a child under fourteen years of age a 
certificate under the provisions of E. L., c. 106, § 32. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



38 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Proprietary or Patent Medicines — Label — Fractional Part of 
Original Package — Prosecution — Public Notice — State 
Board of Health. 

St. 1906, c. 386, as amended by St. 1907, c. 259, providing in section 1 
that " upon every package, bottle or other receptacle holding any 
proprietary or patent medicine . . . shall be marked or inscribed 
a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of each of 
said substances contained therein," requires that the container of 
fractional parts sold from the original package by prescription 
shall be also marked with the prescribed label. 

The provision of St. 1906, c. 386, § 6, as amended by St. 1907, c. 259, 
that the State Board of Health shall not cause the prosecution of 
persons violating the provisions of such act " for the sale at retail 
or for the gift or exchange of any patent or proprietary medicine 
or food preparation containing any drug or preparation the sale 
of which is prohibited or restricted as aforesaid," until after public 
notice, is not applicable to sales of unlabeled quantities. 

July 9, 1908. 
Charles Harrington, M.D., Secretary, State Board of Health. 

Dear Sir : — You request my opinion as to the construction 
to be given to St. 1906, c. 386, as amended by St. 1907, c. 259. 
Section 1 of the amended act, so far as it is material upon the 
questions presented, is as follows : — 

Upon every package, bottle or other receptacle holding any pro- 
prietary or patent medicine, or any proprietary or patent food 
preparation, which contains alcohol, morphine, codeine, opium, 
heroin, chloroform, cannibis indiea, chloral hydrate, or acetanilid, or 
any derivative or preparation of any such substances, shall be 
marked or inscribed a statement on the label of the quantity or 
proportion of each of said substances contained therein. The size of 
type in which the names of the above substances shall be printed 
on the labels as above, shall not be smaller than eight point (brevier) 
caps: provided, that in case the size of the package will not permit 
the use of eight point cap type the size of the type may be reduced 
proportionately. The provisions of section nineteen of chapter 
seventy-five of the Revised Laws, so far as they are consistent here- 
with, shall apply to the manner and form in which such statements 
shall be marked or inscribed. 

Section 3 prohibits the sale of any patent or proprietary med- 
icine containing certain substances. 

Section 4 prohibits the sale of certain drugs except under cer- 
tain restrictions. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 39 

Section 5 exempts certain classes from the prohibitions of sec- 
tions 3 and 4. 

Section 6 is as follows : — 

Whoever manufactures, sells or offers for sale any medicine or 
food preparation in violation of the provisions of this act shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than five nor more than one hundred 
dollars. It shall be the duty of the state board of health to cause 
the prosecution of all persons violating the provisions of this act; 
but no prosecution shall be brought for the sale at retail, or for 
the gift or exchange of any patent or proprietary medicine or food 
preparation containing any drug or preparation the sale of which 
is prohibited or restricted as aforesaid, unless the said board has, 
prior to such sale, gift or exchange, given public notice in such 
trade journals or newspapers as it may select that the gift, exchange 
or sale at retail of the said medicine or food preparation would be 
contrary to law. 

You state that a number of retail druggists have asked whether 
it is necessary for them, within the meaning of the above statute, 
to label with the prescribed label fractional parts sold from the 
original package by prescription; and they have pointed out the 
practical difficulty in carrying a stock of labels for the very 
large variety of patent medicines which they are obliged to sell. 

It seems to me that the law requires the labeling of the con- 
tainer of fractional parts of the original package. The language 
of the act is very comprehensive, — " every package, bottle or 
other receptacle holding any proprietary or patent medicine." 
These words must be given their ordinary meaning, unless some 
reason appears for giving them a different meaning. If the 
Legislature had intended the act to apply only to original pack- 
ages, it would have been easy so to limit the scope of the act. 
The words should also be interpreted in such a way as to carry 
out what appears to have been the intent of the Legislature. The 
most obvious and natural purpose of the act is the protection of 
all who are to buy the patent and proprietary medicines. It can- 
not have been the intent of the Legislature to protect only the 
druggists dealing in these medicines; and yet, if a fractional 
part of the original package is not to be marked, the public are 
no better informed as to the ingredients of what they are buying 
than they were before the passage of the act, unless they take 
pains to ask to be shown the original package. 

As to the second point, by section 6 the selling without label 
of patent or proprietary medicines in any quantity is made a 



40 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

distinct offence with a fixed penalty, and the offender is liable 
to a penalty npon the commission of the offence. The clause of 
the statute referring to prosecution after public notice refers to 
the sales prohibited and restricted by sections 3 and 4, which do 
not include and are not to be construed as connected with the 
sale of an unlabeled quantity. 

Very truly yours, 

Daxa Malone, Attorney-General. 



Public Officer — Register of Deeds — Official Bond. 

A bond given by the register of deeds of a county to the county com- 
missioners thereof, and running to such commissioners, does not 
satisfy the requirement of E. L., c. 22, § 7, that " each register 
shall give bond to the county for the faithful performance of his 
official duty, with such sureties and in such sum as the commissioners 
or mayor [in the county of Suffolk] respectively shall approve." 

Sept. 29, 1908. 
Charles R. Prescott, Esq., Controller of County Accounts. 

Dear Sir : — Replying to your letter, in which you ask 
whether it is imperative that a bond of a register of deeds run 
to the treasurer of the county, or whether a bond given to the 
county commissioners is sufficient, I have to inform you that the 
statute applicable to the matter is R. L., c. 22, § 7, which reads 
as follows : — 

Each register of deeds, except in the county of Suffolk, shall be 
sworn before the county commissioners and, in the county of Suffolk, 
before one or more of the aldermen of the city of Boston. Each 
register shall give bond to the county for the faithful performance 
of his official duty with such sureties and in such sum as the com- 
missioners or mayor, respectively, shall approve. 

It is therefore necessary that to comply with the statute the 
bond in question should run to the county of Dukes County, and 
not to either the county commissioners or the county treasurer. 
I therefore must advise you that all public officials should be 
required to give bonds strictly complying with the provisions of 
the above statute, and bonds not in statutory form should not 
be held by the supervising authorities to be sufficient or accepted 
as such. 

Very truly yours, 

Da:na. Malone, Attorney-General. 



1909.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 41 



Savings Banks — Authorized Investments — Bonds, Coupon 
Notes or Other Evidences of Indebtedness of the New York, 
New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company. 

Bonds, coupon notes or other evidences of indebtedness of the New 
York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, a corporation 
chartered by the laws of this Commonwealth, payable more than 
twelve months after the date of issue and issued prior to the pas- 
sage of St. 1908, c. 620, in excess of the capital stock of such 
railroad corporation, which do not fall within any of the exceptions 
set forth in St. 1906, c. 463, part II., § 66, are issued in violation 
of the provision of such section that " a railroad corporation, unless 
expressly authorized by its charter or by special law, shall not issue 
bonds, coupon notes or other evidences of indebtedness payable at 
periods of more than twelve months after the date thereof to an 
amount which, including the amount of all such securities previously 
issued and outstanding, exceeds in the whole the amount of its 
capital stock at the time actually paid in; " and such bonds, coupon 
notes or other evidences of indebtedness not being " issued accord- 
ing to law," within the meaning of E. L., c. 113, § 26, cl. 3, h, are 
not legal investments for savings banks in this Commonwealth. 

Oct. 12, 1908. 
Hon. Pierre Jay, Bank Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You request my opinion as to whether the issne 
of New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company 6 per 
cent, debenture bonds is a legal investment for Massachusetts 
savings banks. 

E. L., c. 113, § 26, relating to savings banks, provides: — 



Deposits and the income derived therefrom shall be invested only 
as follows : — 

Third, . . . 

h. In the bonds and notes of the New York, New Haven and Hart- 
ford Railroad Company issued according to law, notwithstanding 
the existence on the twenty-first day of March in the year eighteen 
hundred and ninety-six of a mortgage indebtedness not then matured 
upon the whole or a part of the road of said company. 

This provision was first enacted in St. 1896, c. 178. I am 
not aware that it has ever been passed upon by our Supreme 
Court or by the Attorney-General. 

Section 65 of part II. of chapter 463 of the Acts of 1906, 
which provides for the determination by the Board of Railroad 
Commissioners of the reasonable necessity of any proposed issue 



42 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

of railroad stock, bonds or notes payable at periods of more 
than twelve months from date, contains also a provision that : — 

The provisions of this section shall not require the approval of 
the board of railroad commissioners to the issue of capital stock or 
bonds, or of coupon notes or other evidences of indebtedness as afore- 
said, authorized by law of this commonwealth, the proceeds of which 
are to be expended in another state or country, or which are to pay 
for borrowed money expended in another state or country. 

Section 66 provides that : — 

A railroad corporation, unless expressly authorized by its charter 
or by special law, shall not issue bonds, coupon notes or other 
evidences of indebtedness payable at periods of more than twelve 
months after the date thereof to an amount which, including the 
amount of all such securities previously issued and outstanding, 
exceeds in the whole the amount of its capital stock at the time 
actually paid in; but this limitation shall not apply to the issue of 
bonds for the purpose of paying and refunding at maturity bonds 
lawfully issued prior to the second day of June in the year eighteen 
hundred and ninety-seven; nor shall it apply to such of the bonds 
issued or to be issued under a mortgage as are deposited to retire 
at or before maturity bonds or other evidences of indebtedness 
previously issued and outstanding at the date of such mortgage, and 
as do not exceed the par value of the funded or other debt so to 
be retired; and such corporation shall not issue the securities speci- 
fied in this section unless authorized by a vote of its stockholders 
at a meeting called for the purpose. 

The fact that the excepting clanse of section 65 is omitted 
from section 66 seems to indicate that the latter section was in- 
tended to apply to the issue of all evidences of indebtedness, 
payable at periods of more than twelve months, of railroads 
chartered by this Commonwealth, irrespective of the purposes 
for which the money raised hy such issue is to be expended, 
whether in another State or country or in this Commonwealth. 
Section 66 provides that the amount, including the amount of all 
such securities previously issued and outstanding, with certain 
exceptions, shall not exceed in the whole the amount of a rail- 
road's capital stock at the time actually paid in. From a memo- 
randum furnished me of the capital stock issued and outstanding 
of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad Company, 
the amount of bonds, coupon notes or other evidences of indebt- 
edness payable at periods of more than twelve months after the 
date thereof, issued prior to the issuance of the 6 per cent, deben- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 43 

ture bonds about which you inquire, appears to be largely in 
excess of the capital stock actually paid in. It may be that some 
of these bonds come within the exceptions mentioned in section 
66, but, unless this is so, the issue would not be duly authorized 
in this Commonwealth under the provisions of St. 1906, c. 463, 
part II., §66, above quoted, as it would be in excess of the cap- 
ital stock paid in. Consequently, the bonds so issued would not 
be legal investments for savings banks, because they would not be 
" issued according to law," within the meaning of E. L., c. 113, 
§ 26, cl. 3, h. 

In my opinion, it makes no difference for what purpose the 
proceeds of such issue are to be used, whether within or without 
the Commonwealth. See Attorney-General v. New York, New 
Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 198 Mass. 413. 

Having received no information as to the amount of bonds 
falling within these exceptions in the case of the New York, New 
Haven & Hartford Eailroad Company, I make no final decision 
with respect to the debentures under discussion, but merely 
advise you as to the principles of law to be applied in determin- 
ing the cases presented to you after the facts have been fully 
ascertained. 

My attention has been called to chapter 590 of the Acts of 
1908, relative to savings banks, and chapter 620 of the Acts 
of 1908, relative to railroad securities. Neither of these statutes, 
however, affects the present question, the latter because it did not 
take effect until June 12, 1908, which was subsequent to the 
date of the issue of the debenture bonds under discussion, and 
the former because it provides (as does the section of the Eevised 
Laws above quoted) that railroad securities, to be valid invest- 
ments, must be bonds or notes issued " in accordance with the 
laws of this Commonwealth." See St. 1908, c. 590, part V., 
§ 68, cl. 3, a. 

As a general principle, I would say that bonds, coupon notes 
or other evidences of indebtedness payable at periods of more 
than twelve months after their date, issued in excess of the 
capital stock of a railroad corporation, would not be issued in 
accordance with the laws of this Commonwealth, and conse- 
quently would not be legal investments for savings banks in 
Massachusetts, whether the proceeds of such issue are to be used 
within or without the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. 
Smith et als., 10 Allen, 448. 

Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



44 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Master in Chancery — Removal from County — Vacancy — Ap- 
pointment — Governor. 

It is the duty of the Governor, under the provisions of R. L., c. 165, 
§ 52, to appoint masters in chancery as vacancies occur, " so that 
the number thereof in the several counties shall be eleven in Suf- 
folk, nine in Essex, seven in Middlesex, seven in Worcester and not 
more than five in any other county; " and where a master in 
chancery appointed for the county of Middlesex removes therefrom 
with the intention of permanently residing elsewhere, a vacancy 
is created in the list of such officers for such county, which the 
Governor is authorized to fill by appointment. 

Oct. 19, 1908. 
To His Excellency Curtis Guild, Jr., Governor. 

Sir : — Through the executive secretary you inquire whether 
or not a master in chancery appointed under the provisions of 
R. L., c. 165, § 52, for the county of Middlesex, and who there- 
after removes from Middlesex County to Suffolk County, by such 
removal vacates the office held by him, so that the appointment 
by the Governor of an additional master in chancery to be cred- 
ited to Middlesex County would be warranted. 

R. L., c. 165, § 52, is as follows : — 

The governor, with the advice and consent of the council, shall, 
as vacancies occur, appoint masters in chancery so that the number 
thereof in the several counties shall be eleven in Suffolk, nine in 
Essex, seven in Middlesex, seven in Worcester and not more than 
five in any other county. They shall be sworn, and shall hold their 
offices for a term of five years, unless sooner removed by the gov- 
ernor and council. 

By St. 1904, c. 348, the number of masters in chancery for 
Middlesex County was increased to eleven. 

The obvious purpose of the statute above quoted was to pre- 
serve in the several counties named therein the designated num- 
ber of masters in chancery, who should there perform the duties 
imposed upon them by statute, in order that the convenience of 
residents of such counties might be properly served, and that 
opportunity might be given to gain access to a master in chan- 
cery whenever necessity might arise. 

I am therefore of opinion that where a master in chancery 
appointed for Middlesex County removes therefrom and resides 
elsewhere, a vacancy is created in the list of masters in chancery 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 45 

for such county, and that the Governor is authorized to appoint 
a master in chancery to fill such vacancy. My opinion is not 
affected by the provisions of St. 1906, c. 187, which has con- 
ferred upon masters in chancery jurisdiction to act throughout 
the Commonwealth, and has provided that their commissions 
should be " issued for the Commonwealth," for the reason that 
the requirement of residents of the several counties as masters 
in chancery therein is equally strong, whether or not the juris- 
diction of such officers extends throughout the Commonwealth. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



Corporation — Foreign Corporation — Usual Place of Business 
within the Commonwealth. 

A foreign corporation engaged in the business of operating mines be- 
yond the limits of the Commonwealth, which maintains an office 
within the Commonwealth as a place for meetings of its board of 
directors, has a usual place of business therein, within the meaning 
of St. 1903, e. 437, § 58, and must comply with the requirements 
of sections 58-60 of such chapter. 

Oct. 26, 1908. 
Hon. William D. T. Trefry, Commissioner of Corporations. 

Dear Sir : — You ask my opinion on the question as to 
whether the Bingham Metal Mining Company, a corporation 
organized under the laws of the State of Maine, is doing business 
within this Commonwealth so as to be subject to chapter 437 
of the Acts of 1903, by reason of the following facts : — 

1. It is a foreign corporation, operating mines in the State of 
Utah, where all of its mining business is transacted. 

2. It has rented an office in Boston, and owns office furniture 
therein. 

3. The purpose of the Boston office is simply to have a place 
for meetings of its board of directors. 

4. It also has an account with a Boston bank. 

You ask : " Upon this statement of facts, is it my duty to 
require the Bingham Metal Mining Company to file the usual 
papers under sections 58-60 of chapter 437 aforesaid ? " 

The question is a close one, but I am inclined to the opinion 
that the corporation has such a usual place of business. The 
original statute imposing a tax on mining companies incorpo- 



46 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

rated elsewhere and doing business outside the Commonwealth 
applied to a corporation " having an office or place of business 
within the Commonwealth for the direction of its affairs or 
transfer of shares." St. 1865, c. 283, § 8. Such corporations 
were required to semiannually make returns to the Tax Commis- 
sioner, and to pay to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth a tax 
of one-twentieth of one per cent, upon the par value of the 
capital stock. This provision appears in Pub. Sts., c. 13, § 43. 
By St. 1882, c. 106, a foreign corporation engaged in mining, 
" which shall for any period exceeding ten days establish, set up, 
have or keep principal or branch, subscription, treasury or trans- 
fer office or agency within this Commonwealth," was required 
to file a certificate setting forth the name of the corporation, etc., 
and to pay a tax. In E. L., c. 14, § 51, it was provided that a 
foreign corporation engaged outside the Commonwealth in min- 
ing, and having " a usual place of business in this common- 
wealth," should make a semiannual return to the Tax Commis- 
sioner, and pay a tax. 

The history of the statute seems to indicate that the corpora- 
tions which were originally included in St. 1865, e. 283, § 8, 
were intended to be included within R. L., c. 14, § 51 ; that is, 
that the phrase " usual place of business " used in the Revised 
Laws is broad enough to include corporations which had within 
this Commonwealth offices used solely for directors' meetings or 
transfer offices. There is certainly no indication of any intent 
to change the law. 

The business corporation act, St. 1903, c. 437 (§ 95), ex- 
pressly repeals R. L., c. 14, § 51. The provisions of this act, 
however, so far as they are the same as those of statutes existing 
at the time of its passage, are to be construed as a continuation 
of those statutes. The words " usual place of business " occur in 
section 58 of the later act, and are to be construed as they were 
to be construed under the earlier act. If, therefore, the Bing- 
ham Metal Mining Company was within the provisions of R. L., 
c. 14, § 51, it is also, in the absence of anything to indicate a 
contrary intention, within the provisions of St. 1903, c. 437, 
§§ 58-60. 

I think, therefore, that it is your duty to require the Bingham 
Metal Mining Company to file the usual papers under sections 
58-60 of chapter 437 aforesaid. 

Very truly yours, 

Dana Maloxe, Attorney-General. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 47 



Fisheries and Game — Pursuit of Wild Fowl — Launch or Power 

Boat. 

The shooting of wild fowl from a launch or power boat, which has 
been used to reach a place frequented by such wild fowl, and is 
there anchored, constitutes a violation of the provisions of E. L., 
c. 92, § 11, as amended by St. 1906, c. 241, which forbids the pursuit 
of wild fowl " with or by aid of a boat propelled by steam or 
naphtha, or of a boat or vessel propelled by any mechanical means 
other than sails, oars or paddles." 

Nov. 12, 1908. 

George W. Field, Esq., Chairman, Commissioners on Fisheries and 

Game. 

Dear Sir : — In a letter of recent date your Board requests 
my opinion as to whether it would be a violation of R. L., c. 92, 
§ 11, as amended by St. 1906, c. «&41, "if a resident of Glouces- 
ter should go out on Gloucester Bay in a steam launch, anchor it, 
set decoys, shoot out of the boat, and get the dead birds by means 
of a row boat." 

So far as material, the statute above cited provides that " who- 
ever . . . pursues any wild fowl with or by the aid of a boat 
propelled by steam or naphtha, or of a boat or vessel propelled 
by any mechanical means other than sails, oars or paddles, . . . 
shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding twenty dollars for 
each offence." 

In my opinion, the act described would constitute a violation 
of this provision. 

The obvious intent of the statute is that the hunter shall not 
be able to get a greater advantage over the game which he is 
pursuing than he is able to obtain without the aid of a power 
boat or similar mechanical means. 

In the case stated, the pursuit of the birds was begun when 
the hunter started from home; and, although the hunter has 
brought his power boat to a stop before shooting, and perhaps 
has completed the pursuit of the game by row boat, he has, never- 
theless, pursued the birds with or by the aid of the power boat, 
and is therefore within the prohibitions of the statute. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



48 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Civil Service — Exemption — Heads of Principal Departments 
of a City — City Bookkeeper. 

The office of city bookkeeper, established by the charter of the city 
of North Adams (St. 1895, c. 148), does not constitute the incum- 
bent the head of any principal department in the governmental 
organization of such city, and, in the absence of other grounds for 
exemption, is within the operation of civil service rule VII., class 4, 
which includes " bookkeepers and persons doing similar work in 
the service of the Commonwealth and of any city thereof." 

Dec. 4, 1908. 
Hon. Charles Warrex, Chairman, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : — You inquire whether the office of city book- 
keeper, established by the city charter of the city of North Adams 
(St. 1895, c. 148, § 34), comes within civil service rule A^IL, 
class 4, — " bookkeepers and persons doing similar work in the 
service of the Commonwealth* and of any city thereof." You 
cite, as applicable to the office of bookkeeper, the following pro- 
visions, to be found in the city charter of North Adams, viz. : — 

Section 34. There shall be the following administrative officers, 
who shall be appointed by the mayor and who shall perform the 
duties by law and hereinafter prescribed for them, respectively, and 
such further duties not inconsistent with the nature of their re- 
spective offices as the city council may prescribe. . . . VIII. A 
city bookkeeper, who shall also be clerk of the board of public works, 
and shall keep the accounts of all the departments except as herein 
otherwise provided. . . . 

Section 43. All city officers not hereinbefore mentioned shall per- 
form such duties as are or may be from time to time prescribed by 
law, and such other duties, not inconsistent herewith or with general 
laws, as the council may from time to time prescribe. 

Section 44. The administrative officers and boards above-named 
in this title, and all administrative officers and boards hereafter 
established by the city council and not coming within the department 
of any officer or board so above-named, shall have the power, except 
as herein otherwise provided, to appoint or employ and to remove 
or discharge, all officers, clerks and employees in their respective 
departments. Such appointments shall not be for any specified term 
but shall hold good until removal or discharge. . . . 

A city bookkeeper is obviously within the scope of the civil 
service law and rules, unless he is exempted by section 9 of 
chapter 19 of the Bevised Laws, which provides as follows: — 

Judicial officers and officers elected by the people or by a city 
council, or whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the ex- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 49 

ecutive council or city council of any city, officers elected by either 
branch of the general court and the appointees of such officers, 
heads of principal departments of the commonwealth or of a city, 
the employees of the treasurer and receiver-general, of the board 
of commissioners of savings banks, and of the treasurer and col- 
lector of taxes of any city, two employees of the city clerk of any 
city, teachers of the public schools, the secretaries and confidential 
stenographers of the governor, or of the mayor of any city, police 
and fire commissioners and chief marshals, or chiefs of police and 
fire departments, shall not be affected as to their selection or ap- 
pointment by any rules made as aforesaid; but, with the above 
exception, such rules shall apply to members of police and fire de- 
partments. 

Although it is not specifically so stated, I assume that the city 
bookkeeper is not an officer whose appointment is subject to con- 
firmation by the city council of North Adams, and that if ex- 
empted at all it is because he comes within the provisions exempt- 
ing the heads of principal departments of a city. A department 
is defined to be " a distinct part of a governmental organization ; 
a branch of government." Thus, in the Constitution of Massa- 
chusetts, article 30 of the Bill of Eights, the word " department " 
is applied to the legislative, judicial and executive powers. A 
principal department of a city is one of the several divisions of 
governmental organization into which the government of a city 
readily separates itself. Broadly speaking, those departments 
would be the executive, as represented by the mayor ; the legisla- 
tive, as represented by the city council; and the administrative, 
as represented by administrative officers appointed by the mayor 
or elected by the city council. Undoubtedly, however, the statute 
had particularly in view certain principal and easily recognized 
divisions in the administrative department of a city; such as, for 
instance, the division relating to public works, the division 
including the care and maintenance of the poor, and certain 
other distinct fields for administrative activity. See Attorney- 
General v. Trehy, 178 Mass. 186. 

Upon this definition it is obvious that the office of city book- 
keeper, as established by the charter of the city of North Adams, 
does not constitute the incumbent the head of any principal 
department in the governmental organization of the city, and, in 
the absence of other grounds for exemption, such officer would 
be subject to the civil service law and rules. 
Very truly yours, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



50 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Inspection of Buildings — Sanitation and Ventilation — Inspec- 
tion Department of District Police. 

Under the provisions of St. 1907, c. 537, § 5, and St. 1908, c. 369, the 
inspection department of the Massachusetts District Police has no 
jurisdiction over matters of sanitation or ventilation in buildings 
subject to inspection, other than to order changes in construction 
for ventilating or sanitary purposes, when the necessity therefor 
is reported to such department by the State Board of Health. 

Dec. 11, 1908. 
Gen. Jophanus H. Whitney, Chief, Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir : — By your letter of November 6 you require my 
opinion upon the question whether or not, under the existing 
laws, the inspectors of factories and public buildings in the 
inspection department of the District Police are authorized or 
required to take any independent and initial action with respect 
to the inspection of ventilation and sanitary appliances in public 
buildings. 

Under the provisions of R. L., c. 104, § 41, and c. 106, §§ 41- 
45, inclusive, all jurisdiction with respect to matters of sanita- 
tion and ventilation in public buildings was vested in the fac- 
tory inspectors of the District Police. This authority was, how- 
ever, specifically repealed by St. 1907, c. 537, § 5, which is as 
follows : — 

The state inspectors of health shall, under the direction of the 
state board of health and in place of the inspection department of 
the district police, enforce the provisions of section forty-one of 
chapter one hundred and four of the Revised Laws so far as said 
section provides that factories shall be well ventilated and kept clean, 
sections forty-one, forty-four and forty-seven to sixty-one, inclusive, 
of chapter one hundred and six of the Revised Laws, chapter three 
hundred and twenty-two of the acts of the year nineteen hundred 
and two, chapter four hundred and seventy-five of the acts of the 
year nineteen hundred and three, chapter two hundred and thirty- 
eight of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and five, and chapter 
two hundred and fifty of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and 
six; and the powers and duties heretofore conferred and imposed 
upon the members of said inspection department of the district 
police by section eight of chapter one hundred and eight of the 
Revised Laws hi respect to the foregoing sections and acts, and in 
respect to all acts in amendment thereof or in addition thereto, and 
in respect to any other laws, are hereby conferred and imposed upon 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 51 

said state inspectors of health or such other officers as the state 
board of health may from time to time appoint : provided, how- 
ever, that neither said board of health nor any inspector thereof 
shall have authority to require structural alterations to be made 
in buildings, but shall report the necessity therefor to the inspection 
department of the district police. Wherever in said provisions of 
law the words " inspector " or " inspectors " of factories and public 
buildings, " inspection department of the district police/' " in- 
spector " or " inspectors " of the district police, " district police," 
" factory inspector " or " inspectors," and " member " or " mem- 
bers " of the district police occur, they shall be taken to mean state 
inspector or inspectors of health. "Wherever the words " chief of 
the district police " occur, they shall be taken to mean the state board 
of health. 

While this section is inartificial and in some respects obscure 
as to construction, it is not necessary for the purposes of this 
inquiry to go beyond the -express repeal of the sections of chapters 
104 and 106 of the Eevised Laws, above quoted. Upon the ap- 
proval of this act, the duties and powers theretofore vested in the 
members of the inspection department of the District Police 
were transferred to and imposed upon the State inspectors of 
health, or such other officers as the State Board of Health might 
appoint. 

St. 1907, c. 537, was in effect amended by St. 1908, c. 389, 
entitled " An Act to define the powers and duties of the in- 
spectors of factories and public buildings." Such inspectors 
were given the power to enter any building, structure or enclos- 
ure, for the purpose of examining the methods of prevention of 
fire, means of exits and means of protection against accidents; 
and they were further authorized to make investigations as to the 
employment of children, young persons and women, " except 
concerning health and the influence of occupation upon health." 
They may also enter any public building and public or private 
institution or schoolhouse, church, theatre or other place of 
public resort, and make such investigations and order such struct- 
ural or other changes as may be necessary in connection with 
the construction, occupation and heating appliances and condi- 
tions, but they are expressly forbidden to order changes for 
ventilating or sanitary purposes. The section then proceeds : 
" provided, however, that they may order structural changes for 
any purpose whenever the necessity therefor has been reported 
in accordance with the provisions of section five of chapter five 



52 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

hundred and thirty-seven of the acts of the year nineteen hundred 
and seven." The provision of St. 1907, c. 537, § 5, referred to, 
relates to notice from the State Board of Health, and has already 
been quoted. 

It results, from this proviso, that, while the inspectors of fac- 
tories have no powers to investigate, inspect or upon their own 
initiative order changes in methods of ventilation in buildings 
subject to their jurisdiction, it becomes their duty, upon report 
of the State Board of Health, to order such changes as may be 
deemed proper in the premises. 

From a consideration of the statutes above referred to, it 
clearly follows that the only connection with matters pertaining 
to sanitation or ventilation which the inspection department of 
the Massachusetts District Police still retain is the single duty 
to order structural changes in buildings for ventilating and san- 
itary purposes when the necessity therefor is reported to the 
inspection department of the District Police by the State Board 
of Health. 

Yours very truly, 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. ,53 



OPINIONS UPON APPLICATIONS 

For Leave to file Informations in the Name of the Attorney- 
General. 



Attorney-General ex rel. v. Visitors of the Theological 
Institution in Phillips Academy in Andover. 

Attorney-General — Public Charitable Trust — Trust Fund — 

Mandamus. 

Under the provisions of E. L., c. 7, § 6, which makes it the duty of 
the Attorney-General to enforce the due application of funds given 
or appropriated to public charities within the Commonwealth, and 
to prevent breaches of trust in the administration thereof, the 
Attorney-General will not sanction, by the use of his name upon 
a petition for a writ of mandamus, the expenditure of trust funds 
for the purpose of deciding a purely technical question, when in 
his opinion no public advantage will be served thereby. 

Aug. 28, 1908. 

This is an application to the Attorney- General by Eev. Wil- 
liam E. Wolcott, D.D., and Mr. William Shaw, to sign an infor- 
mation praying that a writ of mandamus issue to the visitors 
of the Theological Institution in Phillips Academy in Andover, 
commanding them to hold a meeting at which the said trustees 
shall be duly summoned to appear, and to determine thereat 
whether, in the removal and affiliation of Andover Theological 
Seminary with Harvard University and in the terms and condi- 
tions of said affiliation and in the general plan of such removal 
and affiliation, said trustees are not acting contrary to the stat- 
utes of the foundation and in violation of the terms of their 
trust. 

Section 6 of chapter 7 of the Eevised Laws provides that : — 

He [the attorney-general] shall enforce the due application of 
funds given or appropriated to public charities within the common- 
wealth, prevent breaches of trust in the administration thereof . . . 

On March 12, 1908, the trustees of Andover Theological Sem- 
inary (eleven of the trustees being recorded for the affiliation, 
and one failing to vote, there being twelve members of the board) 



54 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

voted to remove from Andover to Cambridge, and also, by offi- 
cial vote and mutual agreement made with the authorities of 
Harvard University, they affected an affiliation of the two insti- 
tutions. The terms of affiliation provide in part that the organi- 
zation of the seminary shall be maintained without change, all 
its trusts being executed as at present. 

The trustees are given express authority to remove the sem- 
inary by the statutes of the founders (1778) : — 

Whereas, in the course of human events, the period may arrive, 
when the prosperity of this Institution may be promoted by re- 
moving it from the place where it is founded; if it shall hereafter 
be judged, upon mature and impartial consideration of all circum- 
stances, by two-thirds of the Trustees, that for good and substantial 
reasons, which at this time do not exist, the true design herein ex- 
pressed will be better served, by removing the Seminary to some other 
place, it shall be in their power to remove it accordingly; provided 
that if this event shall ever take place, there shall be fairly and truly 
entered on the Clerk's records, all the reasons whereon the deter- 
mination was grounded, and the same shall be subscribed by the 
members who effected the determination ; but unless the good of 
mankind shall manifestly require it, this Seminary shall never be 
removed from the South Parish in the Town of Andover. 

Article XX. of the associate statutes defines the powers and 
duties of the board of visitors, as follows : — 

The powers and duties of the Board of Visitors, thus constituted 
and organized, shall be as follows, namely : — 

1. To visit the Foundation once in every year, and at other times, 
when regularly called thereto; 

2^ to inquire into the state of this our Fund and the management 
of this Foundation, with respect both to Professors and Students; 

3. to determine, interpret, and explain the Statutes of this Foun- 
dation in all cases, brought before them in their judicial capacity; 

4. to redress grievances, both with respect to Professors and Stu- 
dents ; 

5. to hear appeals from decisions of the Board of Trustees and 
to remedy upon complaint, duly exhibited in behalf of the said Pro- 
fessors and Students; 

6. to review and reverse any censure passed by said Trustees 
upon any Professor or Student in this Foundation; 

7. to declare void all Rules and Regulations, which may be in- 
consistent with the original Statutes thereof; 

8. to take care that the duties of every Professor in this Founda- 



1909.J PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 55 

tion be intelligently and faithfully discharged, and to admonish or 
remove him, either for misbehavior, heterodoxy, incapacity, or neg- 
lect of the duties of his office; 

9. to examine into the proficiency of the students, and to admonish, 
suspend, or deprive any student for negligence, contumacy, or any 
heinous crime, committed against the laws of God or the Statutes of 
this Foundation; 

10. and in general, to see that our true intentions, as expressed in 
these Statutes, be faithfully executed; always administering justice 
impartially, and exercising the functions of their office in the fear 
of God, according to the said Statutes, the Constitution of this 
Seminary and the laws of the Land. 

At a meeting of the visitors, on the thirteenth day of May, 
1908, upon the petition of these applicants, praying the Board 
to decide whether the trustees, in passing a vote to remove the 
seminary and to affiliate with Harvard University, had not acted 
contrary to the statutes of the seminary and perverted their 
trusts, the following vote was passed : — 

The visitors feel that they should not entertain the petition, be- 
cause they are not satisfied that the visitors have a right to review 
the action of the trustees in deciding to remove the seminary from 
Andover to Cambridge, and to affiliate with Harvard, and because 
they are not satisfied that the petitioners have a right to institute 
such a petition. 

It is claimed that the visitors, who are three in number, have 
the power, and that it is their duty, to review the action of the 
trustees in voting to remove said seminary from Andover and to 
affiliate with Harvard University; that, contrary to the terms of 
their appointment and contrary to the statutes of the foundation 
under which they hold office, they have neglected to take official 
cognizance of the votes of the trustees of said seminary with 
reference to such removal. 

As to the power of the visitors, Mr. Justice Knowlton, in 
Smyth v. Phillips Academy, 154 Mass. 551, says that: — 

They [the statutes] leave the whole management and control of the 
theological institution in the board of trustees, who constitute the 
corporation, and who hold the property, subject only to a visitatorial 
power in the board of visitors, whose general duty is to visit the 
corporation and see that the trustees manage the institution in con- 
formity with the statutes, and, if errors or abuses are discovered, 
to correct them. 



56 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The trustees have been advised as to their rights and duties 
by eminent lawyers, from whose opinions I quote : — 

It follows . . . that the visitors cannot revise, and they have no 
power to negative, a decision by the trustees to change the location 
of the seminary, if determined upon by the trustees in an honest 
exercise of their judgment, and not from corrupt motives or ulterior 
purposes. Such action by the trustees is not maladministration, but 
a properly exercised administrative function. 

Courtesy may suggest that the visitors be informed by the trustees 
of their intended plan, but neither the letter nor the spirit of the 
original foundation or of the associate foundation gives the visitors 
any legal right to be consulted or any joint power of action or any 
power to annul the action of the trustees. 

This is not a case involving the maladministration or misappli- 
cation of trust funds, or the denial of the benefits or emoluments 
of the foundation to those entitled thereto; but I am asked to 
sign an information against the board of visitors for alleged 
misconduct in exercising its general visitatorial powers. 

From a careful examination of article XX., above quoted, 
which defines the powers and duties of the board of visitors, I 
am satisfied that the board of visitors have no right to review 
the action of the trustees in voting to remove to Cambridge. The 
power of removal is expressly given to the trustees by the stat- 
utes of the founders, with no provision therein for review by the 
visitors, nor do I find such power in said article XX., which 
seems to me to deal especially with the doctrinal creeds and 
requirements to be observed by professors and students, the duty 
of explaining the statutes in reference thereto, as well as redress- 
ing grievances in respect both to professors and students, and 
seeing that the professors and students have the benefits of the 
foundation as provided in the statutes. 

Some weight should be given to the action of the board of 
visitors, upon which there is an able lawyer. In refusing to act, 
they say " they are not satisfied that the visitors have a right to 
review the action of the trustees," which, it seems to me, is equiv- 
alent to saying, in this case, that in the opinion of the visitors 
they have no such right. 

In the event of the granting of the writ by the court, I am not 
satisfied from any evidence which I have that the visitors would 
vote not to remove and affiliate, if they had the power. An 
opinion of an Attorney-General is quoted by the petitioners, as 
follows : — 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 57 

It is not necessary that the Attorney-General should be satisfied 
that the information which he is called upon to sign can be main- 
tained. If the questions raised by it are doubtful, and the matter 
is one of public importance, it is his duty to sign the information, 
even though he may be of opinion that it cannot be maintained. 
(Vol. II., pp. 635, 636.) 

But in this case, if there is a technical question which might 
be tried out, I do not believe in sanctioning the expenditure of 
trust funds to try out such a question in the courts, when, in all 
probability, no public advantage will be served. 

Upon a mature and impartial consideration of all the circum- 
stances, I am clearly of opinion that, in the exercise of the dis- 
cretion entrusted to the Attorney- General, I should not sign the 
petition. 

Dana Malone, Attorney-General 

Peirce & Wadsworth, for the petitioners. 
Burton P. Gray, for the respondent. 

Attorney-General ex rel. v. Louis N. Eicher. 

Statute — General and Particular — City Charter of Marl- 
borough — Superintendent of Streets — Appointment — 
Attorney-General — Quo Warranto — Local Question. 

R. L., c. 26, § 36, which provides that " no member of the city council 
shall, during the term for which he was chosen, either by appoint- 
ment or by election of the city council or of either branch thereof, 
be eligible to any office the salary of which is payable by the city," 
is superseded with respect to the city of Marlborough by St. 1890, 
c. 320, $ 17, the charter of such city, providing that " no person 
shall be eligible by appointment or election ... to any office of 
emolument the salary of which is payable out of the city treasury, 
who at the time of such election or appointment is a member of the 
city council; " and an alderman of such city elected for the year 
beginning in January, 1908, who has taken the oath of office and 
participated in the business transacted by the board of aldermen, 
and upon the sixth day of January has resigned therefrom, may 
legally be appointed superintendent of streets by the mayor. 

An information in the nature of quo warranto will be signed by the 
Attorney-General only when the construction of a law which affects 
the public generally is involved, or where the Commonwealth is 
interested in the determination of the question raised; and he will 
not sign such an information for the purpose of determining a 
question purely local in its application. 



58 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Sept. 6, 1908. 

This was a petition to the Attorney- General for the nse of his 
name npon an information in the nature of quo warranto against 
Louis N. Richer, to try his title to the office of superintendent 
of streets in the city of Marlborough. Upon hearing, it appeared 
that the respondent was elected an alderman of the city of Marl- 
borough for the year beginning in January, 1908, and that on 
the sixth day of January, 1908, he duly took the oath of office 
and participated in the business transacted by the board of alder- 
men, at least to the extent of taking part in the election of a 
chairman of such board; that thereupon he resigned from the 
board of aldermen, and was upon the same day, to wit, Jan. 6, 
1908, appointed superintendent of streets by the mayor of said 
city, such nomination being duly confirmed by the board of 
aldermen. The term of office for which the respondent was so 
appointed was for a term of one year from the first day of Feb- 
ruary, 1908, and he duly qualified and took the oath of office as 
superintendent of streets on Jan. 16, 1908. 

The petition before me appears to be based upon the provisions 
of R. L., c. 26, § 36, which is as follows : — 

No member of the city council shall, during the term for which 
he was chosen, either by appointment or by election of the city 
council or of either branch thereof, be eligible to any office the 
salary of which is payable by the city. (See St. 1886, c. 117.) 

If the provision above quoted were applicable to and governed 
the appointment of the respondent, there could be little doubt 
of the illegality of such appointment. The charter of the city of 
Marlborough, however, enacted in St. 1890, c. 320, contained in 
section 17 a provision to the effect that: — 

No person shall be eligible by appointment or election by the 
mayor and aldermen, or city council, to any office of emolument the 
salary of which is payable out of the city treasury, who at the time 
of such election or appointment is a member of the city council. 

It is admitted that the respondent, at the time of his appoint- 
ment to the office of superintendent of streets, had duly resigned 
from the office of member of the board of aldermen, and was not, 
therefore, a member of the city council at the moment of such 
appointment. R. L., c. 26, § 36, above quoted, was originally 
enacted in 1886, four years prior to the passage of the act char- 
tering the city of Marlborough, which was chapter 320 of the 
Acts of 1890; so that the provision in the charter was considered 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 59 

by the Legislature with chapter 117 of the Acts of 1886 in mind. 
It must therefore have been intended by the Legislature to change 
the law so far as the city of Marlborough was concerned. 

That a subsequent legislative act repeals all prior acts repugnant 
to it, is a principle which results from the unlimited nature of legis- 
lative power. The last expression of the legislative will must be 
carried into effect, as the law of the land. Broivn v. Lowell, 8 
Mete. 172. 

It would therefore seem that the legislative intent was to repeal 
the general law as to the city of Marlborough. It has been said 
that it would require very strong terms in a general act to show 
that it was intended to supersede a special act in order to hold it 
to be such a repeal. 

Here the two statutes are irreconcilable; they cannot be read 
together; they cover the same subject-matter; and it therefore 
appears to be the legislative will to repeal the prior general law 
so far as Marlborough is concerned,, it having been done with full 
knowledge on the part of the Legislature of the provisions of the 
statute of 1886. 

This being the legislative will, I feel it my duty to rule, what 
I believe to be the law, that the provision in the charter of the 
city of Marlborough must govern, and that if it is desired to 
change to conform to the general law, legislation should be asked 
for. 

Informations in the nature of quo warranto, under the rule 
established by my predecessors, are signed by the Attorney-Gen- 
eral only when the construction of a law affecting the Common- 
wealth generally is involved, or when the Commonwealth, as 
such, is for any reason interested in the determination of the 
question ; but when the question is purely local, and one in which 
the Commonwealth is in no way interested, the reason for sign- 
ing does not exist. In this case the question is a local one, in- 
volving the construction of the city charter of Marlborough 
alone; and I am unable to find such a case, presenting questions 
as to the construction of any law affecting the Commonwealth 
generally, as requires the Attorney-General to grant the use of 
his name to an information in the nature of quo warranto. 

For both of the reasons above named the application is there- 
fore refused. 

Da^a Malone, Attorney-General. 

William M. Brigliam, for the petitioner. 

James W. McDonald, city solicitor, for the respondent. 



INDEX TO OPINIONS. 



Andover, theological institution, mandamus, .... 

Appropriation from public funds to pay damages of act of insane person 

released on parole, constitutional law, .... 
Appropriation for religious society, school or institution, constitutional 

law, .......... 

Appropriation of money not directly raised by taxation, public purpose 

constitutional law, . . . . ' . 

Bond, register of deeds, statutory requirements, .... 

Bookkeeper, civil service, ........ 

Certification of pay rolls, police force of city of Boston, Civil Service Com- 
mission, ......... 

Child labor, employment in factory or workshop, certificate of school au 

thorities, ......... 

City of Chelsea, appropriation in aid of, constitutional law, . 
City or town, aid rendered State pauper, notice, reimbursement, 
Civil service, city bookkeeper, exemption, ..... 

Exemption, clerk of chief of police, ..... 

Civil Service Commission, police force of city of Boston, certification of 

pay rolls, .......... 

Civil service rules, effect upon authority of Metropolitan Park Commission 

punishment of police, ....... 

Commonwealth, liability of, damage by liquid asphalt on State highway 

defect, . . . 

Constitutional law, appropriation to pay damages for act of insane person 

released on parole, public purpose, ..... 

Appropriation from public funds for benefit of religious society 

school or institution, ....... 

Appropriation of money not directly raised by taxation, . 
Corporation organized under laws of District of Columbia, foreign corpo 

ration, . . . . . . . ... 

Corporation, foreign, usual place of business, .... 

Damage by liquid asphalt, State highway, liability of Commonwealth, 
Debenture bonds, New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company 

investment for savings banks, ..... 

Director of insurance company, loans by, ..... 
District Police, inspection of buildings, jurisdiction, 

Employment of children, factory, workshop or mercantile establishment, 
Factory, workshop or mercantile establishment, employment of child 

under fourteen years, certificate of ability to read and write, 
Fisheries and game, pursuit of wild fowl, ..... 
Foreign corporation, corporation chartered under the laws of the District 

of Columbia, . • • • • • 

Usual place of business, ....... 

Funds, investment of, by insurance corporation, .... 

History of military organizations of volunteers, approval, purchase of 

copies, ......... 

Insane person, liability of Commonwealth for act of, released on parole, 



62 INDEX TO OPINIONS. [Jan. 1909. 



Inspection of buildings, sanitation, District Police, 

Insurance, investment of funds* in secured loans and mortgages, 

Loans by officers or directors of insurance company, investment of 

funds, ......... 

Label, patent medicines, fractional parts, ..... 

Launch or power boat, pursuit of wild fowl, .... 

Local question, quo warranto, city of Marlborough, superintendent of 

streets, ......... 

Marlborough, city of, superintendent of streets, quo warranto, 
Master in chancery, removal from county, vacancy, 
Metropolitan Park Commission, authority to establish rules for govern- 
ment of its police force, civil service rules, . 
Military organization, history of, purchase of copies by Commonwealth, 
Xew York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, debenture bonds 

savings bank investments, ....... 

Notice, aid rendered State pauper, by city or town, reimbursement, 
Opinions upon applications, public charitable trust, Andover, 
Original packages, fractional parts to be labelled, patent medicine, 
Pauper, State, aid by city or town, notice, reimbursement, 
Police force of city of Boston, certification of pay rolls, Civil Service Com 

mission, ......... 

Police force of Metropolitan Park Commission, authority of commission to 

punish for breach of regulations, effect of civil service rules, 
Proprietary and patent medicines, label of fractional parts, prosecution, 
Quo warranto, city of Marlborough, superintendent of streets, 
Register of deeds, bond, ........ 

Retirement, of veteran in service of Commonwealth, compensation, 
Sanitation and ventilation, jurisdiction of District Police in inspection of 

buildings, ......... 

Savings banks, legal investment, New York, New Haven & Hartford 

Railroad Company debenture bonds, .... 
State Board of Health, label of proprietary medicines, prosecution, 
State highway, defect or want of repair, liability of Commonwealth, dam 

age by liquid asphalt, ....... 

Street railway corporation, taxation when in hands of receiver, 

Taxation of street railway company in hands of receiver, 

Usual place of business, foreign corporation, .... 

Veteran, retirement from service of Commonwealth, compensation, 



PAGE 

50 



29 
38 
47 

57 
57 
44 

23 



41 

4 

53 

38 

4 

22 

23 

38 

57 

40 

1 

50 

41 

38 

32 
2 
2 

45 
1 



LIST OF CASES 



IN WHICH THE 



ATTORNEY- GENERAL 



HAS APPEARED 



During the Year 1908. 



GRADE CROSSINGS. 



Notices have been served upon this department of the filing of 
the following petitions for the appointment of special commis- 
sioners for the abolition of grade crossings : — 

Barnstable County. 

Barnstable, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
County Eoad, Pond Village, crossing. Eailroad Commis- 
sioners* appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Arthur W. DeGoosh appointed auditor. Auditor's 
first report filed. Pending. 

Bourne, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition of 
Collins and Handy crossings. Louis A. Frothingham, 
Henry L. Parker, Jr., and Lyman P. Thomas, appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Arthur W. 
DeGoosh appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Berkshire County. 

Adams. Hoosac Valley Street Eailway Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Commercial Street crossing in 
Adams. George W. Wiggin, William W. McClench and 
Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Frank H. Cande appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Great Barrington, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of a grade crossing in the village of Housatonic in 
said town. John J. Flaherty, Edmund K. Turner and 
Stephen S. Taft appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Frank N". Nay appointed auditor. Auditor's 
first report filed. Pending. 

Lanesborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Valley Eoad crossing. Pending. 

Lee, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Lang- 
don's crossing in Lee. Wade Keyes, Thomas W. Kennefick 
and Luther Dean appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
second report filed. Pending. 



66 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Lenox, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of grade 
crossings in Lenox. Fred Joy, Louis A. Frothingham and 
Edmund Iv. Turner appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. J. Mott Hallowell appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

North Adams, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Furnace Street crossing. Pending. 

North Adams. Hoosac Valley Street Railway Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of Main Street crossing, 
known as Braytonville crossing, in North Adams. Edmund 
K. Turner, William W. McClench and Joseph P. Magenis 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Frank H. Cande appointed auditor. Auditor's first report 
filed. Pending. 

North Adams, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition 
for abolition of State Street crossing. Edmund K. Turner, 
David F. Slade and William G. McKechnie appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, and Directors of Boston & 
Albany Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of Hubbard and Gates avenues and Jason Street 
crossings in Pittsfield. Thomas W. Kennefick, William Sul- 
livan and Charles M. Ludden appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Patrick J. Ashe appointed 
auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Merrill crossing in Pittsfield. Thomas W. Ken- 
nefick, Frederick L. Green and Edmund K. Turner ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Holmes Road crossing. William W. McClench, 
Charles N. Clark and Edmund K. Turner appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Stockbridge, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of " River Road " crossing in Stockbridge. James B. Car- 
roll, Edward B. Bishop and Luther Dean appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Wade Keyes 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Stockbridge, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
South Street crossing. Railroad commissioners appointed 
commissioners. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 67 

Williamstown. Hoosac Valley Street Railway Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for the abolition of a grade crossing in 
Williamstown, near the Fitchburg Railroad station. Ed- 
mund K. Turner, William W. McClench and Charles N. 
Clark appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Frank H. Cande appointed auditor, xAuditor's second 
report filed. Pending. 

Bristol County. 

Attleborough. Directors of Old Colony Railroad, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of South Main Street crossing in At- 
tleborough. George W. Wiggin, Augustus P. Martin and 
Charles A. Allen appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Clarence H. Cooper appointed auditor. Audi- 
tor's third report filed. Pending. 

Attleborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of West Street, North Main Street and other crossings in 
Attleborough. James R. Dunbar, Henry L. Parker and 
William Jackson appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Chas. P. Searle appointed auditor. Auditor's 
sixth report filed. Pending. 

Easton. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of cross- 
ing at Eastondale. James E. Cotter, Wm. Rankin and 
Chas. D. Bray appointed commissioners. Fred Joy ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's fourth report filed. 

Fall River, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Brownell Street crossing and other crossings in 
Fall River. John Q. A. Brackett, Samuel N. Aldrich and 
Charles A. Allen appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
nineteenth report filed. Pending. 

Mansfield. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
grade crossing at North Main, Chauncey, Central, West, 
School and Elm streets in Mansfield. Samuel L. Powers, 
Stephen S. Taft and Wm. Jackson appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

New Bedford, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of certain grade crossings in New Bedford. George 
F. Richardson, Horatio G. Herrick and Wm. Wheeler ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 



68 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's twelfth report filed. 
Pending. 
Taunton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of grade crossings in Taunton. William B. French, 
A. C. Southworth and Edward B. Bishop appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Essex County. 

Haverhill, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Washington Street and other crossings in 
Haverhill. George W. Wiggin, William B. French and Ed- 
mund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's 
ninth report filed. Pending. 

Ipswich. Boston & Maine Railroad Company, petitioners. Peti- 
tion for" abolition of Locust Street crossing in Ipswich. 
George W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner and William F. 
Dana appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's first 
report filed. Pending. 

Ipswich, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
High Street crossing. Geo. W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner 
and William F. Dana appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Ipswich, Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of Underhill crossing in Ips- 
wich. George W. Wiggin, Albert D. Bosson and Edmund 
K. Turner appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's first 
report filed. Disposed of. 

Lynn, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Summer Street and other crossings on Saugus 
branch of Boston & Maine Eailroad and Market Street and 
other crossings on main line. George W. Wiggin, Edgar E. 
Champlin and Edmund K. Turner appointed commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Lynn, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of grade crossings at Pleasant and Shepard streets, Gas 
Wharf Eoad and Commercial Street, on the Boston, Eevere 
Beach & I-zvnn Eailroad. Pending. 

Manchester. Directors of Boston & Maine Eailroad Compaq, 
petitioners. Petition for the abolition of the Summer Street 



1909.] public document — No. 12. 69 

crossing in Manchester. George P. Sanger, Edward B. 
Bishop and Chas. A. Putnam appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Andrew Fiske appointed au- 
ditor. Auditor's first report filed. Disposed of. 

Eowley. Boston & Maine Eailroad Company, petitioners. Peti- 
tion for abolition of Main Street crossing in Eowley. E. 
K. Turner, Ealph A. Stewart and James M. Swift ap- 
pointed^ commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Salem, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of grade crossings at Bridge, Washington, Mill, 
North, Flint and Grove streets in Salem. Pending. 

Salem, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Lafayette Street crossing in Salem. Pending. 

Franklin County. 

Deerfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Sprouts crossing on Main Street, Deerfield. Timothy G. 
Spaulding, Edmund K. Turner and Franklin T. Hammond 
appointed commissioners. Auditor's first report filed. 
Disposed of. 

Deerfield. Directors of the Fitchburg Eailroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of McClellan crossing at East 
Deerfield. Alpheus Sanford, Edmund K. Turner and Wal- 
ter Perley Hall appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. George P. O'Donnell appointed auditor. 
Disposed of. 

Deerfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
" Upper Wisdom Eoad " crossing. Edmund K. Turner, 
Calvin Coolidge and Hugh P. Drysdale appointed commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Greenfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Allen and Eussell streets crossings in Greenfield. Ed- 
mund K. Turner, Walter *P. Hall and Fred D. Stanley 
appointed commissioners. Stephen S. Taft appointed au- 
ditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Northfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossing on road to South Vernon. Edmund K. Turner, 
Charles W. Hazelton and Charles H. Innes appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Northfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Eiver Street crossing in Northfield. Alpheus Sanford, 



70 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Charles W. Hazelton and Newell D. Winter appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Dana Malone ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's first and supplemental reports 
filed. Disposed of. 

Hampden County. 

Chester, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Hun- 
tington Eoad in Chester. Charles E. Hibbard, William 
Sullivan and Wm. P. Martin appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Ralph W. Ellis appointed au- 
ditor. Auditor's first report filed. Disposed of. 

Chester, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Hun- 
tington Street and White Chop crossing in Chester. Charles 
E. Hibbard, William Sullivan and William P. Martin ap- 
pointed commissioners. Thos. W. Kennefick appointed 
auditor. Auditor's first and supplemental reports filed. 
Disposed of. 

Chicopee, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Plainfield and Exchange Street crossings and other 
crossings in Chicopee. Geo. W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner 
and Fred D. Stanley appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Timothy G. Spaulding appointed au- 
ditor. Auditor's fourth report filed. Pending. 

Palmer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Palmer and Belchertown Road crossing in Palmer. T. M. 
Brown, Chas. E. Hibbard and Henry G. Taft appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Stephen S. 
Taft appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Palmer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Burley's crossing in Palmer. Pending. 

Palmer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Springfield Road crossing, otherwise known as the Wire 
Mill crossing, in Palmer. William Turtle, Frederick L. 
Greene and John W. Mason appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Disposed of. 

Russell, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Montgomery Road crossing. Railroad Commissioners ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pend- 
ing. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 71 

Springfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Bay State Eoad and other crossings in Spring- 
field. George W. Eichardson, Marshall Wilcox and George 
W. Wiggin appointed commissioners. Commissioners' re- 
port filed. Charles W. Bosworth appointed auditor. Audi- 
tor's first report filed. Pending. 

Springfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of South End Bridge crossing in Springfield. Ar- 
thur H. Wellman, John J. Flaherty and George F. Swain 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's second report 
filed. Pending. 

Westfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for raising of 
bridge over Elm Street in Westfield. Thomas W. Proctor, 
John B. O'Donnell and Edmund K. Turner appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. J. Mott Hallo- 
well appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Disposed of. 

Westfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for raising bridge 
over North Elm Street in Westfield. Geo. W. Wiggin, Fred- 
erick L. Greene and Edmund K. Turner appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Disposed of. 

Westfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of North Elm Street crossing in Westfield. Charles E. 
Hibbard, Joseph Bennett and George W. Wiggin appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Ealph W. 
Ellis appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Westfield. Boston & Albany Bailroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Coburn's and Morse's crossings in 
Westfield. Charles M. Ludden, William Sullivan and Rich- 
ard W. Irwin appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Ealph W. Ellis appointed auditor. Auditor's 
first report filed. Pending. 

Hampshire County. 

Belchertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Holyoke Eoad crossing in Belchertown. George W. Wiggin, 
Fred D. Stanley and Edmund K. Turner appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Stephen S. Taft 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Belchertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the aboli- 



\ 
72 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

tion of Leache's crossing in Belchertown. Augustus W. 
Locke, George W. Johnson and Joseph Bennett appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. William H. 
Clapp appointed auditor. Auditor's report filed. 

Northampton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Grove Street and Earl Street crossings in North- 
ampton. Frederick L. Greene, Stephen S. Taft and James 
M. Sickman appointed commissioners. Commissioners' re- 
port filed. William P. Hayes appointed auditor. Auditor's 
first report filed. Pending. 

Northampton. Directors of Connecticut River Eailroad Corn- 
pan} 7 , petitioners. Petition for abolition of Lyman's cross- 
ing in Northampton. George W. Wiggin, Fred D. Stanley 
and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. L. E. Hitchcock appointed auditor. 
Auditor's third report filed. Disposed of. 

Northampton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Laurel Park station crossing in Northampton. 
George W. Wiggin, Fred D. Stanley and Edmund K. Turner 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Ar- 
thur S. Kneil appointed auditor. Auditor's first report 
filed. Disposed of. 

Ware, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Gibbs 
crossing in Ware. George F. Tucker, George F. Kimball 
and Lawson Sibley appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. John W. Mason appointed auditor. Dis- 
posed of. 

Ware, Selectmen, of , petitioners. Petition for abolition of Maple 
Street and Gilbertville Eoad crossings in Ware. Alpheus 
Sanford, Everett C. Bumpus and William W. McCleneh ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. John 
W. Mason appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Acton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Great 
Eoad crossing in Acton. Benj. W. Wells, George Burrage 
and William B. Sullivan appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Fred Joy appointed auditor. 
Pending. 

Acton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of May- 
nard Eoad crossing in Acton. Edmund K. Turner, Edward 
F. Blodgett and Wade Iveyes appointed commissioners. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 73 

Commissioners' report filed. Fred Joy appointed auditor. 
Auditor's third report filed. Pending. 

Arlington, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Grove Street crossing and other crossings in Arlington. Al- 
pheus Sanford, Edmund K. Turner and S. Everett Tinkham 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Fred Joy appointed auditor. Auditor's third report filed. 
Disposed of. 

Ayer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Main 
Street crossing in Ayer. Samuel K. Hamilton, Theodore C. 
Hurd and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Robert P. Clapp appointed 
auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Ayer, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of West 
Main and Park streets crossing in Ayer. Frank P. Gould- 
ing, Charles A. Allen and Anson D. Fessenden appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Theodore C. 
Hurd appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Belmont, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Brighton Street, Concord Avenue and Trapelo Eoad cross- 
ings in Belmont. Pending. Theodore C. Hurd, Fred Joy 
and George F. Swain appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Guy Murchie appointed auditor. 
Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Cambridge. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of Prison Point Street 
crossing in Cambridge. Henry S. Milton, Edward B. 
Bishop and Henry G. Taft appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Theodore C. Hurd appointed audi- 
tor. Auditor's sixth report filed. Pending. 

Chelmsford, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Princeton Street crossing in Chelmsford. Edmund K. Tur- 
ner, Frederick W. Dallinger and Charles F. Worcester ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. W. 
C. Dillingham appointed auditor. Pending. 
Everett. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of crossings at Broadway and 
Main Street in Everett. George W. Wiggin, Edmund K. 
Turner and Robert S. Gray appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. 
Auditor's sixth report filed. Pending. 



74 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abo- 
lition of Marble Street crossing. Pending. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the aboli- 
tion of Concord Street crossing. Pending. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abo- 
lition of Waverly Street crossing. Pending. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abo- 
lition of Bishop Street crossing. Pending. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abo- 
lition of Hollis and Waushaknm streets crossings. Pending. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abo- 
lition of Claflin Street crossing. Pending. 

Lexington, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Grant Street crossing in Lexington. Alpheus Sanford, 
Edmund K. Turner and S. Everett Tinkham appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Franklin 
Freeman appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Middlesex and Thorndike streets crossings. Pend- 
ing. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Boston Eoad and Plain Street crossings. Arthur 
Lord, David F. Slade and Henry A. Wyman appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of School and Walker streets crossings. Arthur Lord, 
David F. Slade and Henry A. Wyman appointed commis- 
sioners. Pending. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Lincoln Street crossing. Arthur Lord, David F. 
Slade and Henry A. Wyman appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Middlesex, Thorndike and Lincoln streets and Bos- 
ton Eoad grade crossings. Pending. 

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Pawtucket Street crossing and other crossings in 
Lowell. George W. Wiggin, John W. Ellis and Samuel L. 
Minot appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Patrick H. Cooney appointed auditor. Auditor's 
second report filed. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 75 

Maiden. Directors of Boston & Maine Eailroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of Medford Street and other 
crossings in Maiden. Geo. W. Wiggin, Eobert 0. Harris 
and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. 
Auditor's third report filed. Pending. 

Maiden, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of Pleasant and Winter streets crossing in Maiden. 
George W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner and Fred Joy ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Marlborough, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Hudson Street crossing in Marlborough. Walter 
Adams, Charles A. Allen and Alpheus Sanford appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Natick. Boston & Worcester Street Eailway Company, petition- 
ers. Petition for alteration of Worcester Street crossing in 
Natick. Geo. W. Wiggin, Edmund K. Turner and Larkin 
T. Trull appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Theo. C. Hurd appointed auditor. Auditor's second 
report filed. Pending. 

Newton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of Concord Street and Pine Grove Avenue cross- 
ings in Newton. George W. Wiggin, T. C. Mendenhall and 
Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Newton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of crossings on main line in Newton. Theo. C. Hurd 
appointed auditor. Auditor's eleventh report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Newton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of Glen Avenue and nine other crossings in New- 
ton. Geo. W. Wiggin, T. C. Mendenhall and Edmund K. 
Turner appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Patrick H. Cooney appointed auditor. Auditor's 
fourteenth report filed. Pending. 

North Eeading, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Main Street crossing in North Eeading. Alpheus 
Sanford, George N. Poor and Louis M. Clark appointed 
commissioners. Eeport of commissioners filed. Pending. 

Somerville, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Park Street, Dane Street, Somerville Avenue 
and Medford Street crossings in Somerville. George W. 
Wiggin, George F. Swain and James D. Colt appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 



76 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Wakefield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Hanson Street crossing in Wakefield. Pending. 

Waltham, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of South Street crossing in Waltham. Geo. F. 
Swain, and Geo. A. Sanderson appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Waltham, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Moody Street, Main Street, Elm Street, River 
Street;, Pine Street, Newton Street and Calvary Street cross- 
ings in Waltham. Arthur Lord, Patrick H. Cooney and 
George F. Swain appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Weston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Church Street crossing. Pending. 

Weston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Concord Eoad crossing. Pending. 

Winchester, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the aboli- 
tion of crossing at Winchester station square. George W. 
Wiggin, George F. Swain and Arthur Lord appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Nor folic County. 

Braintree, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of the Pearl Street crossing at South Braintree. Patrick H. 
Cooney, Frank N. Nay and George F. Swain appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Braintree. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
grade crossing at School, Elm, Biver and Union streets in 
Braintree. John L. Bates, Winfield S. Slocum and Arthur 
H. Wellman appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Brookline. Directors of Boston & Albany Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for the abolition of Kerrigan Place 
crossing in Brookline. William Sullivan, Henry M. Hutch- 
ins and Wade Keyes appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Henry M. Hutchins appointed auditor. 
Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Brookline and Boston. Directors of the Boston & Albany E ail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for the abolition of 
Eeservoir Lane crossing in Boston and Brookline. Henry 
C. Mulligan, Charles T. Davis and Albert S. Apsey ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Eob- 
ert G. Dodge appointed auditor. Auditor' s first report filed. 
Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 77 

Canton. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Ded- 
ham Road crossing in Canton. Samuel L. Powers, Stephen 
S. Taft and Wm. Jackson appointed commissioners. Pend- 
ing. 

Dedham. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Green 
Lodge Street crossing in Dedham. Samuel L. Powers, 
Stephen S. Taft and Wm. Jackson appointed commissioners. 
Pending. 

Dedham. Directors of the Old Colony Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for the abolition of River Street and Whit- 
ing Avenue crossings. Augustus P. Martin, Charles A. 
Allen and Fred Joy appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioner's report filed. Clarence H. Cooper appointed auditor. 
Auditor's supplemental report filed. Pending. 

Dedham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition of 
Eastern Avenue and Dwight Street crossings in Dedham. 
Alpheus Sanford, Charles Mills and J. Henry Reed ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 
E. Jones appointed auditor. Pending. 

Dedham, Selectmen of, and Directors of New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, petitioners. Petitions for 
abolition of East Street, Walnut Street and Vernon Street 
crossings in Dedham, consolidated with petitions to abolish 
Milton Street crossing in Hyde Park. Samuel N. Aldrich, 
Edward B. Bishop and H. C. Southworth appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's thirteenth report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Foxborough. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
grade crossing at Cohasset and Summer streets in Fox- 
borough. Samuel L. Powers, Stephen S. Taft and Wm. 
Jackson appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Hyde Park and Dedham, consolidated petitions. See Dedham. 

Hyde Park, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Fairmount Avenue and Bridge Street crossings in Hyde 
Park. Boyd B. Jones, Edmund K. Turner and Fred Joy 
appointed commissioners. Thomas W. Proctor appointed 
auditor. Pending. 

Medway, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Village Street crossing in Medway. Arthur Lyman, George 



78 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

D. Bun-age and Alpheus Sanford appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Edmund H. Talbot appointed 
auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Disposed of. 

Needham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Charles River Street crossing in Needham. Pending. 

Norwood, Selectmen of, and Directors of New York, New Haven 
& Hartford Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Chapel Street, Washington Street and Guild 
Street crossings in Norwood. Henry A. Wyman, James F. 
C. Hyde and Charles E. C. Breck appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Albert A. Avery appointed 
auditor. Auditor's seventh report filed. Disposed of. 

Quincy. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Saville 
and Water streets crossings in Quincy. John L. Bates, 
Winfield S. Slocum and Arthur H. Wellman appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 

Sharon. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of grade 
crossing at Depot, Garden and Mohawk streets in Sharon. 
Samuel L. Powers, Stephen S. Taft and Wm. Jackson ap- 
pointed commissioners. Pending. 

Sharon, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Depot Street crossing in Sharon. William B. Durant, Fred 
Joy and Charles D. Bray appointed commissioners. Dis- 
posed of. 

Walpole, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Oak Street crossing and other crossings in Walpole. Dana 
Malone, Edmund K. Turner and Henry A. Wyman ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. N. L. 
Sheldon appointed auditor. Auditor's third report filed. 
Pending. 

Westwood. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Eailroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Green Lodge Street crossing in Westwood. Samuel L. 
Powers, Stephen S. Taft and Wm. Jackson appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 

Plymouth County. 

Abington. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 

Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 

Central Street crossing in Abington. Alpheus Sanford, 

Erastus Worthington, Jr., and Edward B. Bishop appointed 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 79 

commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 

Hingham. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Eailroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Eockland Street crossing in Hingham. Winfield S. Slocum, 
Alpheus Sanford and Henry C. Southworth appointed com- 
missioners. Arthur W. DeGoosh appointed auditor. Au- 
ditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Marshfield. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Eailroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossing near Marshfield station. Alpheus Sanford, J. Al- 
bert Brackett and Frank T. Daniels appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Disposed of. 

Middleborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Centre Street, Grove Street and Main Street crossings in 
Middleborough. Alpheus Sanford, Edward B. Bishop and 
Samuel H. Hudson appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Au- 
ditor's sixth report filed. Disposed of. 

Scituate. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Eail- 
road Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Water 
Street and Union Street crossings in Scituate. Arthur H. 
Wellman, Edmund K. Turner and Oscar A. Marden ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 
E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's third report filed. 
Pending. 

Suffolk County. 

Boston. Directors of Old Colony Eailroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Tremont Street crossing in Boston. 
Samuel N. Aldrich, H. C. Southworth and Edward B. 
Bishop appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's twenty- 
first report filed. Disposed of. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Dudley Street crossing in Dorchester. Thomas Post, 
Fred Joy and Edmund K. Turner appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. James D. Colt appointed au- 
ditor. Auditor's seventh report filed. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Dorchester Avenue crossing in Boston. F. N. 
Gillette, Charles S. Lilley and Charles Mills appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred Joy ap- 



80 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

pointed auditor. Auditor's thirty-first report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Austin Street, Cambridge Street and Perkins Street 
crossings in Charlestown. Henry S. Milton, Edward B. 
Bishop and Henry G. Taft appointed commissioners. Com- 
missioners' report filed. Fred Joy appointed auditor. Au- 
ditor's eleventh report filed. Pending. 

Boston. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of Neponset and Granite 
avenues crossings in Dorchester. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Freeport, Adams, Park, Mill and Walnut streets and 
Dorchester Avenue crossings. James R. Dunbar, Samuel 
L. Powers and Thomas W. Proctor appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Arthur H. Wellman 
appointed auditor. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Congress Street crossing in Boston. George W. 
Wiggin, Edward B. Bishop and Charles A. Allen appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones 
appointed auditor. Auditor's twenty-sixth report filed. 
Disposed of. 

Boston. Directors of Old Colony Railroad Compaq, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Codman Street crossing in Boston. 
George W. Wiggin, Charles A. Allen and William M. Butler 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Henry S. Milton appointed auditor. Auditor's third report 
filed. Disposed of. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for the 
abolition of the Essex Street crossing in Brighton. George 
W. Wiggin, William B. French and Winfield S. Slocum 
appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Blue Hill Avenue and Oakland Street crossings in 
Boston. William B. French, Arthur H. Wellman and 
George A. Kimball appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Au- 
ditor's twentieth report filed. Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of all crossings in East Boston. George W. Wiggin, 
William B. French and Edward B. Bishop appointed com- 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 81 

missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Winfield S. Slo- 
cum appointed auditor. Auditor's ninth report filed. 
Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of crossings at Saratoga, Maverick and Marginal 
streets in East Boston. Disposed of. 

Revere, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Win- 
throp Avenue crossing in Revere. George W. Wiggin, 
Everett C. Bumpus and Charles D. Bray appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Worcester County. 

Blackstone. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Eailroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Mendon Street crossing in Blackstone. Railroad commis- 
sioners appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. William S. Dana appointed auditor. Auditor's first 
report filed. Pending. 

Clinton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Sterling, Water, Main and Woodlawn streets crossings. 
George W. Wiggin, William E. McClintock and James A. 
Stiles appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Fitchburg, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Putnam Street and Laurel Street crossings in 
Fitchburg. Frank P. Goulding, Charles A. Allen and 
Charles M. Thayer appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. George S. Taft appointed auditor. 
Auditor's third report filed. Disposed of. 

Fitchburg, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Rollstone Street crossing in Fitchburg. Ed- 
mund K. Turner, Edwin U. Curtis and Ernest H. Vaughan 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
Pending. 

Gardner, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Union Street crossing in Gardner. Frank P. Goulding, 
Charles A. Allen and Franklin L. Waters appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Henry L. Parker 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 

Holden, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Dawson's crossing and Cedar Swamp crossing in Holden. 
Charles A. Allen, Arthur P. Rugg and Henry G. Taft ap- 



82 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Hubbardston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Depot Road crossing in Hubbardston. Pending. 

Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
"Water Street crossing. George W. Wiggin, George F. Swain 
and appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Summer Street crossing. George W. Wiggin, George F. 
Swain and appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Mechanic Street crossing. George W. W^iggin, George 
F. Swain and appointed commissioners. Pend- 
ing. 

Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Main Street crossing. George W. Wiggin, George F. 
Swain and appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Lancaster Street crossing in Leominster. Alpheus Sanford, 
Charles A. Allen and Seth P. Smith appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Northborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Westborough Hospital station crossing in Northborough. 
Thomas Post, William Wheeler and Alpheus Sanford ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Guy 
W. Currier appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Northbridge and Uxbridge, joint petition of Selectmen of. Pe- 
tition for abolition of Wnitin's station crossing. Alpheus 
Sanford, Edward B. Bishop and Harry C. Southworth ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 
E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's fifth report filed. 
Pending. 

Southborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of crossing on road from Southborough to Framingham. 
Samuel W. McCall, Louis A. Frothingham and Eugene C. 
Hul tm an appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Southborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of crossing on road leading from Southborough to Hopkin- 
ton. George C. Travis, James W. McDonald and William 
Sullivan appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 83 

filed. Theodore C. Hurd appointed auditor. Auditor's 
third report filed. Pending. 

Southborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Main Street crossing at Fayville in Southborough. 
Pending. 

West Boylston. Boston & Maine Eailroad Company, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of Prescott Street crossing. Pending. 

Westborough, Selectmen of, and Directors of Boston & Albany 
Eailroad Company, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Main Street and Summer Street crossings in Westborough. 
George W. Wiggin, George N. Smalley and Joseph Bennett 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. H. 
L. Parker appointed auditor. Auditor's third report filed. 
Pending. 

Worcester, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Grafton Street crossing and eight other cross- 
ings, including alterations of Union Station. James R. 
Dunbar, James H. Flint and George F. Swain appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. James A. 
Stiles appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

Worcester, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of Hamilton Street crossing in Worcester. Augus- 
tus P. Martin, James D. Colt and Edmund K. Turner 
appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. 
James A. Stiles appointed auditor. Auditor's report filed. 
Disposed of. 

Worcester. Directors of Boston & Albany Railroad Company, 
petitioners. Petition for abolition of Webster Street, Lud- 
low Street, Sutton Lane and Heard Street crossings in 
Worcester. Harvey N. Shepard, Frederick Brooks and 
Joseph S. Ludlam appointed commissioners. Commission- 
ers' report filed. James A. Stiles appointed auditor. Au- 
ditor's amended second report filed. Pending. 

The following cases have been brought for alleged land dam- 
ages incurred in the alteration of grade crossings. The Com- 
monwealth, being obliged under the statutes to pay at least 
twenty-five per cent, of the expenses incurred in the alteration 
of all grade crossings, has in all cases been made a party thereto. 

Belmont v. Boston & Maine Railroad et al. Superior Court, 
Middlesex County. Pending. 



84 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Boston et als. v. Boston Wharf Company. Superior Court, Suf- 
folk County. Settled. 

Boston & Maine Railroad v. Belmont. Superior Court, Middle- 
sex County. Pending. 

Codman et als. v. New England Railroad Company et als. Supe- 
rior Court, Suffolk County. Settled. 

Connell v. Boston & Maine Railroad Company et al. Superior 
Court, Middlesex County. Settled. 

Dickinson et al. v. Fitchburg. Superior Court, Worcester 
County. Settled. 

Fitchburg Railroad Company v. Belmont. Superior Court, Mid- 
dlesex County. Pending. 

Googins, Mary A., et al. v. Boston & Albany Railroad Company 
et al. Superior Court, Suffolk County. Settled. 

Lovejoy, Augustus, v. Commonwealth et al. Superior Court, 
Middlesex County. Pending. 

Maiden v. Boston & Maine Railroad Company. Superior Court, 
Middlesex County. Pending. 

Moore, George C, v. Town of Chelmsford. Superior Court, 
Middlesex County. Dismissed. 

Phelps v. Fitchburg Railroad Company. Superior Court, Mid- 
dlesex County. Settled. 

Sanford, George E., v. Belchertown et al. Superior Court, 
Hampshire County. Settled. 

Stack v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company 
et al. Superior Court, Hampshire County. Settled. 

Worcester v. Worcester, Nashua & Rochester Railroad Company 
et ah Superior Court, Worcester County. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 85 



CASES ARISING IN THE PROBATE COUETS 



UNDER THE 



Collateral Inheritance Tax Act. 



Berkshire County. 
White, Matilda W., estate of. Frank H. Butler, administrator. 
Petition for instructions and discharge of lien. Pending. 

Essex County. 

Friend, Daniel W., estate of. Julius F. Robardy, executor. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Decree. 

Harris, Nathaniel B., estate of. Charles W. Eichardson, execu- 
tor. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Nichols, Mary C, estate of. Frank 0. Woods, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Hampden County. 

Bishop, John George, estate of. Emily Clara Bishop, executrix. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Crockett, Sara L., estate of. H. L. Harding et ah, executors. 
Petition of Treasurer and Receiver- General to collect tax on 
said estate. Pending. 

DeForest, Andrew W., estate of. Charles S. DeForest et ah, 
executors. Petition for instructions. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Greenleaf, Orick H., estate of. Ide E. Greenleaf el ah, peti- 
tioners. Petition for instructions. Petition dismissed. 

Lathrop, Erastus, estate of. S. Augustus Allen, executor, peti- 
tioner. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Sanders, Sidney, estate of. Ella M. Quimby, executrix. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Decree. 

Tyner, George K, estate of. Edward S. Towne et ah, executors. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Yining, Sarah E., estate of. Charles H. Barrows, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Petition dismissed. 



86 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Hampshire County. 

Engram, Lucy A., estate of. Charles A. Bisbee, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Attorney- General waived right to be 
heard. 

Welton, Walter B., estate of. Henry W. Kidder, administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Graham, Mary EL, estate of. William A. Russell, executor. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Decree. 

Langdell, Margaret E., estate of. Eugene Wambaugh et ah, 
executors. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Little, John Albro, estate of. Robert H. McCurdy et ah, ex- 
ecutors. Petition for instructions. Rescript. 

Mead, Oliver, estate of. Alfred L. Brown, executor. Petition 
for instructions. Decree. 

Mink, Regina, estate of. Frank Louis Mink, executor. Petition 
for instructions. Pending. 

Mitchell, Austin R,, estate of. James L. Richards et ah, ex- 
ecutors. Petition for instructions and postponement. 
Pending. 

Norfolk County. 

Harlow, Robert Henry, estate of. Francis L. Hayes et ah, ex- 
ecutors. Petition for instructions. Decree. Appeal to 
Supreme Judicial Court. Pending. 

Taft, Luke Herbert, estate of. Helen E. Taft et ah, executors. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Suffolk County. 

Browne, Charles A., estate of. Ida F. Richardson, executrix. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Hemenway, Mary, estate of. Augustus Hemenway et ah, trus- 
tees. Petition for instructions. Assented to decree. 

Howe, Irving A., estate of. D. J. Lord, administrator. Petition 
of Treasurer and Receiver-General for payment of tax on 
certain legacies. Pending. 

Manson, John T., estate of. Thomas N. Hart, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

O'Keefe, Patrick, estate of. Martin Hayes et ah, executors. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 87 

Rogers, Mary P., estate of. Albert W. Thompson, petitioner. 

Petition for instructions. Pending-. 
Sinnott, Joseph F., estate of. John Sinnott, executor. Petition 

for instructions. Decree. 
Wheelock, George A., estate of. William H. Elliott, executor. 

Petition for instructions. Decree. 
Williams, Nathaniel L., estate of. Langdon Williams et al., 

trustees. Petition for instructions. Attorney-General 

waived right to be heard. 

Worcester County. 

Bullock, Brigham N., estate of. George Bullock et al., executors. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Burnap, Harriet T., estate of. Samuel W. Miller, administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Thayer, Julia B., estate of. Frederick H. Kingsbury et al., exec- 
utors. Petition for instructions. Eescript. 



88 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUSTS. 



Bristol County. 

Arnold, Sarah Botch, estate of. Alanson S. Barney, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Assented to petition. 

Earle, Bobert, estate of. Worcester Monthly Meeting of Friends, 
petitioner. Petition for instructions regarding application 
of funds. Assented to petition. 

Pease, Abner, estate of. George A. Crampton et al., trustees. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Pending. 

Pease, Abner, estate of. James L. Dexter et al., trustees. Peti- 
tion for appointment of trustees. Pending. 

Peckham, Peleg W., estate of. Joseph M. Sharrock et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for allowance of third and third supplemental 
account. Account allowed. 

Pye, Ellen, estate of. Elizabeth E. Pye, trustee. Petition for 
mortgage, real estate held in trust. Decree. 

"Williams, Bufus, estate of. Petition for instructions. Decree. 



Essex County. 

Bartlett, David Greenleaf, estate of. Albert L. Bartlett, execu- 
tor. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Bartlett, David G., estate of. Albert L. Bartlett, executor. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Buffum, Jonathan, estate of. Caroline P. Moulton et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for allowance of final account. Pending. 

Coburn, Abbie A., estate of. William A. Donald et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of second account. Assented to peti- 
tion. 

Essex Agricultural Society v. Massachusetts General Hospital 
Corporation and the Attorney-General. Petition to sell real 
estate and to apply the doctrine of cy-pres. Service accepted. 
Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed. Pending. 

Goodwin, Sarah E., estate of. William S. Bowden et al.., trus- 
tees. Petition for instructions. Bescript. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 89 

Haskins, Leander Miller, estate of. Nathaniel Richardson et al., 
petitioners. Petition for appointment of trustees. Assented 
to petition. 

King, Harriet M., estate of. Charles W. Richardson, adminis- 
trator. Petition for instructions. Appeal to Supreme Judi- 
cial Court. Rescript. 

Mack, Esther Clark, estate of. Eben B. Symonds, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Pending. 

Punchard, Benjamin H., estate of. Petition for appointment 
of Harry M. Eames as trustee. Assented to petition. 

Punchard, Benjamin H., estate of. George A. Parker, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Ropes, Eliza 0., estate of. Charles "W. Richardson et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for appointment of trustee and for instruc- 
tions. Pending. 

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Charles W. Richardson et al., ad- 
ministrators. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Charles W. Richardson et al., ad- 
ministrators. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Charles W. Richardson et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for appointment of trustee and for instruc- 
tions. Pending. 

Searles, Edward F., et al. v. Irene E. Fieles et al. Petition for 
instructions under the will of Artemas W. Stearns. Re- 
script. 

"Wood, James M., estate of. Lawrence Home for Aged People, 
petitioner. Petition for leave to sell real estate. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Wood, James M., estate of. Lawrence Home for Aged People, 
petitioner. Petition for leave to sell real estate. Pending. 

Franklin County. 
Butterfield, Permelia A., estate of. Rufus T. Shumway, admin- 
istrator. Petition for allowance of first, second and third 
accounts. Attorney- General waived right to be heard. 

Hampden County. 
Hale, James W., estate of. First Highland Baptist Church, 
petitioner. Petition for appointment of trustee. Assented 
to petition. 



90 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Holbrook, George B., et al. v. Edward W. Appleton et al. Peti- 
tion for leave to sell real estate under deed of trust, and for 
instructions. Pending. 

Lathrop, Erastus, estate of. S. Augustus Allen, executor, peti- 
tioner. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Lynds, Peter 0., estate of. H. Prentice Kendall, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Decree. 

Smith, Horace, estate of. Henry S. Lee et al., trustees. Peti- 
tion for allowance of accounts. Accounts allowed. 

Smith, Mary Alice Somers, estate of. Velenus W. Crowson et 
al., petitioners. Petition for allowance of will. Assented 
to allowance. 

"Weld, David, estate of. Stephen S. Taft, Jr., administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Whiting, H. Amelia, v. The Women's Union Temperance Or- 
ganization. Petition for injunction to prevent defendant 
corporation from exceeding its powers under charter. Pend- 
ing. 

II a my shire Co un ty . 

James, John, estate of. Town of Goshen, petitioner. Petition 
for instructions. Decree. 

Middlesex County. 

Ashton, John, estate of. Massachusetts General Hospital et ah, 
petitioners. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Greene, Mary E., estate of. William H. Gutteridge et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for allowance of first and final account. 
Attorney- General waived right to be heard. 

■Harrington, Elizabeth W., estate of. Clara W. Harrington 
et al., executors. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Hayes, Maria, estate of. William Nutt, executor. Petition for 
allowance of first and final account. Pending. 

Holden, Joseph, et al. v. Attorney-General. Petition for leave 
to sell real estate. Pending. 

Houston, Ellen, estate of. Anna C. Fall, trustee. Petition for 
instructions. Pending. 

Martin, Webster Warner, estate of. Wesley T. Lee et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for allowance of fourth account. Assented to 
petition. 

Nesmith, Thomas, estate of. Thomas Nesmith et al., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of trustees. Assented to petition. 

Phinney, Eobert J. W., estate of. Sarah M. C. Phinney, exec- 
utrix. Petition for leave to sell real estate. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 91 

Roberts, James H., estate of. Horace M. Bickford et al., ex- 
ecutors. Petition for leave to sell real estate held in trust. 
Attorney- General waived right to be heard. 

Symmes, Edmund, estate of. Westford Academy, trustee. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Pending. 

Ward, Winthrop, estate of. Francis H. Brown et al., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of trustees. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Whitney, Caroline A. R., estate of. Charles A. Stone et al., 
trustees. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Wilder, Harriet A., estate of. Ministry-at-large in Lowell, pe- 
titioner. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Norfolk County. 

Cleveland, Ira, estate of. Franklin W. Mann., petitioner. Peti- 
tion for appointment of trustee of trust funds. Assented 
to appointment of Franklin W. Mann. 

Ely, Frederick D., et al., v. Attorney- General et al. Bill in 
equity for instructions under the will of Charlotte Kings- 
bury. Pending. 

Mann, Jonathan, estate of. John F. Brown et al., trustees. Pe- 
tition for leave to sell real estate held in trust. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Whiting, Josiah, estate of. American Unitarian Association, 
petitioner. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Plymouth County. 

Ellis, Benjamin, estate of. Eldoretta McFarlin, executrix. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

McFarlin, Peleg, estate of. Eldoretta McFarlin, executrix. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 
Anagnostopoulos, Michael, estate of. Wallace L. Pierce et al., 

trustees. Petition for allowance of first and final account. 

Pending. 
Arlington, Inhabitants of, v. Attorney-General. Petition for 

instructions under the will of Nathan Pratt. Decree. 
Ashton, Elisha V., estate of. Charles P. Greenough, trustee. 

Petition for leave to sell real estate. Pending. 
Atkins, Henry Holly, estate of. William Warren Vaughan et 

al., trustees. Petition for allowance of fourth, fifth and 

sixth account. Accounts allowed. 



92 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Atkins, Henry Holly, estate of. Wm. W. Vaughan et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for commission to take deposition in per- 
petuam. Attorney- General waived right to be heard. 

Baldwin, Mary L., estate of. William Cobb, trustee. Petition 
for appointment of trustee, x^ssented to petition. 

Boston, city of, petitioner. Petition for instructions under the 
will of Benjamin Franklin. Decree. 

Boston, Overseers of the Poor of, v. Attorne} r -General et al. 
Petition for instructions as to gift to charity under the 
will of David Jeffries. Decree. 

Bradlee, Josiah Putnam, estate of. Charles T. Gallagher et al., 
trustees. Petition for allowance of first, ninth and elev- 
enth accounts and distribution. Assented to petition. 

Cheney, Ednah Dow, estate of. Charles S. Gill et als., execu- 
tors. Petition for instructions. Eescript. 

Day, Bertha L., estate of. Salvation Army, petitioner. Petition 
for distribution of trust funds. Petition dismissed. 

De Witt, William E., estate of. Wilbur C. Temple, trustee. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Diocese of Western Massachusetts v. John S. Blatchford, trustee, 
et al. Petition for leave to convey trust estate under deed 
of trust of George B. Hogar. Pending. 

Dix, John H., estate of. Charles P. Greenough et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh 
accounts. Pending. 

Foster, John McGaw et al. v. Trustees of Donations, etc., et al. 
Petition for leave to sell real estate held in trust. Decree. 

Gardner, Ellen K., estate of. Herbert L. Boyer, trustee. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Decree. 

Harvard College, President and Fellows of, v. Attorney-General. 
Petition for distribution of trust funds of estate of David 
A. Wells. Pending. 

Hemenway, Mary, estate of. Augustus Hemenway et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for allowance of fourth account. Pending. 

Ignacio, Manuel, estate of. Charles F. Stratton, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Assented to appoint- 
ment of Charles F. Stratton. 

Jackson, Charles E., estate of. Charles A. Jackson et al., 
trustees. Petition for leave to mortgage real estate. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Jackson, Charles E., estate of. Charles A. Jackson et al., 
trustees. Petition for instructions. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 93 

Lawrence, Abbott, estate of. John Lawrence et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of eighteenth account and all prior 
accounts. Assented to petition. 

Liversidge, Thomas, estate of. Richard P. Humphreys et al., 
trustees. Petition for leave to sell real estate. Pending. 

Mabie, William I., et al. v. Edwin S. Gardner and Attorney- 
General. Petition for instructions regarding a public char- 
itable trust under will of Mary Redding. Pending. 

Minot, William, v. Attorney-General. Petition to modify a de- 
cree entered March 19, 1901, in the estate of Thomas 
Thompson. Pending. 

Pierce, Charles Wilder, estate of. Elizabeth Frances Pierce, 
trustee. Petition for instructions; doctrine of cy-pres. 
Decree. 

Poor, Edwin Herbert, estate of. New England Trust Company, 
executor. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Pope, Ebenezer, estate of. Boston Monthly Meeting of Friends, 
petitioner. Petition to distribute estate under cy-pres doc- 
trine. Pending. 

Potter, Sarah E., estate of. James R. Dunbar et al., executors. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Shaw Asylum for Mariners' Children v. Quincy A. Shaw et al. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Stevens, Elizabeth W., estate of. Daniel Hall et al., executors. 
Petition for allowance of first account. Assented to peti- 
tion. 

Whittier, Eliza I., estate of. Henry C. Campbell et al., ex- 
ecutors. Petition for instructions. Decree. 



Worcester County. 
Blanchard, Margaret Bromfield, estate of. Bromfield School, 

trustee. Petition for leave to transfer property held in 

trust. Pending. 
Blanchard, Margaret Bromfield, estate of. Bromfield School, 

trustee. Petition for appointment of trustees. Assented 

to petition. 
Brown, Mary A. L., estate of. Annie E. Blanchard, executrix. 

Petition for instructions. Pending. 
Burrage, Martha A., estate of. Oscar A. Taft, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions regarding a public charitable trust. 

Decree. 



94 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Cavanaugh, Morris, estate of. Jerry R. Kane, administrator. 
Petition for leave to compromise claim. Pending. 

Clarke, Josiah H., estate of. Francis A. Clarke et ah, executors. 
Petition for instructions regarding a public charitable trust. 
Decree. 

Drury, Franklin, estate of. Henry W. Carter et ah, petitioners. 
Petition to turn over trust fund to town of Warren to be 
held as under original trust. Decree. 

Foster, Eichard W., estate of. Catherine E. Foster et ah, ex- 
ecutors. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Frost, Sumner M., estate of. Edward B. Tilton et ah, executors. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Grout, Eliza P., estate of. Robert L. Carter et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of third account. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Lovell, Mary F., estate of. Hattie U. Smith, executrix. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Attorney-General waived right to 
be heard. 

Nelson, Charles Horatio, estate of. Anna B. Nelson et ah, ex- 
ecutors. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Pride, Caroline H., estate of. Leander Sprague, petitioner. 
Petition for instructions as to care of cemetery lot. Decree. 

Stevens, Cephas B., estate of. Charles F. Richardson et ah, 
trustees. Petition for leave to mortgage real estate left 
in trust. Pending. 

Wallis, Moses, estate of. Town of Douglas, petitioner. Peti- 
tion for leave to apply fund left in trust. Assented to 
petition. 



1909.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 95 



SUITS CONDUCTED BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 

In Behalf of State Boards and Commissions. 



The following cases have been reported to this department by 
State boards and commissions, to be conducted by the Attorney- 
General, or under his direction. 

1. Metropolitan Park Commission. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land by the said 
commission. 

Middlesex County. 
Debbins, Robert W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Kerr, William B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lawrence, Samuel C, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Northey, Henry B., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

Suffolk County. 
Hurley, John J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Proctor, George F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

2. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 

Petitions to the Supreme Judicial and Superior Courts for 
assessment of damages alleged to have been sustained by the 
taking of land, and rights and easements in land, by said board. 

Middlesex Comity. 
Bullard, Joseph 0., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

Norfolk County. 

Boston & Albany Railroad Company v. Commonwealth. Pend- 
ing. 

Boston & Albany Railroad Company et al. v. Commonwealth. 
Pending. 



96 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Worcester Comity. 
Allen, Byron D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Allen, Byron D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Ball, Oliver M., administrator, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bartlett, Asenath M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bigelow, James A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bradley, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Brigham, William H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Burgess, Thomas H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Chase, Elwin L, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Cutting, Louis, administrator, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Fitzgerald, John, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Fuller, Willis A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Fyfe, Mary J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Fyfe, Mary J., executrix, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hastings, George E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hastings, Mary J., executrix, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hastings, Mary J., executrix, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hastings, William H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Houghton, Robert C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Houghton, Robert C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Houghton, Robert C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Hyde, Henry J., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Johnston, Eobert, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Johnston, Eobert, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Joyce, Bridget M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Kendall, Everett, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Kendall, Sanford C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Ke} r es, Henr}- F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Kirby, Nellie M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Knight, Asa E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, Aroline M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Landy, Chas. C, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Longley, Olive E., executrix, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
O'Brien, John F., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Ott, John S., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Plummer, George M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Shattuck, George W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Taylor, Jennie W., administratrix, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Welch, James E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wilson, Alzina A., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 97 

Wood, James H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wood, J. Frank, et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wood, J. Frank, et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wood, Lucy A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

3. Massachusetts Highway Commission. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for a jury to assess damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land, or injury to 
land, by said commission. Under agreement with the Common- 
wealth most of these cases are defended by the various towns in 
which the land is situated. 

Bristol County. 
Lincoln, Benjamin A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Seabury, Phoebe W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Talbot, Joseph, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Essex Comity. 
Boston & Maine Railroad Company v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Foster, George W., et als. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Graves, Isaiah, et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Ireson, Ellen W., et .als. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

Franklin County. 
Connecticut Valley Street Railway Company v. Commonwealth. 
Pending. 

Worcester County. 
Hill, Everett, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Merriam, Harriet M. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Sullivan, Kate, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Warren, Alice E. M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

4. Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
caused by the taking of land by said commissioners. 

Suffolk County. 
Butler, Philip H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, George, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, George, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



98 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



5. Charles River Basin Commissioners. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
caused by the taking of land by said commissioners. 

Middlesex County. 
Proctor, George 0., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 
Abbott, Ellen M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Abbott, Katherine M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Allen, Henry F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Allen, Henry F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Apthorp, Octave L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Barstow, Catherine A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bartlett, Schuyler S., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Beal, Elizabeth S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Beal, Thomas P., et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bowditch, Alfred, et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Brown, Rebecca W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Case, Laura L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Coolidge, Julia, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Cotting, Charles E., et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Edmands, Katherine B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Fields, Annie, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Freeman, Caroline S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Goddard, George A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hall, Harry S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Heaton, Robert C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Higginson, Henry L., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Homans, Helen A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Home for Aged Women r. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hooper, James R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hooper, Robert C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hopkins, Georgiana, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hunneman, Carleton, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hutchins, Edward W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Inches, Louise P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Jackson, Frances E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Jewell, Edward, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 99 

Loring, Mary H., et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Mann, Jonathan H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Massachusetts Charitable Eye and Ear Infirmary v. Common- 
wealth. Settled. 

Massachusetts Charitable Eye and Ear Infirmary v. Common- 
wealth. Settled. 

McClure, Maria M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Means, Helen G., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Meyer, Heloise, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Moseley, Helen C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Niles, Sarah F., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Paine, Robert Treat, trustee, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Parker, George W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Parkinson, John, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Parkman, Henry, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Pierce, Katherine C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Pierce, Wallace L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Prince, Fannie L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Prince, Lillian C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Putnam, Harriet L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Richardson, Margaret W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sears, Mary C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sears, Richard D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sears, Ruth W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Shattuck, Frederick C, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Shattuck, George B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Shaw, Francis, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Skinner, Francis, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sleeper, Maria W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Stackpole, Martha P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Stanton, Esther H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Sullivan, Richard, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Tarbell, Arthur P., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Taylor, Georgianna 0., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Taylor, Mary M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Ware, Mary L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Whitney, Christiana S., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Wigglesworth, George, et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pend- 
ing. 

Williams, John D., trustee, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Williams, Ralph B., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



100 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

6. Armory Commissioners. 

Suffolk County. 
Brooks, Ellen A., et al. v. Commonwealth et al. Pending. 
Lyons, Ellen E., v. Commonwealth et al. Pending. 

7. Mt. Tom State Reservation. 

Hampshire County. 
Colton, George S., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

8. Greylock Reservation Commission. 

Berkshire County. 
Phillips, Dewey, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

9. Miscellaneous Cases from Above Commissions. 

Bristol County. 
Chace, Charles A., trustee, v. Commonwealth et als. Action of 
tort for damages caused by defects in State highway. Pend- 
ing. 

Essex County. 
Cilley, Orran G., v. Cattle Bureau. Petition to recover the value 
of cattle condemned by Cattle Bureau. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Austin, Eva A., v. State Board of Charity. Action of tort to 
recover damages caused by discharge of State ward afflicted 
with a contagious disease. Settled. 

Austin, William E., v. State Board of Charity. Action of tort 
to recover damages caused by discharge of State ward af- 
flicted with a contagious disease. Settled. 

International Automobile and Vehicle Tire Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Petition for damages caused by construction 
of bridge across Charles Eiver under St. 1903, c. 391. 
Pending. 

Newton Eubber Works v. Wm. B. de las Casas et al. Petition of 
International Automobile and Vehicle Tire Company to be 
made a party to decree entered against the Newton Eubber 
Works. Dismissed. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 101 



Suffolk County. 

American Bridge Company v. Commonwealth. Action of con- 
tract to recover for materials furnished in construction of 
park work. Settled. 

Atkins, Florence R., Commonwealth v. Bill in equity in regard 
to violation of building restrictions imposed by Metropol- 
itan Park Commission. Pending. 

Austin Engineering and Construction Company v. Common- 
wealth. Bill to recover on contract with Park Commission. 
Pending. 

Bent, William IL, et al. v. Henry W. Swift et al. Action of tort 
growing out of taking by Harbor and Land Commissioners 
of land and flats in South Bay. Settled. 

Davis, James A., et al. v. Commonwealth et al. Petition to re- 
cover for labor and materials used in construction of sewer. 
Pending. 

Doherty, James, v. Edward W. Everson et al. and Metropolitan 
Water and Sewerage Board. Action of tort. Damages 
caused by blasting. Pending. 

Doherty, James, v. Commonwealth. Petition for assessment of 
damages caused by blasting for metropolitan sewer. Pend- 
ing. 

Dunican, Anna L., v. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Action of tort. Damages caused by impure water furnished 
by defendant. Pending. 

Eastman, Charles Albert, v. Board of Registration in Medicine. 
Bill in equity to enjoin Board from revoking certificate. 
Pending. 

Gibbons, William H., v. Commonwealth. Damage caused by 
blasting in construction of metropolitan sewer. Pending. 

Herse}^, Albert A., v. Commonwealth et als. Bill in equity to 
recover for labor and materials furnished in construction of 
metropolitan sewer in Melrose. Pending. 

McArthur Brothers Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover on contract with the Metropolitan Water and Sewer- 
age Board for construction of dam at Clinton. Settled. 

McGinniss, Margaret T., Commonwealth v. Bill in equity to re- 
strain defendant from encroaching on land of the Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Metropolitan Contracting Company v. Commonwealth. Action 
of contract growing out of the construction of Saugus River 
bridge. Referred to auditor. Settled. 



102 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Metropolitan Contracting Company v. Commonwealth. Action 
of contract growing out of the construction of Maiden River 
bridge. Referred to auditor. Settled. 

Minon, Joseph, Henry H. Sprague et als. v. Information to re- 
strain the defendant from boating on Lake Cochituate. 
Pending. 

Natick, Commonwealth v. To recover for use of water of Lake 
Cochituate. Pending. 

National Contracting Company et al., Commonwealth v. Action 
of contract to recover on bond. Pending. 

Newell, Emma G., et al. v. Edward W. Everson et al. Petition 
to recover for damages to property caused by the laying out 
of boulevard in Revere. Commonwealth has funds of con- 
tractor. Disposed of. 

Nilancl, Michael, v. Commonwealth. Petition for assessment of 
damages caused by blasting for metropolitan sewer. Pend- 
ing. 

Niland, Michael, v. Edward W. Everson et al. and Metropolitan 
Water and Sewerage Board. Action of tort. Damages 
caused by blasting. Pending. 

Normile, Francis, v. Commonwealth, of Massachusetts et al. Pe- 
tition for a jury to assess damages caused by construction of 
sewer in Eoxbury. Pending. 

Normile, Francis, v. Edward W. Everson & Co. and Henry H. 
Sprague et al. Action of tort. 

Old Colony Construction Company, Commonwealth v. Action 
of contract to recover on bond. Pending. 

Pacific Surety Company v. Commonwealth et al. (McBride 
& Co.). Petition to recover from McBride & Co. certain 
sums expended by petitioner. Pending. 

Eaddin, Hiram A., et al., Commonwealth v. Bill in equity in 
regard to violation of building restrictions imposed by Met- 
ropolitan Park Commission. Pending. 

Thomas, Lyman P., v. George M. Quirk et al. Action to re- 
cover for labor and materials furnished in construction of 
State highway. Pending. 

Williams, Frank, v. Commonwealth. Claim for damages for in- 
terference with carrying out of contract. Settled. 

10. State Board of Charity. 
Actions of contract pending in the Superior Court to recover 
charges for the support of insane paupers in State insane hos- 
pitals, under the provisions of R. L., c. 87. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 103 

Essex County. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Caroline D. Tarr. Execution issued. 

Suffolk County. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Winchester. Settled. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Waltham. Pending. 
Bradford, Treasurer, v. Waltham. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Blandford. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Cambridge. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Ellen Chamberlain. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Katie Cooper. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Timothy F. Crimmings. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Fallon. Settled. 

Chapin, Treasurer, v. Joseph J. Heney, administrator. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Ella L. Howe, administratrix. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Lowell. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. McGonagie. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Melrose. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Charles A. Mullin. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer v. Augustus Perrin. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Sheffield. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Maria Sliney. Pending. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. John Tarvianen. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Wakefield. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Winchester. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer v. Woburn. Settled. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Worcester. Pending. 
Phillips, Treasurer, v. Worcester. Settled. 



104 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



MISCELLANEOUS CASES. 



iEtna Life Insurance Company v. Insurance Commissioner. Pe- 
tition for review under St. 1907, c. 576, § 75. Eescript. 

Alexander, Simon, v. Horace F. Ball. Petition for injunction 
to restrain respondent from carrying out certain rules of 
Massachusetts District Police. Dismissed. 

Allen, Henry F., v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission et al. Bill 
to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles Eiver. Pending. 

American Insurance Company, Insurance Commissioner v. Pe- 
tition for injunction and receiver. Injunction issued. 
Arthur D. Hill appointed receiver. Pending. 

American Soda Fountain Company, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Dumping material into tide water. Pending. 

American Writing Paper Company et ah, Attorney-General v. 
Petition for an injunction to restrain respondents from 
dumping material into tide water. Discontinued as to 
American "Writing Paper Company. Pending. « 

Andover Theological Seminary, Board of Visitors of, Attorney- 
General ex rel. v. Petition for use of Attorney-GeneraPs 
name for writ of mandamus. Use of name denied. 

Baldwin, Walter H., et al., Commonwealth v. Bill in equity in 
regard to building in violation of restrictions imposed by 
Metropolitan Park Commission. Appeal to Supreme Judi- 
cial Court. Pending. 

Barker, Annie E., Bradford, Treasurer, v. Claim for tide water 
displaced in Boston harbor. Execution issued. 

Barker, Forrest E., et al. v. Haverhill Gas Light Company. Pe- 
tition for injunction to restrain company from business 
until compliance with order of Gas Commission. Pending. 

Beacon Trust Company v. Commonwealth. Bill in equity. Dis- 
posed of. 

Beal, Elizabeth S., v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission. Bill to 
enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian rights 
on Charles Eiver. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 105 

Beal, Thomas P., et al. v. Charles River Basin Commission. Bill 

to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 

rights on Charles River. Pending. 
Binney, Henry P., v. Commonwealth. Damages caused by 

change of grade of Mt. Vernon Street. Settled. 
Bishop, Martha. Petition for recommitment. Decree. 
Blake, Martha L., v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior 

Court for damages caused by lowering the grade of Bow- 

doin Street. Pending. 
Boston v. Commonwealth. Sewer assessment on Rutherford 

Avenue, Charlestown. Pending. 
Boston & Albany Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition to 

take land in Natick for additional tracks. Pending. 
Boston & Northern Street Railway Company. Claim for amount 

expended in relaying water pipes in Washington Street, 

Lynn, destroyed by electric currents. Pending. 
Boston Elevated Railway Company v. Treasurer and Receiver- 
General. Petition to recover bonds deposited under St. 

1894, c. 548. Rescript. 
Boston Elevated Railway Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 

to recover tax paid to Commonwealth under protest. Pend- 
ing. 
Boston Society of New Jerusalem v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bowditch, Alfred, et al. v. Charles River Basin Commission et 

al. Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with 

riparian rights on Charles River. Pending. 
Brennan, James M., v. Charles E. Woodbury, Superintendent. 

Action of tort for personal injuries. Pending. 
Bryne, Andrew W., et als. v. Commonwealth et al. Petition to 

recover money in hands of Commonwealth. Pending. 
Burr, Arthur E., trustee in bankruptcy, v. Massachusetts School 

for the Feeble-minded. Action of contract. Settled. 
Burr, Arthur E., trustee, v. Commonwealth. Action to recover 

money held by Commonwealth, and belonging to H. P. 

Cummings Company. Pending. 
Campbell, H. Douglas, v. Commonwealth. Bill to recover for 

services in connection with work on Spanish war claims. 

Pending. 
Chapin, Arthur B., Treasurer and Receiver-General, v. William 

W. Risk. Appeal from decree of Probate Court. Decree. 
Cheney, Ansel J., v. James O'Doherty. Bill in equity to enjoin 



106 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

respondent for violation of building laws in construction 
of schoolhouse in Haverhill. Pending. 

Cheney, Fred A., et al., Aldermen of Chelsea, v. Forrest E. 
Barker et al., Board of Gas and Electric Light Commis- 
sioners. Petition for writ of certiorari. Rescript. 

China Mutual Insurance Company, Insurance Commissioner v. 
Petition for injunction and receiver. Injunction issued, 
and Arthur D. Hill appointed receiver. 

Collins, Joseph W., et al. v. James B. Hamblin. Petition to re- 
quire the respondent to construct a fishway in dam on 
Acushnet Eiver. Pending. 

Columbian National Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth. 
Petitions for abatement of franchise tax paid in 1903, 1904, 
1905, 1906 and 190?. Pending. 

Commonwealth v. City of Worcester. To recover for land taken 
from the Commonwealth. Pending. 

Commonwealth v. Everett W. Eaddin. Eevere Beach restric- 
tions. Pending. 

Connecticut Valley Street Railway Company, McClintock, Wil- 
liam E., et al. v. Petition for writ to compel obedience 
with order of Massachusetts Highway Commission. Pend- 
ing. 

Cotting, Charles E., et al., trustees of Boston Real Estate Trust, 
v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover money paid as bet- 
terments on land sold by Commonwealth. Pending. 

Cotting, Charles E., et al.' v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover sewer assessment. Pending. 

Crocker, George G., et al. v. Charles River Basin Commission. 
Bill to restrain Commonwealth from closing the dam across 
Charles River. Pending. 

Cushing, Lawrence B., et al. v. Commonwealth. Petition to Su- 
perior Court for damages caused by widening Bowdoin 
Street. Pending. 

Dunn, William T., v. Samuel J. Lowe. Appeal from finding of 
Superior Court under R. L., c. 91, § 91. Pending. 

East Boston Company, petitioner, v. Commonwealth. Appeal 
from decree of Court of Land Registration. Pending. 

East Boston Company, petitioner. Petition to Court of Land 
Registration for registration of title to petitioner's land. 
Pending. 

Edgerly, Frank H., et al. v. Cattle Bureau. Bill to recover for 
horse killed by order of Cattle Commissioner under R. L., 
c. 90. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 107 

Ellinwood, Ealph R., Commonwealth v. Petition to restrain 
respondent from infringing park regulations on Revere 
boulevard. Pending. 
Ellis, George H., Attorney- General ex rel. Harbor and Laud 
Commissioners v. Information in the Supreme Judicial 
Court for Middlesex County to protect the waters of a great 
pond under St. 1888, c. 318. Rescript. 
Fallon, Peter T., et ah, Chapin, Treasurer, v. Claim for tide 

water displaced in Town River, Quincy. Disposed of. 
Fields, Annie, v. Charles River Basin Commission. Bill to 
enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian rights 
on Charles River. Pending. 
Fottler, Lucy Ann, et ah v. Commonwealth. Petition to Supe- 
rior Court for damages caused by lowering grade of Bow- 
doin Street. Pending. 
Frankfort Marine and Plate Glass Company v. Commonwealth. 

Petition to recover deposit with Treasurer. Pending. 
George H. Sampson Company v. Commonwealth et als. Bill of 

complaint. Pending. 
George H. Wood Company, Attorney- General v. Petition for an 
injunction to restrain respondent from dumping material 
into tide water. Dismissed. 
Getchell, David H., v. Commonwealth. Claim for damage to 

horse on State highway. Pending. 
Grant, Robert, Judge of Probate, v. William W. Risk et ah 

Contract on bond as public administrator. Pending. 
Grassie, Joseph E., Attorney- General ex rel. v. Petition for 
use of Attorney-General's name in an information in the 
nature of quo warranto to try respondent's title to the 
office of superintendent of gypsy and brown-tail moth work 
in Cohasset. Use of name granted. 
Halman, Isador L. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petition 

dismissed. 
Hammond, Gardner Green, petitioner. Petition to register title 

to land in Chilmark. Pending. 
Hanson & Parker, Limited, v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover from Commonwealth amount of tax alleged to be un- 
lawfully assessed. Pending. 
Hanson, Lydia W., v. Commonwealth. Petition for damages 
caused by lowering grade of Bowdoin Street. Pending. 
Haverhill Gas Light Company v. Gas and Electric Light Com- 
missioners et ah Bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the 



108 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

United States to restrain the board from carrying out an 
order to decrease the price of gas in Haverhill. Pending. 

Herse} r , Albert A., v. Commonwealth et al. Bill to restrain 
Commonwealth from paying out money in its hands for 
construction of north metropolitan sewer system. Pending. 

Higginson, Henry L., et al. v. Charles River Basin Commission 
et al. Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with 
riparian rights on Charles Eiver. Pending. 

Hillside Corporation. Petition to register title to land. 
Pending. 

Hogan, James, v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover for ma- 
terials furnished to contractor in construction of boulevard 
in Quincy. Pending. 

Home for Aged Women v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission et al. 
Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles River. Pending. 

Hume, Edgar B., et al., petitioners. Petition to register title 
to land in Pittsfield. Pending. 

Hunneman, Carleton, v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission. Bill 
to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles Eiver. Pending. 

International Automobile and Vehicle Tire Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Petition for damages to petitioner's property 
caused by change of east branch of Charles Eiver by Park 
Commission. Pending. 

Italian Military Society Victor Emmanuel III. of Mutual Succor 
and Beneficence, Inc. Failure to file annual report with 
Insurance Commissioner. Dismissed. 

Italian Society of Progress and Aid Guiseppe Garabaldi, Inc. 
Failure to file annual statement with Insurance Commis- 
sioner. Injunction issued. 

Jackson, Frances E., v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission et al. 
Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles River. Pending. 

Kennedy, George C, et al., Bradford, Treasurer, v. Claim for 

tide-water displacement. Settled. 
Knights of Justice, Order of, Insurance Commissioner v. Fail- 
ure to make annual report to Insurance Commissioner re- 
quired by St. 1899, c. 442, § 19. Pending. 
LaMoss, Ervin, v. Commonwealth. Petition to Superior Court 
for a jury to assess damages sustained to property on Bow- 
doin Street caused by lowering of the grade of Bowdoin 
Street. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 109 

Lawrence, Amory A., et al. v. Harbor and Land Commissioners. 
Bill in equity to require enforcement of stipulations in 
deed of Commonwealth's land. Pending. 

Linehan, Frank E., et al., Commonwealth v. Claim for steam 
supplied from Deer Island Pumping Station. Pending. 

Lithuanian Society San Kazimer of Boston, Attorney-General v. 
Petition to enjoin company from doing business. St. 1906, 
c. 372. Decree. 

Lunt, William F., v. Commonwealth. Damages to horse on 
State highway. Settled. 

Lyons, Walter S., v. Commonwealth. Bill of complaint to re- 
cover for work done on Foxborough State Hospital from 
funds held by the Commonwealth. Pending. 

Maritime Insurance Company v. Commonwealth et al. Bill to 
recover bonds deposited with the Treasurer and Receiver- 
General. Pending. 

McCarthy, Justin H., v. Commonwealth. Petition under R. L., 
c. 201, to recover salary. Pending. 

McCarthy, Justin H., v. Jophanus H. Whitney et al. Petition 
for mandamus to compel reinstatement as boiler inspector. 
Pending. 

McClure, Maria M., v. Charles River Basin Commission et al. 
Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles River. Pending. 

McMahon, Owen, Attorney- General ex rel. v. Information to 
try respondent's title to office of policeman in Hyde Park. 
Information dismissed. 

McOsker, Hugh C, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition for use 
of the Attorney-General's name in an information in the 
nature of quo warranto to try the respondent's title to the 
office of registrar of voters. Use of name granted. 

McQuesten, George, petitioner. Petition to the Court of Land 
Registration to register title to land in Marblehead. Pend- 
ing. 

McSweeney, Charles H., petitioner. Petition to register title 
to land in Quincy. Pending. 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed. 
Pending. 

Mower, Henry A., v. Arthur D. Merrill. Claim for damage to 
sheep caused by dog at State hatchery. Disposed of. 

Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company v. Frank H. Hardison, 



110 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Insurance Commissioner. Petition for review under St. 
1907, c. 576, § 75. Eescript. 

National Contracting Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover under E. L., c. 201. Pending. 

Neal, Clarence E., trustee in bankruptcy, v. Commonwealth et 
al. Bill in equity. Decree. 

New England Maple Syrup Company v. Henry P. "Walcott et als. 
Bill in equity for an injunction. Pending. 

New England Navigation Company v. Joseph H. McNeill. Pe- 
tition for mandamus. Writ issued. 

New Hampshire Grazing Company, Attorney- General v. Infor- 
mation to annul charter. Decree. 

New York Life Insurance Company v. Insurance Commissioner. 
Petition for review under St. 1907, c. 576, § 75. Rescript, 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Attor- 
ney-General v. Decree. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Attor- 
ney-General ex rel. Commissioner of Corporations v. Ap- 
peal from final decree. 

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, Attor- 
ney-General ex rel. v. Information to enjoin the company 
from holding stock of the Boston & Maine Eailroad. 
Pending. 

O'Connell, Joseph P., v. Commonwealth et al. Bill to recover 
money in hands of Commonwealth belonging to Austin 
Engineering Company. Pending. 

Paine, Eobert Treat, trustee, v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission 
et al. Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with 
riparian rights on Charles Eiver. Pending. 

Peterson, Joseph N., et al., Armory Commissioners, v. John 
Meaney et al. Pending. 

Phillips, Edwin E., petitioner. Petition to register title to land 
in Sandwich. Pending. 

Pi Eta Associates v. Horace F. Ball. Appeal from order of in- 
spection of buildings. Pending. 

Porter, Eose M., v. Frank H. Hardison. Action of tort. Pend- 
ing. 

Provident Institution for Savings, Attorney-General v. Peti- 
tion to withdraw deposits under St. 1907, c. 340. Eescript. 

Eaboin, Israel, executor, v. Louis Eaboin, Jr., et al. Appeal 
from decree of Probate Court, allowing will of Louis 
Eaboin, Sr. Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. Ill 

Redmond, Mary. Petition for recommitment. Recommended 
parole. 

Richer, Louis N., Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition for use 
of Attorney-General's name in an information in the nature 
of quo warranto to try respondent's title to the office of 
superintendent of streets of Marlborough. Use of name 
denied. 

Riverbank Improvement Company, petitioner. Petition to 
register title to land on Charles River. Pending. 

Roberts, Angela Esther. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. 
Petition dismissed. 

St. Peter's Italian Fishermen's Union of Mutual Succor, Inc. 
Failure to file annual statement with Insurance Commis- 
sioner. Pending. 

Salem Gas Light Company v. Gas and Electric Light Commis- 
sioners et al. Bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the 
United States to restrain the Board from carrying out an 
order to decrease the price of gas in Salem. Pending. 

Sandora, Pauline. Petition for recommitment. Decree. 

Sargent, Clara J., v. State Board of Lunacy and Charity. Supe- 
rior Court, Essex County. Appeal on a complaint charging 
neglect of children under St. 1882, c. 181. Pending. 

Skinner, Francis, v. Charles River Basin Commission et al. Bill 
to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles River. Pending. 

Smith, S. Louise, et al. v. George E. Smith et al, Harbor and 
Land Commission. Petition for writ of certiorari. Peti- 
tion dismissed. 

Snow, Frank E., v. Elbridge J. Whitaker. Bill in equity. 
Settled. 

Society of Mutual Succor Saint Mary of Lattani of Roccamon- 
fina, Inc. Failure to file annual statement with Insurance 
Commissioner. Injunction issued. 

Somerville v. Commonwealth. Claim for aid furnished paupers 
having no settlement. Pending. 

Stearns, Frank K., Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition for use 
of the Attorney- General's name in an information in 
the nature of quo warranto to try the respondent's title to 
the office of registrar of voters. Use of name granted. 

Strout, Edward E., et al, trustees of Little Nahant Land Com- 
pany, v. Albert E. Turner et al. Petition to the Court of 
Land Registration to register the title to land in Nahant. 
Pending. 



112 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Sullivan, Bichard, v. Charles Biver Basin Commission et al. 
Bill to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles Biver. Pending. 

Sullivan, William H., v. Harold Parker et al., Highway Com- 
mission. Petition for writ of certiorari for revocation of 
automobile license. Dismissed. 

Supreme Council of the Home Circle, Attorney-General ex rel. 
v. Petition for injunction and receiver under B. L., c. 119. 
Injunction issued, and Bobert W. Sawyer, Jr., appointed 
receiver. 

Titcomb, George H., v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Company, George 
A. Harden, Treasurer, et al. Petition for injunction to re- 
strain the Treasurer of the Commonwealth from the pay- 
ment of money under St. 1883, c. ,259, and St. 1891, c. 397. 
Pending. 

Title Guaranty and Surety Company, Trustees of Massachusetts 
Hospital for Epileptics v. Action of contract. Pending. 

Travelers Insurance Company v. Insurance Commissioner. Pe- 
tition for review under St. 1907, c. 576, § 75. Rescript. 

Tufts, Nathan, et ah, Bradford, Treasurer, v. Claim for tide 
water displaced in the Mystic Biver. Settled. 

Wardwell, Walter C, Mayor of Cambridge, v. James F. Jack- 
son et al., Railroad Commissioners. Bill in equity. Be- 
script. 

Wardwell, Walter C, Mayor of Cambridge, v. James F. Jack- 
son et al., Railroad Commissioners. Writ of prohibition, 
subway stations. Bescript. 

Ware, Mary L.. v. Commonwealth. Bill to enjoin Charles Biver 
Basin Commission from maintaining wall. Pending. 

Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company, Attorney-General 
v. Pending. 

Welch, William J., v. John A. Campbell. Action of tort. Pend- 
ing. 

Welch, William J., v. Hosea M. Quinby, superintendent. Ac- 
tion of tort. Pending. 

Weld, Charles G., v. Board of Gas and Electric Light Commis- 
sioners. Petition for writ of certiorari to require said board 
to certify its record to the Supreme Judicial Court. Be- 
script. 

Weuham Mutual Benefit Association, Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Information for failure to comply with B. L., c. 119, § 14. 
Pending. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 113 

Westborough Insane Hospital, Trustees of, v. Daniel A. Dorey 
et al. Petition to recover for breach of contract. Pending. 

Whitaker, Elbridge J., v. Frank E. Snow. Bill in equity. 
Settled. 

White, Ida V., v. Charles Eiver Basin Commission et al. Bill 
to enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian 
rights on Charles Eiver. Pending. 

Winchester Mutual Benefit Association, Attorney- General ex rel. 
v. Petition for injunction and receiver. Injunction issued, 
and Frank E. Barnard appointed receiver. 

Worcester & Webster Street Eailway Compaq, Attorney-Gen- 
eral v. Pending. 



114 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



COLLECTIONS. 



Collections have been made by this department as follows: 



Corporation taxes for the year 1907, overdue and referred 
by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth to the Attorney- 
General for collection, ...... 

Interest, ......... 

Costs, ......... 

Miscellaneous, ........ 

Total 



$158,951 44 

2,119 97 

1,234 38 

197,226 82 

$359,532 61 



The followino- table shows a detailed statement of the same 



Collected on 

Account 
of Corporation 
Tax for 1906. 



Interest. 



Totals 



A. B. & E. L. Shaw Company, 
A. E. Gloyd Shoe Company, 
A. H. Bliss Company, 
A. P. Nardini Company, 
A. S. Morss Company, 
Adamson Publishing Company, 
Aero and Marine Motor Company 
Aid-Ant Remedy Company, 
Airedale Mills Company, 
Alhambra Mining Company, 
Alley & Emery, Inc., 
Alpha Salad Cream Company, 
Alstead Mica Company, 
American Cableway Company, 
American Carpet Beater Com 

pany, .... 
American Cultivator Publishing 

Company, 
American Electric Switch Com 

pany, .... 
American Foundry Company, 
American Furniture Exchange, 
American Grocery Company, 
Angels Marble Company, . 
Apsley Rubber Company, . 



$797 00 


42 


57 


232 08 


85 


15 


715 


26 


25 


54 


272 


48 


24 00 


912 


89 


102 


18 


634 36 


82 


25 


137 43 


103 84 


17 


37 


42 


57 


13 


62 


61 


30 


51 


09 


449 


59 


105 


00 


6,238 08 



$24 22 

22 

5 80 

2 84 

7 27 

34 

7 72 

24 

9 11 

2 78 



22 13 

82 



66 

04 



1 12 

14 

1 84 
56 

3 75 

2 66 



60 30 



$821 22 

42 79 
237 88 

87 99 
722 53 

25 88 
280 20 

24 24 
922 00 
104 96 
656 49 

83 07 
141 09 
104 88 

17 37 

43 69 

13 76 

63 14 

51 65 

453 34 

107 66 

6,298 38 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



115 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Arthur C. Harvey Company, 


$1,817 52 


$48 42 


$1,865 94 


Atlantic Tea Company, 


78 33 


79 


79 12 


Atlantis Fountain Pen Company, 


30 65 


77 


31 42 


Atlas Fiber Company, 


120 24 


1 57 


121 81 


Auburn Broken Stone Company, 


39 85 


- 


39 85 


Austin Agency, Inc., 


76 63 


1 92 


78 55 


Austin Gove & Son, Inc., . 


1,021 80 


6 13 


1,027 93 


Austin-Walker Company, . 


727 18 


7 27 


734 45 


Automatic Rapid Unloading 








Company, .... 


17 03 


16 


17 19 


Avery-Bates Company, 


174 38 


9 40 


183 78 


Ballou & Hobigand Preparatory 








School, .... 


6 13 


- 


6 13 


Barthel Blow Lamp Company, . 


122 61 


3 25 


125 86 


Bartlett Company, 


170 30 


1 53 


171 83 


Batchelder & Lincoln Company, 


5,109 00 


28 95 


5,137 95 


Bath Grinder Company, 


206 06 


2 06 


208 12 


Bay State Art Company, . 


68 12 


42 


68 54 


Bay State Auto Company, 


391 69 


15 64 


407 33 


Bay State Clothing Company, 


10 21 


- 


10 21 


Berkshire Cycle and Automobile 








Company, .... 


42 57 


43 


43 00 


Bertelsen & Petersen Engineering 








Company, .... 


413 82 


2 28 


416 10 


Big Bargain Clothing Company, . 


63 86 


63 


64 49 


Block Island Granite Associates, 


5 00 


- 


5 00 


Bolivian Supply Company, 


851 50 


29 78 


881 28 


Boris Soap Company, 


116 48 


11 17 


127 65 


Boston Advocate Company, 


39 08 


58 


39 66 


Boston & St. John Tripolite Com- 








pany, . . . . . 


8 00 


- 


8 00 


Boston & Worcester Street Rail- 








way Company, 


14,696 16 


264 53 


14,960 69 


Boston Art Silver Plate Company, 


76 63 


2 28 


78 91 


Boston Bolt Company, 


766 35 


7 66 


774 01 


Boston Book Company, 


1,277 25 


12 77 


1,290 02 


Boston Cycle and Sundry Com- 








pany, ..... 


510 90 


6 64 


517 54 


Boston Furnace Company, 


136 24 


1 36 


137 60 


Boston Mirror Company, . 


108 99 


3 85 


112 84 


Boston Post Card Company, 


33 00 


- 


33 00 


Boston Wool Scouring Company, 


303 13 


6 06 


309 19 


Boulevard Auto Company, 


42 83 


42 


43 25 


Bradford Public Market Company, 


47 17 


47 


47 64 


Briggs & Alley Manufacturing 








Company, . 


836 17 


4 18 


840 35 


Brockton United Co-operative 








Grocery Company, 


35 25 


- 


35 25 


Bromfield Inn Company, . 


85 15 


1 02 


86 17 


Brown-Talbot Machinery Com- 








pany, 


810 62 


11 48 


822 10 



116 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



Collected on 

Account 
of Corporation 
Tax for 1906. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



Buck Printing Company, . 
Builder's Iron and Steel Company, 
Butman & Cressey Company, 
Butman & Stone Company, 
C. A. C. Axe Company, 
C. A. Cook Company, 
C. C. Harvey Company, 
C. E. Trumbull Company, . 
C. E. Woodward Company, Inc., 
C. H. Anable Lumber Company, 
C. H. Buck Painting Company, 
C. J. Peters & Son Company, 
C. W. Leatherbee Lumber Com 

pany, .... 
C. W. Stone Company, 
Cambridge Novelty Company, 
Campello Carriage and Harness 

Company, 
Campello Leather Company, 
Catholic Music Publishing Com 

pany, .... 
Chandler Planer Company, 
Chapman Company, . 
Charak Brothers Company, 
Charles F. Mulleken Oil Com 

pany, .... 
Charles J. Jacobs Company, 
Chase & Sanford Company, 
Child Acme Cutter and Press 

Company, 
Chilmark China Clay Corpora 

tion, .... 
Citizens Electric Street Rail 

way Company, 
Citizens Loan Association, . 
City Market Company of Hoi- 

yoke, Mass., . 
Claflin Sholes Company, 
Clark & Roberts Company, 
Clark Publishing Company, 
Cole & Treat Company, 
Columbia Kid Company, 
Commonwealth Mining Company, 
Commonwealth Motor Car Com- 
pany, . 
Consumers Glue Company, 
Corporation Security Company, . 
Couch & Seeley Company, . 
Crompton Motor Carriage Works, 
Crown Novelty Company, . 
Cummings & King Company, 



$170 30 

51 09 
192 43 

21 96 

214 44 

338 89 

1,703 00 

49 38 
197 54 
212 87 

17 03 
323 57 

445 16 
51 09 

144 58 

35 76 
149 86 

34 06 

529 63 

51 09 

43 42 

34 06 
29 80 
61 30 

127 72 

6 26 

2,193 93 
42 14 

127 29 

33 03 

34 06 
10 03 
20 77 

468 32 
40 00 

14 30 
56 19 
42 57 
85 15 
76 63 
76 63 
705 17 



$3 12 
1 27 

1 92 

12 87 

2 88 

17 03 
44 

9 85 

1 88 

45 

1 97 

18 16 

38 
86 

50 

3 74 

2 44 
7 16 

3 73 
1 30 

52 
76 
61 

1 92 

20 

39 46 

46 

80 
24 
34 
31 
34 
5 72 
38 

52 

1 49 

1 12 

85 

76 

51 

7 05 



$173 42 

52 36 
194 35 

21 96 

227 31 

341 77 

1,720 03 

49 82 
207 39 
214 75 

17 48 
325 54 

463 32 

51 47 

145 44 

36 26 
153 60 

36 50 
536 79 

54 82 
44 72 

34 58 
30 56 
61 91 

129 64 

6 46 

2,233 39 

42 60 

128 09 

33 27 

34 40 
10 34 
21 11 

474 04 
40 38 

14 82 
57 68 

43 69 
86 00 
77 39 
77 14 

712 22 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



117 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Curtis & Moore Company, . 


$216 34 


$6 48 


$222 82 


D. W. Hunt, Inc., 


68 12 


1 94 


70 06 


Daley & Wanzer Allerton Express 








Company, .... 


27 07 


- 


27 07 


Daley's Nantasket Express Com- 








pany, 


11 92 


17 


12 09 


Dalton - Ingersoll Manufacturing 








Company, .... 


1,268 73 


12 69 


1,281 42 


Daniel Gunn & Co., Inc., . 


28 95 


28 


29 23 


D'Arcy & Sons Company, . 


429 05 


3 40 


432 45 


Davis Howard Company, . 


25 54 


- 


25 54 


Dennison Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


18,294 59 


164 64 


18,459 23 


Dill Cattle Company, 


240 00 


2 88 


242 88 


Dr. Weinstein's Medical Offices, 








Inc., ..... 


81 74 


82 


82 56 


Dodge-Speare Company, 


621 59 


- 


621 59 


Douglas Electric Company, 


127 72 


1 27 


128 99 


Dow Tardif Piano Company, 


30 65 


16 


30 81 


Driscoll & Co., Inc., . 


34 06 


1 50 


35 56 


Duchesse Salted Nut Company, . 


5 24 


04 


5 28 


E. A. Hale Company, 


170 30 


- 


170 30 


E. A. King Company, 


136 24 


1 36 


137 60 


E. F. Worcester Press, 


69 82 


- 


69 82 


E. J. Salisbury Company, . 


114 10 


- 


114 10 


E. L. Wood Box Company, 


170 30 


2 55 


172 85 


E. P. Sanderson Company, 


1,035 42 


10 18 


1,045 60 


Eastern Stone Ware Company, . 


25 54 


26 


25 80 


Eastern Webbing Company, 


37 80 


25 


38 05 


Eaton Building Company, . 


10 21 


1 32 


11 53 


Ehrman Manufacturing Company, 


165 39 


1 65 


167 04 


Electric Maintenance Company, 


41 04 


- 


41 04 


Elk Flint Bottle Company, 


12 50 


12 


12 62 


Empire Ring Traveler Company, 


85 15 


86 


86 01 


Excelsior Laundry Company, 


255 45 


6 80 


262 25 


F. C. Maude Company, 


329 01 


- 


329 01 


F. H. Danforth Company, . 


15 15 


15 


15 30 


F. M. Crosby Company, 


544 58 


2 72 


547 30 


Federal Metallic Packing Com- 








pany, 


81 74 


81 


82 55 


Fellner Company, 


85 15 


- 


85 15 


Felton Turner Heating Company, 


156 67 


78 


157 45 


Ferris Wheel Amusement Com- 








pany, Inc., .... 


17 03 


- 


17 03 


Fidelity Carbon Paper Company, 


154 97 


4 10 


159 07 


Flanders Company, . 


51 09 


38 


51 47 


Foil Metal Manufacturing Com- 








pany, ..... 


1,305 34 


39 06 


1,344 40 


Ford Steel Column Company, 


12 77 


33 


13 10 


Foreign Language Press Com- 








pany, ..... 


51 09 


1 83 


52 92 



118 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Forest Hooper Company, . 


$65 73 


$0. 75 


$66 48 


Foster Hall & Adams Company, 


10 21 


31 


10 52 


Frank A. Andrews Company, 


138 96 


3 68 


142 64 


Frank F. Fitts Manufacturing 








and Supply Company, 


193 73 


1 94 


195 67 


Frank P. Bennett & Co., Inc., 


92 64 


93 


93 57 


Franklin Square Automobile 








Company, .... 


40 87 


45 


41 32 


Fred S. & A. D. Gore Corporation, 


51 09 


33 


51 42 


French Carriage Company, 


479 03 


4 79 


483 82 


G. B. Lawrence Company, . 


62 32 


62 


62 94 


G. E. Brown Building Company, 


64 91 


1 94 


66 85 


G. Ferullo Company, 


34 06 


1 60 


35 66 


G. H. Proctor Supply Company, 


34 06 


1 34 


35 40 


G. W. Peterson Company, . 


8 51 


42 


8 93 


George C. Moore Wool Scouring 








Mills, . . 


624 14 


15 60 


639 74 


George F. Sullivan Company, 


153 27 


1 50 


154 77 


George H. Lowe Company, 


255 45 


2 55 


258 00 


George P. Brigham Company, 


20 00 


10 


20 10 


George Worcester Furniture Com- 








pany, ..... 


88 55 


52 


89 07 


Glendale Laundry, Inc., 


17 03 


17 


17 20 


Globe Credit Company, 


66 74 


66 


67 40 


Grafton Electric Company. 


23 41 


23 


23 64 


Graham Company, 


108 31 


2 75 


111 06 


Graham Shoe Company, 


255 45 


2 05 


257 50 


Grant & Hinkley Lumber Com- 








pany, . 


60 00 


2 68 


62 68 


Greater Boston Cigar Company, . 


153 27 


92 


154 19 


Greendale Gas Engine Company, 


106 43 


1 01 


107 44 


Gregory & Brown Company, 


170 30 


1 10 


171 40 


Grocers' Supply Company, Lim- 








ited, ..... 


85 15 


85 


86 00 


H. C. & C. D. Castle, Inc., . 


180 94 


2 17 


183 11 


H. C. Greenwood Company, 


572 63 


15 24 


587 87 


H. I. Gould Company. 


5 10 


03 


5 13 


H. K. Webster Company, . 


493 87 


4 93 


498 80 


H. M. Kinports Company, . 


104 56 


3 66 


108 22 


H. Pill & Brother, Inc., 


20 43 


57 


21 00 


Hackett Brothers' Company, 


107 40 


2 68 


110 08 


Halifax Flower Company, . 


39 50 


1 36 


40 86 


Ham & Carter Company, . 


105 58 


88 


106 46 


Hanemann Monument Company, 


91 11 


92 


92 03 


Hanson Cedar Compan} T , . 


85 15 


2 97 


88 12 


Harvard Amusement Company, . 


9 79 


- 


9 79 


Haverhill Construction Company, 


170 30 


1 70 


172 00 


Hemphill Coal Company, . 


152 58 


89 


153 47 


Henry H. Tuttle Company, 


383 17 


3 70 


386 87 


Hillson Company, 


144 43 


87 


145 30 


Holmes & Kimball. Inc., . 


179 10 


1 79 


180 89 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12 



119 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Holyoke Motor Foundry Com- 








pany, ..... 


$141 68 


$1 60 


$143 28 


Homer Foote & Co., Inc., . 


408 72 


5 58 


414 30 


Horace E. Smith Company, 


57 22 


2 28 


59 50 


Hugh Nawn Contracting Com- 








pany, ..... 


1,199 04 


7 79 


1,206 83 


Huntress Knapp Company, 


102 18 


63 


102 81 


Hurst Sporting Goods Company, 


18 83 


18 


19 01 


Ideal Dental Laboratory, Inc., . 


44 27 


1 18 


45 45 


Imperial Supply Company, 


85 15 


43 


85 58 


India Mica Company, 


37 35 


65 


38 00 


J. A. Cummings Printing Company, 


85 15 


2 26 


87 41 


J. B. Raymond Company, . 


8 51 


- 


8 51 


J. Brest Company, 


143 05 


1 44 


144 49 


J. C. Heymer & Son Company, . 


23 84 


62 


24 46 


J. G. McCarter Company, . 


204 36 


5 44 


209 80 


J. H. Butler Lumber Company, . 


229 90 


5 74 


235 64 


J. H. Costello Company, 


42 57 


1 26 


43 83 


J. H. Gerlach Company, 


215 00 


5 37 


220 37 


J. L. Rice Company, . 


170 30 


4 64 


174 94 


J. M. Howard & Son Company, . 


88 55 


1 00 


89 55 


J. Maro Harriman Drug Company, 


97 92 


98 


98 90 


J. Nardi Company, 


70 92 


1 68 


72 60 


James Barrett Manufacturing 








Company, .... 


434 26 


4 34 


438 60 


Jas. W. Gifford Company, . 


298 02 


7 93 


305 95 


John C. DeLaney Moulding Com- 








pany, . . . . ^ . 


153 27 


1 53 


154 80 


John Cavanagh & Son Building 








Moving Company, . 


255 45 


2 57 


258 02 


John F. Gill Company, 


17 03 


68 


17 71 


John Soley & Sons, Inc., 


204 36 


1 53 


205 89 


John T. Robinson Company, 


283 54 


3 02 


286 56 


John W. Luce & Co., Inc., . 


34 06 


86 


34 92 


Joseph M. Bradley Company, 


18 73 


13 


18 86 


Joseph P. Boyce Cigar Company, 


204 36 


2 76 


207 12 


Joseph Ross Corporation, . 


200 00 


- 


200 00 


Karrer & Co., Inc., . 


70 24 


70 


70 94 


Kinkead Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


16 34 


16 


16 50 


Kinney Heating and Supply Com- 








pany, ..... 


63 01 


1 57 


64 58 


Klein's Pharmacy, 


425 75 


12 75 


438 50 


Kleno Manufacturing Company, 


30 65 


43 


31 08 


Knowlton Packing Company, 


449 59 


11 24 


460 83 


Kress Brothers Carriage Company, 


59 60 


64 


60 24 


L. C. Clark Company, 


32 35 


33 


32 68 


L. R. Sweatland Company, 


67 09 


68 


67 77 


La Justice Publishing Company, 








Inc., ..... 


12 26 


12 


12 38 


Lakeview Press, 


42 57 


43 


43 00 



120 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Lang & Jacobs Company, . 


$85 15 


$0 85 


$86 00 


Lawrence Machine Company, 


246 18 


7 38 


253 56 


Lawrence Produce Company, 


76 12 


63 


76 75 


La Baron Foundry Company, 


230 33 


6 49 


236 82 


Lord & Co., Inc., 


164 76 


2 47 


167 23 


Loring Speed Gauge Company, . 


89 52 


86 


90 38 


Loudville Leather Board Com- 








pany, ..... 


312 50 


2 29 


314 79 


Louis Sonnabend Company, Inc., 


54 49 


1 44 


55 93 


Lowell Electric Light Corporation, 


11,893 47 


109 01 


12,002 48 


Lunt Moss Company, 


858 31 


6 86 


865 17 


M. & M. Manufacturing Company, 


25 54 


1 53 


27 07 


M. H. Brigham Company, . 


35 76 


2 25 


38 01 


Maiden Grain Company, 


119 21 


3 38 


122 59 


Maiden Loan Company, 


10 21 


- 


10 21 


Manufacturers Bottle Company, 


54 15 


54 


54 69 


Marlborough & Hudson Gas Com- 








pany, .... 


1,374 66 


13 28 


1,387 94 


Marshall Electric Manufacturing 








Company, .... 


795 98 


21 20 


817 18 


Massachusetts Loan and Guar- 








antee Company, 


17 03 


40 


17 43 


Massachusetts School of Law, Inc., 


17 03 


18 


17 21 


Master Soap Company, 


69 65 


70 


70 35 


Mellish & Byfield Company, Inc., 


451 29 


9 93 


461 22 


Melvin Bancroft Company, 


93 66 


93 


94 59 


Menashi, Khoury Company, 


68 05 


68 


68 73 


Menthol Products Company, 


39 54 


08 


39 62 


Merry Job Print, Inc., 


34 06 


34 


34 40 


Metropolitan Air Goods Company, 


55 63 


1 00 


56 63 


Middlesex Traders Ice Company, 


93 66 


- 


93 66 


Milton Company, 


40 87 


43 


41 30 


Mitchell Press, .... 


52 11 


1 39 


53 50 


Mitchell Publishing Company, 


51 09 


51 


51 60 


Model Laundering Company, 


80 89 


80 


81 69 


Morgan Brothers Company, 


40 87 


- 


40 87 


Morgan Creamery Company, 


34 06 


38 


34 44 


Mount Desert Granite Company, 


10 44 


- 


10 44 


Murphy Boot and Shoe Company, 


102 18 


54 


102 72 


N. Richardson Sons Manufactur- 








ing Company, 


120 06 


60 


120 66 


Nahant & Lynn Street Railway 








Company, .... 


1,451 15 


38 31 


1,489 46 


Nantasket Transportation Com- 








pany, ..... 


5 10 


04 


5 14 


National Fire Appliance Com- 








pany, ..... 


302 58 


10 06 


312 64 


Navin & Kelly Company, . 


121 84 


1 38 


123 22 


New Can Company, . 


102 18 


2 71 


104 89 


New England Cloak and Suit 








Company, .... 


76 63 


76 


77 39 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



121 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


fcerest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






New England Corset Company, . 


$139 64 


SI 40 


$141 04 


New England Embroidering Com- 








pany, .... 


63 01 


1 62 


64 63 


New England Forest Fish and 








' Game Association, 


193 86 


1 93 


195 79 


New England Furniture Manu- 








facturing Company, 


18 73 


56 


19 29 


New England Newspaper Publish- 








ing Company, 


425 75 


4 68 


430 43 


New England Paper Bag Com- 








pany, 


202 53 


1 01 


203 54 


New England Reed Company, 


43 59 


39 


43 98 


New Hampshire Ice and Fuel 








Company, .... 


5 10 


05 


5 15 


New Marshall Engine Company, 


61 30 


- 


61 30 


Nippon Importing Company, 


178 81 


2 14 


180 95 


North Adams Co-operative Asso- 








ciation, .... 


121 00 


- 


121 00 


North Chelmsford Machine and 








Supply Company, . 


470 87 


8 95 


479 82 


North End Express Company, . 


5 10 


OS 


5 18 


0. D. Brett Company, 


187 33 


1 87 


189 20 


Odor-No Chemical Company, 


20 00 


- 


20 00 


Osterhout Livery Company, 


6 13 


- 


6 13 


P. R, Bean Furniture Company, 


85 15 


2 55 


87 70 


P. R. Glass Company, 


120 01 


1 19 


121 20 


Paddon Motor Company, . 


35 37 


94 


36 31 


Palatable Distilled Water Com- 








pany, 


17 03 


19 


17 22 


Park & Pollard Company, . 


216 28 


6 98 


223 26 


Peabody Supply Company, 


133 78 


1 23 


135 01 


Pean Medical Company, 


26 97 


67 


27 64 


Peoples Combination Clothing 








Company, .... 


102 18 


1 56 


103 74 


Peoples Drug Store Company, . 


25 54 


28 


25 82 


Peter F. Tague Company, . 


42 57 


43 


43 00 


Phillips & Kreusky Company, . 


51 09 


- 


51 09 


Phillips Company, 


13 62 


13 


13 75 


Pierce & Barnes Company, 


30 65 


35 


31 00 


Pigeon Hill Granite Company, . 


1,052 89 


7 02 


1,059 91 


Pilgrim Foundry Company, 


278 61 


8 00 


286 61 


Pilot Garage and Supply Com- 








pany, 


163 48 


1 72 


165 20 


Premier Manufacturing Company, 


26 56 


1 86 


28 42 


Prince Medicine Company, 


75 30 


1 12 


76 42 


Priscilla Mills Company, 


6 81 


18 


6 99 


Providence & Fall River Street 








Railway Company, 


418 95 


13 93 


432 88 


Puritan Furniture Company, 


57 22 


58 


57 80 


Puritan Motor Company, . 


102 18 


1 02 


103 20 


Puritan Products Company, 


8 78 


08 


8 86 



122 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Quincy Column Turning Com- 








pany, ..... 


$75 78 


$0 76 


S76 54 


R. F. Hawkins Iron Works, 


153 27 


6 12 


159 39 


R. H. Smith Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


245 23 


2 45 


247 68 


R. L. Cleveland Company, . 


269 75 


2 70 


272 45 


R. M. Bucknam Company, Inc., . 


31 35 


- 


31 35 


Rand Dairy Lunch Company, 


55 17 


1 46 


56 63 


Red Dragon Company, 


85 15 


- 


85 15 


Regal Laundry Company, . 


51 09 


1 61 


52 70 


Re-New Lamp Company, . 


585 81 


5 57 


591 38 


Richardson Company, 


113 01 


3 01 


116 02 


Riverside Greenhouses, Inc., 


6 91 


20 


7 11 


Robert G. Wallace Company, 


235 01 


2 54 


237 55 


Rockland Elastic Fabric Com- 








pany, 


9 36 


- 


9 36 


Rodney Hunt Machine Company, 


1,000 00 


15 84 


1,015 84 


Rowe & Perini Construction Com- 








pany, 


153 27 


92 


154 19 


Royal Comb Company, 


98 43 


2 46 


100 89 


S. Armstrong Company, 


51 09 


31 


51 40 


S. D. Viets Company, 


820 47 


8 20 


828 67 


S. E. Cassino Companv, 


78 00 


70 


78 70 


S. R. Bailey & Co., Inc., . 


1,347 41 


16 16 


1,363 57 


S. Vorenberg Companv, 


1,021 80 


5 11 


1,026 91 


St. Clair's, Inc., 


70 98 


67 


71 65 


Samuel M. Baker Company, 


34 06 


34 


34 40 


Samuel Ward Company, 


1,211 68 


12 11 


1,223 79 


Scherrer Manufacturing Company, 


34 94 


2 09 


37 03 


Selwyn Company, 


6 81 


06 


6 87 


Shannon Manufacturing Com- 








pany, ..... 


63 86 


69 


64 55 


Shawmut Waxed Paper Com- 








pany, 


51 09 


1 43 


52 52 


Sheldon Yacht and Power Boat 








Corporation, .... 


119 21 


1 19 


120 40 


Shepard, Norwell Company, 


12,431 90 


95 31 


12,527 21 


Sight-seeing Auto Company, 


51 09 


51 j 


51 60 


Silas Peirce & Co., Limited, 


1,614 23 


15 07 ! 


1,629 30 


Simons Shoe Company, 


38 48 


23 j 


38 71 


Smith & Anthony Company, 


1,227 01 


12 07 


1,239 08 


Snow Flake Axle Grease Com- 








pany, 


93 66 


64 


94 30 


Sommer Company, . ». 


178 81 


97 


179 78 


Springfield Department Store, 








Inc., ..... 


10 00 




10 00 


Springfield Hat and Cap Com- 








pany, 


148 84 


74 


149 58 


Standard Credit Company, 


65 39 


66 


66 05 


Standard Moulding Company, 


27 24 


72 


27 96 


Stetson Press Company, 


18 23 


69 


18 92 



1909.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



123 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Stone Express Company, . 


$190 73 


$3 88 


$194 61 


Stoughton Record Company, 


32 35 


- 


32 35 


Stoughton Rubber Company, 


2,869 55 


14 83 


2,884 38 


Stoughton Stamping Company, . 


10 21 


54 


10 75 


Suffolk Supply Company, . 


117 47 


3 06 


120 53 


Sullivan & Willard, Inc., . 


86 85 


87 


87 72 


Sullivan Tucker Company, 


68 12 


2 04 


70 16 


Sweezey Lumber Company, Inc., 


246 59 


2 46 


249 05 


Sylvester Tower Company, 


1,648 50 


41 21 


1,689 71 


Symonds & Poor Carbonator Com- 








pany, 


1,021 80 


16 11 


1,037 91 


T. F. Kilbride Company, . 


170 30 


3 50 


173 80 


Taylor Woolen Company, . 


6 00 


21 


6 21 


Tichnor Brothers, Inc., 


73 77 


70 


74 47 


Tilton, Fuller & Milton, Inc., . 


172 59 


1 72 


174 31 


Treworgy Lumber Company, 


121 90 


3 73 


125 63 


Tudor Press, Inc., 


34 06 


34 


34 40 


Turva Co-operative Store Com- 








pany, . 


15 49 


62 


16 11 


Twill Be Cleaner Manufacturing 








Company, .... 


57 68 


- 


57 68 


Union Credit Company, 


70 67 


1 14 


71 81 


Union Tool Company, 


41 70 


1 10 


42 80 


Union Welting Company, . 


186 73 


4 96 


191 69 


Unique Stove Company, 


262 89 


10 50 


273 39 


United Laboratories Company, . 


621 59 


16 56 


638 15 


United Perfume Company, 


276 73 


7 36 


284 09 


United Sewing Machinery Com- 








pany, 


160 08 


1 60 


161 68 


Valhalla Cafe, Inc., . 


42 57 


1 26 


43 83 


Van Tassel Leather Company, 


62 50 


50 


63 00 


Vista Hermosa Company, . 


8 50 


05 


8 55 


W. A. Norton Company, 


27 24 


- 


27 24 


W. P. Goode Brush Company, 


70 33 


1 86 


72 19 


W. S. Littlefield Manufacturing 








Company, .... 


51 09 


1 81 


52 90 


W. T. Shackley & Son Company, 


251 19 


2 51 


253 70 


Wakefield Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


229 85 


9 19 


239 04 


Walker-Rintels Company, . 


85 15 


59 


85 74 


Walker-Rintels, Inc., 


51 09 


37 


51 46 


Walter H. Hooper Printing Com- 








pany, 


51 09 


52 


51 61 


Walton & Logan Company, 


4,492 51 


44 93 


4,537 44 


Warner Motor Company, . 


51 09 


1 35 


52 44 


Warren, Brookfield & Spencer 








Street Railway Company, 


1,080 72 


32 42 


1,113 14 


Warren Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


10 69 


06 


10 75 


Warren White Lead and Paint 








Company, .... 


37 02 


— 


37 02 



124 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1906. 






Washburn Realty Trust, Lim- 








ited, ..... 


S109 59 


$0 70 


$110 29 


Webster Paper Box Company, . 


25 54 


19 


25 73 


Wellington-Pierce Company, 


600 30 


5 90 


606 20 


West Barnstable Motor Com- 








pany, 


125 68 


3 56 


129 24 


West End Loan and Investment 








Company, 


24 52 


- 


24 52 


Weymouth Pharmacy, 


102 18 


1 53 


103 71 


Wheatley Hay, Grain and Lum- 








ber Company, 


5 10 


05 


5 15 


Whit comb & Withington Com- 








pany, . . . 


190 66 


5 70 


196 36 


Whitlow Corporation, 


59 60 


60 


60 20 


Whit tier Wooden-Ware Com- 








pany, ..... 


374 66 


3 74 


378 4o 


Wilkinson Company, Inc., 


67 23 


2 10 


69 33 


William A. Davis Company, 


68 12 


1 80 


69 92 


William Bourne & Son Piano 








Company, .... 


42 57 


25 


42 82 


William V. Fishel Company, 


41 72 


- 


41 72 


Williams & Everett Company, . 


85 15 


85 


86 00 


Williamstown Press Company, . 


47 68 


72 


48 40 


Winchendon Auto Transit Com- 








pany, ..... 


20 43 


21 


20 64 


Winston Company, Undertakers, 


17 03 


07 


17 10 


Winthrop M. Baker, Inc., 


30 65 


19 


30 84 


Wirt Manufacturing Company, 


539 85 


16 19 


556 04 


Wold Machine Company, . 


34 06 


34 


34 40 


Worcester Broken Stone Com- 








pany, 


85 15 


2 27 


87 42 


Worcester Gazette Company, . 


47 99 


24 


48 23 


Worcester Sanitarium Company, 


43 42 


58 


44 00 


Worcester Stonebrick and Tile 








Company, .... 


30 31 


30 


30 61 


Wordell Plumbing Company, 


85 15 


- 


85 15 



$158,95144 $2,119 97 $161,07141 



Miscellaneous Collections. 
A. A. Dnfanlt, Inc., penalty, 
A. E. Gloycl Shoe Company, penalty, 
A. H. Demon d Company, penalty, . 
A. L. Ober Company, penalty, . 
Adams, Charles Hall, on account of cla 

W. Risk, public administrator, 
Aetna Loan Company, penalty, 
Agawam Farm and Supply Company, pe 







$5 00 


. 




15 00 






5 00 






25 00 


ms against 


W 


9,017 59 
5 00 


laity, 




5 00 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



125 



gme 



Alton Chemical Company, penalties, . 
Albree Self Figuring System Company, penalty 
Almeida, Pedro, board of Maria d' Jeans, . 
Alstead Mica Company, penalties, . 
American Amusement Company, penalty, 
American Chrome Company, penalty, 
American Cloak Company, penalty, . 
American Electric Switch Company, penalty, 
American Furniture Exchange, penalty, . 
American Gymnasia Company, penalty, . 
American High Compression Combustion En 

pany, penalty, 

American Live Poultry Company, penalty, 

American Storage Battery Company, penalty, 

Angelina Orchard Company, penalty, 

Anti-itis, Inc., penalty, 

Arancio Brothers Company, penalty, 

Arlington, town of, board of paupers, 

Austin Ford & Son Company, penalty, 

Automatic Rapid Unloading Company, penalty, 

Automatic Telephone Equipment Company, penalty 

B. M. Lovell Company, penalty, 

Bancroft Investment Company, penalty 

Barthel Blow Lamp Company, penalty, 

Bay State Calendar Company, penalty, 

Bay State Engine Company, penalty, 

Bay State Flour and Grain Company, penalty, 

Bay State Shoe and Leather Company, penalty, 

Bay State Tap and Die Company, penalty, 

Beacon Loan Company, penalty, 

Bedford, town of, board of paupers, . 

Bemis Mills, penalty, 

Benson Furniture Company, penalty, 

Berkeley Farms, penalty, 

Bernardston, town of, board of paupers, . 
Berwick Cake Company, penalty, 
Blackstone Electric Light Company, penalty, . 
Blandford, town of, treatment of Amos J. Lemon, 
Bloodine Corporation, penalty, 

Bonn & Co., Inc., penalty, 

Boris Soap Company, penalty, .... 
Boston & Oaxaca Mining Company, penalty, . 
Boston Advertising Company, penalties, . 
Boston Art Silver Plate Company, penalties, . 
Boston Auto School, Inc., penalty, . . . 
Boston Baking Powder Company, penalties, 



Com 



$15 


00 


10 


00 


21 20 


10 00 


15 


00 


20 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


4G 11 


5 00 


25 00 


5 00 


5 


00 


20 


00 


25 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


25 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


20 


00 


20 40 


10 00 


10 


00 


5 00 


36 40 


15 


00 


5 00 


253 


37 


5 00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


15 


00 


10 


00 


20 


00 


15 


00 


20 00 



126 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



Boston Bolt Company, penalty, .... 

Boston, city of, tide water displaced in Fort Point channel 
Boston, city of, national bank tax, . 
Boston, city of, treatment of John F. Tracy, 
Boston Coked Peat Company, penalty, 
Boston Cycle and Sundry Company, penalty, 
Boston Lacing Hook Company, penalty, . 
Boston Opera Company, penalty, 
Boston Press, Inc., penalty, 
Boston, Providence & Fall River Express Company 
penalty, ....... 

Boston Seam Tin Company, penalties, 

Boston Vibrator Company, penalty, . 

Boulevard Auto Company, penalty, . 

Bradford Public Market Company, penalty, 

Bridgeport Paper Company, penalty, 

Brightwood Brick Company, penalty, 

Brine, George R., board of Rachael H. Brine, 

Brockton Gas Light Company, excess of sulphur in gas, 

Brockton Ideal Shoe Company, penalty, . 

Brockton-Lowell Amusement Company, penalty 

Brockton Trap-Rock Company, penalty, . 

Brown, Delphine, estate of, inheritance tax, 

Brown Stocking Company, penalty, . 

Buck, Maurice A., treatment at State Hospital 

Bun Jun Lo Company, penalty, 

Burbank Brothers Company, penalties, . 

Burns Manufacturing Company, penalties, 

Burns Worcester Company, penalty, 

Burtworth Carpet Company, penalties, . 

C. F. Purinton Company, penalty, . 

C. J. Peters & Son Company, penalty, 

C. W. Stone Company, penalty, 

C. Elmer Pope Paper Company, penalty, . 

Cambridge, city of, board of paupers, 

Cambridge Novelty Company, penalty, 

Cape Ann News Company, penalty, . 

Central Oil Company, penalty, . 

Champion Button Hole Machine Company, penalty, 

Chapman Ball Bearing Company, penalty and excise tax 

Charlemont Copper Company, penalty, . 

Charles E. Cashin Machinery Company, penalty 

Charles L. Ireson, Inc., penalty, 

Charles W. Blake Company, penalty, 

Charles W. Smith Company, penalty, 

Chelmsford Foundry Company, penalty, . 



$10 00 

25 51 

147 40 

8 00 

15 00 

10 00 

10 00 

5 00 

5 00 

10 00 

15 00 

15 00 

5 00 

5 00 

5 00 

10 00 

260 70 

100 00 

15 00 

10 00 

5 00 

49 38 

20 00 

25 00 

10 00 

10 00 

10 00 

5 00 

20 00 

20 00 

5 00 

10 00 

5 00 

5,567 60 

5 00 

5 00 

10 00 

10 00 

490 00 

25 00 

5 00 

25 00 

5 00 

5 00 

25 00 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



127 



Chelsea Relief Committee, $153 14 

Cheney & Thompson Company, penalty, .... 5 00 

Cheshire, town of, board of Harry T. Phillips, ... 256 00 

Chilmark China Clay Corporation, penalty, . . . 10 00 

Clark & Roberts Company, penalties, .... 15 00 

Clement Manufacturing Company, penalty, ... 5 00 

Cobb & White Company, penalty, 10 00 

Cole & Treat Company, penalty, 10 00 

Commercial Credit Company, penalty, .... 10 00 
Common Sense Gum Company, penalty, .... 25 00 
Commonwealth Mining Company, penalty, . . . 25 00 
Connecticut Valley Street Railway Company, penalty, . 136 66 
Consolidated Wrapping Machine Company, penalty, . 15 00 
Consumers' Glue Company, penalty, .... 20 00 
Consumers' Ice and Fuel Company, penalty, ... 10 00 
Consumers' Milk Company, penalty, .... 5 00 
Contractors' Machinery Rental and Transportation Com- 
pany, penalty, 15 00 

Co-operative Manufacturing Company, penalty, . . 10 00 

Corporation Security Company, penalty, .... 25 00 

Crimmings, Timothy F., board of John J. Crimmings, . 87 38 

Crompton Motor Carriage Works, penalty, . . . 25 00 

Cumberland Dock and Storage Company, penalty, . 5 00 

Cutter Tower Company, penalty, 5 00 

D. F. O'Connell Company, penalty, 10 00 

D. L. Billings Company, penalty, 15 00 

D. R. Jones Company, penalty, 10 00 

D. W. Mellen Company, penalty, 15 00 

D. Atwood Company, penalty, 10 00 

Daley & Wanzer Allerton Express Company, penalty, . 10 00 

Danvers, town of, board of paupers, 10 00 

David E. Sherin Company, penalty, . . . . 10 00 

David G. Whelton Company, penalty, .... 5 00 

Day Express Company, penalty, 15 00 

Dewey Investment Company, penalty, .... 10 00 

Dill Cattle Company, penalty, 15 00 

Dover Furnace Company, penalty, 5 00 

Draper-Hall Stable Company, penalty, .... 10 00 

Dresser Manufacturing Company, penalty, ... 5 00 

Driscoll & Co., Inc., penalties, 25 00 

Dudley, town of, board of Thomas J. Coligan, ... 9 43 
Duplesis Independent Shoe Machinery Company, Lim- 
ited, penalty and excise tax, 410 00 

E. C. Manufacturing Company, penalty, .... 10 00 

E. L. Wood Box Company, penalty, 15 00 

E. M. Coats & Co., Inc., penalties, 25 00 



128 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT 



[Jan. 



E. P. Tarrey Dry Goods Company, penalties, . 

Eastern Bridge and Structural Company, penalty. . 

Eastern Terra Cotta Brick and Tile Company, penalty, 

Eaton Building Company, penalty, .... 

Educational Press Company, penalty, 

Egremont Co-operative Creamery Company, penalty, 

Electric Novelty Machine Company, penalty, . 

Electric Textile Machinery Company, penalty, . 

El Rey Rubber Plantation Company, penalty, . 

Emmons Brothers Company, penalty, 

Essex Contracting Company, penalty, 

Eureka Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

Eureka Valve Company, penalty, .... 

Everett, city of, board of paupers, .... 

Fall River, city of, treatment of paupers, . 

Fallon, Peter F., et al., tide water displaced in Town 

River, Quincy, 

Federal Metallic Packing Company, penalty, . 

Felch, Mary R., board at Northampton Insane Hospital 

Finnish Socialistic Publishing Company, penalty, . 

Floyd Lunch Company, penalty, .... 

Follett Wool Company, penalty, .... 

Frank A. Andrews Company, penalty, 

Frederick J. Quimby Company, penalty, . 

Free Press Publishing and Printing Company, penalty, 

Fretts Electric Switch Company, penalty, 

Fyfe-Eskrigge Company, penalty, 

G. Ferullo Company, penalty, . 

Gay Head Fire Brick Company, penalty 

Gem Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

General De-Greasing Company, penalty, 

George F. Quigley Company, penalty, 

George W. Cummings Testing Laboratories, penalty, 

George Worcester Furniture Company, penalty, 

Gibby Foundry Company, tide water displaced in Chelsea 



Creek, East Boston, 



Gilmore, John M., estate of, 

Glenwold Farms, Inc., penalty, 

Gloucester, city of, treatment of Patrick J. O'Malley, 
Gloucester Cold Storage and Warehouse Company 

penalty, 

Gordon, H. B., guardian, board of Katie Cooper, * . 
Government Publishing Company, penalty, 
Grant & Hinckley Lumber Company, penalty, . 
Graton & Knight Manufacturing Company, penalty, 
Guaranty Plate Works, penalty, .... 



$20 00 


5 


00 


25 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


25 


00 


15 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


57 


60 


128 


37 


2S 15 


5 


00 


409 


00 


10 


00 


25 


00 


100 


00 


20 


CO 


50 00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


15 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


283 40 


505 


02 


10 


00 


95 


60 


5 


00 


104 83 


10 


00 


5 


00 


20 


00 


20 


00 



1909.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



129 



Gurney Heater Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

H. A. Rich Company, penalty, . 

H. B. Ticker Company, penalty, 

H. W. Forbush, Inc., Penalty, . 

H. Pill & Brother, Inc., penalty, 

Hackett Brothers Company, penalty, 

Hadsell Lime Company, penalty, 

Hamilton Life Preserver Company, penalty, . 

Hampden Concrete Construction Company, penalty, 

Hancock Company, penalty, 

Hanemann Monument Company, penalty, . 

Hanover, town of, board of paupers, 

Harlow, George H., ....... 

Harrison Brothers & Co., Inc., penalty, . 

Harvard Baby Food Company, penalty, . 

Haverhill Base Ball and Athletic Association, penalty, 

Hawkes Laundry Company, penalty, . 

Healey Sewer Machine and Construction Company 

penalties, 

Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Company, penalty, 
Heller & Merz Company, penalty, .... 
Hemphill Coal Company, penalty, .... 
Henneman Coffee Roaster Company, penalty, . 
Hide-ite Leather Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

Hillson Company, penalty, 

Hind Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, penalty, . 

Hoffecker Company, penalty, 

Holyoke Box and Lumber Company, penalty, . 
Holyoke Motor Foundry Company, penalty, . 
Hooper Printing Company, penalty, .... 
Horace K. Turner Corporation, penalty, . 
Howard Moving Picture Company, penalty, 
Howe, Irving A., estate of, inheritance tax, 
Howe Paint and Color Works, penalty, . 
Hudson & Chester Granite Company, penalty, . 
Hughes Anti-Friction Company, penalty, . 
Ideal Comb Company, penalty, .... 
International Chemical Company, penalty, 
International Electric Company, penalty, . 
International Manufacturing Company, penalty, 
J. A. Hendrie Brothers & Company, penalty, . 
J. B. Judkins & Sons Company, penalty, 
J. E. Turner Wagon Company, penalty, . 
J. H. Chandler Company, penalty, .... 
J. H. Costello Company, penalty, .... 
J. M. Howard & Son Company, penalty, . 



$15 00 

25 00 

5 00 

15 00 

10 00 

10 00 

10 00 

5 00 

10 00 

50 00 

5 00 

37 60 

1,221 70 

5 00 

5 00 

5 00 

10 00 

15 00 
25 00 
25 00 
10 00 
10 00 

5 00 
10 00 
10 00 

5 00 

5 00 
20 00 

5 00 
15 00 

5 00 

1,162 43 

10 00 

10 00 

10 00 

5 00 

5 00 
10 00 

5 00 
10 00 

5 00 

5 00 
10 00 
15 00 

5 00 



130 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



J. N. Pike Company, penalty, 

James G. Tarr Fish Glue and Marine Paint Corporation, 
penalty, ...... 

Jewelers' Building Association, penalty, . 

Jewelers' Building Company, penalty, 

John A. Hayes Foundry Company, penalty, 

John W. Luce & Co., Inc., penalty, . 

John Gilbert, Jr., Company, penalty, 

Johnson Lumber Company, penalty, 

Jordan Drug Company, penalty, 

Joseph H. White & Sons, Inc., corporation tax for 1906, 

Keith, Allen F., tide water displaced at Stony Beach, Hull, 

Kelly, Evans Company, penalty, 

Kelly Produce Company, penalty, . 

Key Gold Mining Company, penalty, 

Knowlton Packing Company, Inc., penalty, 

Kohinoor Zinc Company, penalty, . 

L. B. Gardner Company, penalty, . 

L. J. Couch Company, Inc., penalty, 

L. W. Pond Machine and Foundry Company, penalty, 

La Justice Publishing Company, Inc., penalty, 

Lake Attitash Ice and Transportation Company, penalty 

Lakeside Construction Company, penalty, 

Lakeview Drug Company, penalty, . 

Langley Transportation Company, penalty, 

Lawrence, city of, treatment of paupers, . 

Leader Publishing Company, penalty, 

Le Broom and Duster Company, penalty, 

Leicester Polar Spring Company, penalty, 

Lewis Thomas Company, penalty, . 

Leon Miller Company, penalty, 

Liberty Counter Company, penalty, 

Library Bureau, penalty 

Linscott Motor Company, penalty, . 

Littleton, town of, board of paupers, 

Lodge, Elizabeth, estate of, inheritance tax, 

Loring Company, penalty, 

Louis Sonnabend Company, Inc., penalty, 

Lowell, city of, board of paupers, . 

Lowell Gas Light Company, excess of sulphur in gas, 

Lowell Paper Tube Company, penalty, . 

Lynn, city of, board of paupers, 

Lynn-Dwyer Lamp Company, penalty, . 

Lyric Theatre Company, penalty, 

M. & M. Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

M. H. Brigham Company, penalty, 



[Jan. 

$10 00 

15 00 

5 00 

5 00 

5 00 

10 00 

25 00 

10 00 

5 00 

382 18 

5 80 

15 00 

15 00 

15 00 

10 00 

25 00 

15 00 

10 00 

25 00 

5 00 

10 00 

10 00 

20 00 

10 00 

65 60 

10 00 

15 00 

5 00 

10 00 

5 00 

5 00 

5 00 

10 00 

3 14 

8 35 

5 00 

15 00 

68 28 

400 00 

15 00 

106 63 

10 00 

10 00 

5 00 

5 00 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



131 



Holyoke 



Majestic Company, penalty, 

Maloine Chemical Company, Inc., penalty, 

Mark Cross Company, penalty, 

Marley Brothers Company, penalty, - 

Mason Motor-Fan Company, penalty, 

Massachusetts Talc Company, penalty, . 

Massasoit Woolen Mills, penalty, 

Mattapoisett Cranb.erry Company, penalty, 

McBride Machine Company, penalty, 

McCarthy Bedding Company, penalty, 

McCarthy, John C, estate of, inheritance tax, 

McGonagle, Francis J., guardian, board of William F 

McGonagle, 

Menashi, Khoury Company, penalties, 
Menter & Rosenbloom Company, penalty, 
Merrimac Paper Company, penalty, 
Merritt Block Granite Company, penalty, 
Millet, J. H., guardian, board of Ellen Chamberlain, 
Miscoe Spring Water Company, penalty, 
Mitchell Press, penalty, .... 
Mohawk Manufacturing Company, penalty, 
Monument National Canadian Francais de 

Mass., penalty, 

Morris & Co., penalty, .... 
Mulhern, George, estate of, unclaimed deposit 

bank, ....... 

Mum-Nichols Company, penalty, 
Musgrove Knitting Company, penalty, 
N. J. Hardy Company, penalty, 
N. Richardson Sons Manufacturing Company, 
Nantasket Transportation Company, penalty, 
National Fire Appliance Company, penalty, 
National Fuel Economizer Company, penalty, 
National Paper Goods Company, penalty 
National Soap Corporation, penalty, 
National Tripoli Company, penalty, 
Nemo Heater Company, penalty, . 
Never Shrink Company, penalty, 
New Bedford, city of, board of Cornelius F. 
New Bedford Extractor Company, penalty, 
New England Agency Company, penalty, 
. New England Amusement Company of 

penalty, 

New England Coal Company, penalty, . 

New England Forest, Fish and Game Association, 

penalty, 



m savings 



penalty, 



Collins, 



Worcester 



$10 00 


15 


00 


25 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 00 


25 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


148 


00 


290 00 


10 


00 


25 00 


10 


00 


10 00 


342 62 


5 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


25 


00 


5 


00 


206 


92 


5 


00 


15 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


10 00 


25 00 


10 


00 


35 


60 


20 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


5 00 



15 00 



132 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



New England Paper Bag Company, penalty, . 

New England Steel Casting Company, penalty, 

New Talmud Publishing Company, penalty, 

New York Importers Tea Company, penalty, . 

New York Store, Incorp., penalty, .... 

Newburyport, city of, board of paupers, 

Norcross-Cameron Company, penalty, 

Norris F. Comley Conservatories, penalty, 

Northampton Tobacco Company, penalty, 

Nousn Co-operative Store Company, penalty, . 

O'Laughlin, P., guardian of Ann Fallon, 

O'Riordan, J. P., services of inspector to supervise dump 

ing in tide water, 

Odor-No Chemical Company, penalty, 

Oldham & Ranahan Company, penalty, . 

P. P. Emory Manufacturing Company, penalties, . 

Page, 0. F., administrator of estate of Frank Works 

board of Bessie M. Works, . 
Palace Amusement Company, penalty, 
Palatable Distilled Water Company, penaltj 7 , 
Peabocly Supply Company, penalty, . 
Pean Medical Company, penalty, 
Penny Dreamland Amusement Company, penalty, 
Pepperell Manufacturing and Building Company 

penalty, 

Peter F. Tague Company, penalty, .... 
Phillipston Trap Rock Company, penalty, 
Pierce Labelling Machine Company, penalty, . 
Pierson Pharmacy Company, penalty, 
Pigeon Hill Granite Company, penalty, . 
Pilgrim Foundry Company, penalty, 
Pittsburg Coaster Construction Company, penalty, . 
Pittsfield Soap Company, penalty, .... 
Pittsfield Transportation Company, penalty, . 
Plymouth Press Company, penalty, .... 
Practical Politics, Inc., penalty, .... 

Proctor, Ellison Company, penalty, 

Publisher Press, penalty, 

Puritan Products Company, penalty, 

Putnam Wharf and Storage Realty Company, penalty, 

Q. A. Towns Extracting Company, penalty, . 

Quincy Column Turning Company, penalty, . 

R. I. Contract Engineering Company, penalty, 

R. M. Bucknam & Co., Inc., penalties, 

Racine Boat Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

Rafter Two-Color Roller Company, penalty, . 



$10 00 


100 


00 


10 00 


10 


00 


15 


00 


28 


80 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


230 


29 


258 


00 


5 


00 


10 00 


25 


00 


225 


00 


15 


00 


10 


00 


10 00 


15 


00 


15 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 00 


10 


00 


25 


00 


15 00 


5 00 


5 


00 


10 00 


5 


00 


15 00 


20 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


25 


00 


10 


00 


50 


00 


10 


00 



1909.' 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



133 



Read & Read Company, penalty, .... 
Red Dragon Company, penalty, .... 
Redpath Lyceum Bureau, Inc., penalty, . 
Rehoboth, town of, board of pauper, 
Remington Tool and Machine Company, penalty, . 
Rice, Kendall Company, penalty, .... 

Riverdale Mills, penalty, 

Robinson-Brockway Manufacturing Company, penalty, 
Rockport Isinglass Company, penalty, 
Rockwood Sprinkler Company, penalty, . 
Rocky Hill Crystal Spring Water Company, penalty, 
Royal Fibre Company, penalty, .... 

S. A. Ryan & Co., Inc., penalties, .... 
S. C. Lowe Supply Company, penalty, 
S. L. Gabriel Company, penalties, .... 
S. Slater & Sons, Inc., penalty, .... 

Sakind, James S., estate of, inheritance tax, . 
Salem, Beverly & Danvers Towboat Company, penalty, 
Salem Laundry Company, penalty, .... 
Salem Press Company, penalty, .... 
Samuel M. Green, Inc., penalty, .... 
Sandwich Glass Company, corporation tax for 1906, 
Sanitary Reduction and Construction Company, penalties 
Saugus, town of, board of pauper, .... 
Schipper Brothers Coal Mining Company, Inc., penalties 
Security Loan Association, penalty, .... 

Seibert, Antoine, estate of, 

Selian Brothers Company, penalty, .... 

Selling Novelty Company, penalty, .... 

Shady Hill Nursery Company, corporation tax for 1906, 

Shawmut Leather Company, penalty, 

Sheffield, town of, treatment of John Shea, 

Sherry Shoe Company, penalty, .... 

Simpson Bros. Corporation, penalty, 

Simpson, W. M. (State Prison), .... 

Sleep, Elliot & King Company, penalty, . 

Smith Feed Company, penalty, .... 

Smith-Hammond Company, penalty, 

Smith's Tavern, Inc., penalty, 

Springfield Gas Light Company, excess of sulphur in gas 
Springfield Hat and Cap Company, penalty, . 
Sorensen, Alfred, tide water displaced in Chelsea Creek 

Chelsea, 

Stafford Company, penalty, . . . 
Standard Moulding Company, penalty, . 
Standard Plunger Elevator Company, penalty, 



$3 00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


34 57 


5 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


25 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


15 


00 


25 


00 


5 


00 


264 18 


5 


00 


10 00 


5 


00 


10 


00 


70 43 


15 


00 


11 


14 


10 


00 


5 


00 


34 36 


10 


00 


5 


00 


421 


75 


10 


00 


41 


09 


5 


00 


10 


00 


53 75 


25 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


5 


00 


500 


00 


25 


00 


26 25 


25 


00 


10 00 


25 


00 



134 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



lphur 



1906 



Stanley Works, penalty, 

State Security Company, penalty, . 

Sterling Inn Company, penalty, 

Stevens Type and Press Company, penalty, 

Stoughton Record Company, penalty, 

Stow, town of, board of paupers, 

Stratton Engine Company, penalty, . 

Suburban Gas and Electric Company, excess of su 

in gas, 

Sullivan & Willard, Inc., penalty, . 

Swift River Company, penalty, ... 

Symonds & Poor Carbonator Company, penalty, 

T. H. Gill Companjr, penalty, . 

T. Stuart & Son Company, penalties, 

Taunton Collateral Loan Association, penalty, . 

Taunton Gas Light Company, excess of sulphur in i 

Taunton Narrow Fabric Company, penalties, . 

Taylor, Goodwin Company, penalty, 

Taylor Labelling Machine Company, penalty, . 

Thorn Medicine Company, penalty, 

Traders Insurance Company, on account of tax for 

Triumph Safety Burner Company, penalty, . 

Tropical Medicine Company, penalty, 

Troy White Granite Company, penalty, . 

Tucke & Parker Company, penalty, . 

Tufts, Nathan F., et al., tide water displaced in Mystic 

River, 

Turva Co-operative Store Company, penalty, . 

Twinlock Company, penalty, .... 

Union Overall Manufacturing Company, penalty 

Union Parlor Furniture Company, penalty, 

Unique Stove Company, penalty, 

United Floor Machines Company, penalty, 

United States Appraisal Company, penalty, . 

United States Automatic Box Machinery Company 

penalty, 

United States Construction and Supply Company 

penalty, 

United States government, on account of Spanish-Amer 

ican war claims, 

Unity Manufacturing Company, penalty, 
University Cut Glass Company, penalty, . 
Utah-Bingham Mining Company, penalty, 
Vacuum Cleaner Company, penalty, 
Valhalla Cafe, Inc., penalty, .... 
Van Kammel Revolving Door Company, penalty 



$5 00- 

10 00 

10 00 

5 00 

5 00 

3 43 

10 00 

200 00 

5 00 

10 00 

10 00 

10 00 

30 00 

5 00 

100 00 

15 00 

15 00 

5 00 

5 00 

121 37 

5 00 

10 00 

15 00 

15 00 

2,451 50 
10 00 
40 00 
10 00 
25 00 
5 00 
5 00 
10 00 

25 00 

25 00 

160,424 88 
5 00 
5 00 

50 00 
5 00 
5 00 

25 00 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



135 



Van West Machine Company, penalty, 

Vestal Oil Company, penalty, . 

Victor Mangle Company, penalty, . 

Vista Hermosa Company, penalty, . 

W. & V. 0. Kimball Company, penalty, . 

W. A. Snow Iron Works, Inc., penalty, . 

W. C. King Company, penalty, 

W. E. Garland Company, penalty, . 

W. M. Young Regalia Company, penalty, 

W. T. Cardy & Sons Company, penalties, . 

W. W. Witham Company, penalty, . 

Wakefield Manufacturing Company, penalty, 

Wakefield, town of, board of paupers, . 

Walter L. Shepard Company, penalty, . 

Waltkam, city of, board of paupers, 

Warner Motor Company, penalty, . 

Washburn, Elliott, board of Edgar R. Washburn, 

Washington Department Store, Inc., penalty, 

Watertown, town of, board of paupers, . 

Waverly Heating Supply Company, penalty, 

Weber Leather Company, penalties, . 

Westboro Brass Bedstead Company, penalty, 

Westfield Times Conrpany, penalty, 

White Marble and Terazzo Company, penalty, 

Whitman, town of, treatment of paupers, 

Wholesale Seedmen's Leagrie, penalty, 

Wilder P. Clark Company, penalty, 

William A. Davis Company, penalty, 

William R. Eaton Company, penalty, 

Williamstown Press Company, penalty, 

Wilson Brothers Company, penalty, 

Wilton Polished Cast Stone Company, penalty, 

Winchester, town of, board of Minnie Sweeney, 

Wire Fabric Company, penalty, 

Wirt Manufacturing Company, penalty, . 

Woburn, city of, treatment of paupers, . 

Woburn, city of, board of Minnie Sweeney, 

Woburn Degreasing Company, penalty, . 

Worcester Fire Extinguisher Company, penalty, 

Worcester Institute of Physiological Exercise, penalty, 

Worcester Post Company, penalty, . 

Worcester Poultry Association, penalty, . 

Worcester Shoe Machinery Company, penalty, 

Worcester Steel Foundry Company, penalty, . 

Worcester Theatre Association, penalty, . 

Wyckoff & Lloyd Company, penalty, 



$5 00 

• 25 00 

25 00 

5 00 
25 00 
10 00 

5 00 

5 00 

5 00 
10 00 

5 00 

5 00 
167 37 

5 00 
90 11 

5 00 
65 00 

5 00 
36 40 
25 00 
75 00 
10 00 
15 00 
10 00 

5 60 

5 00 
10 00 
10 00 
25 00 

5 00 
10 00 

5 00 
800 00 

5 00 
25 00 
21 20 
61 25 

5 00 
10 00 
10 00 
10 00 

5 00 

5 00 
10 00 
15 00 

5 00 



$197,226 82 



136 





ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S 


REPORT 


[Jar 




03 




g 




s 


a 


G 


g 


gigg 




-Ti 










Ih 


n 






53 




■S 







_ - 


£ 


O 


^ «S «2 <2 








u 




M 


M 


t. 


t, 


^ S_ ^ (h 








cd 
ft 




a 


0> 

ft 


cu 

ft 


CD 


CD O 0) 0) 

ft & ft ft 




PI 












O 


O 


O 


O O O O 
















u 






- 1 


"E 


~ 




p, 


— 


— 


ft 


ft a ft ft 




^ 1 


a 


G 







G 


z. 


G 


G G G C 




x d 


o> 


c 












Z G G C 




R c 




oa 




oa 


3 


rt 


3 


c3 oj 03 e3 




.s | 




It 




It 


It 


^ 


& 


It ^ ^ "^ 








o3 




08 


03 
hi 


d 


03 


03 03 03 c3 
^ hi hi hi 
























. 


















tJ cT 1 


°l 
















^* 




© 3 

G o> 


' 




_^~ 


j,r 


£ 


_s 


« X 

CD V 
- ,- OQ SO 

— — .2 Ji 


o 

1— 1 

EH 


114—1 — 
d g 

"^ 


>8 


4*! 
© 
f. 

fa 






X 


"0 
SO 


it 

c3 


=3 ^ 
te te ^ ^ 

CO CQ S S 


I— I 


















fi 


















fc 


• — 
> - 










^ 








W 










g 








cq* 


^5 


• 

















&q 


O 03 


5 

I 








."S 




M 


M 




1 £ 


1 








£ 





G 

01 


2 







O 








SO 




o3 


03 


ph- 
pq . 


q p 




£ 




>1 

a 
o> 


| 


G 

cu 


bC 
G 
*J2 


^ >4 ^ >1 

G C G C 
0) CU CD CU 


H 


CO CO 




•F= 







5 


p 


cu 


O p O O 


^ 


03 




£ 




5 


5 


c3 


pq 


03 3 3 03 


hH 


-E 




































525 


"So — 

•2 x c 












J2 




^ 


~ 


aj 


m CD 
■ — r. 


c 
— 0. 








T3 






CO S 




~ Z 


>. 








s 




^ 


h 


1 


o3 . 


i'i 








5 




O 
HH 


tions for requisiti 
nt during the ye 





©£ 

£^ 

di— . 

-C 



•-3 


Dana, Sopiel S< 
Bailey, Joseph D 
Frank Francis. 
Arthur W. Perry,. 


"0 

s 

G 


ca" 

G 


Charles E. McE^legc 

Flaherty. 
James Leiser, 

Harry Schneider, 

Demko Kancir, 

Sidney Thornton, 


&2 


















^^n 


ce a 


CD 


















CJ d 


> 


















"Ph ?h 




















Q. TO 






.3 


.5 






• .s 




• E! CO 


o.2 E 






'3 


ri 


^sT 


_^ 


J< i d pT 












cr 






•~ 


- > ■" 




O "+ 3 


-2 > a 


© 




> 


">> 


>^ 


£ 


^ ^ £ § 




'o 


71 =~ 

ft 


1 






C 


CD 


4% 

CO 


4* & 5 -S 

CD <U <u 03 
^ ^ ft. O 


























t> 




■* 


CO 


00 


l> 


;>{ cd i-T »o 




03 


5_ fcaS 





a 

c 










-h rn (M CN 




> 


Q°^g 


o» 


a 














O 


tH 6 




C 


a 


c 


c 


i i i i 




O 




CD 

Q 




03 


*-a 


c« 
•-s 


c3 
•-a 


CD CD CD CD 

Em &h tn fa 



1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



137 



g 

o 


3 


a 




g 




a 


g 

o 


a* 

o 


a 

5 


g 

3 


o 


g 

O 


£ 
o 


g 




a 




g 




a 




a 


J 


J 


3 
3 


s 

tH 




g 

O 

144 


03 

a 
o 

a 


03 

a 


01 

5* 
a 


93 

ft 
o 

a 


03 

a 

o 

*H 

a 


03 

o 
a 


03 

a 
o 


03 
ft 
o 

M 

ft 


03 

ft 
O 
u 
ft 


03 

ft 

C 

ft 


03 

ft 


o 

a 
o 

a 


03 

ft 

a 

a 


!h 
03 

ft 

o 

Ih 

a 


03 

a 
o 

a 


03 

ft 

o 

tH 

a 


03 

ft 
O 

a 


03 

a 

o 

a 


Ih 

03 

a 
£ 
a 


03 
ft 

e 

a 


03 



ft 


ft 

E 

a 


3 


d 


d 


d 


d 


3 


d 


d 


d 


3 


d 


3 


d 


d 


3 


3 


3 


.S 


.S 


_s 


d 


_B 


T3 

s 


d 


-3 

d 


d 


d 

c3 


C 
c3 


3 
c3 


d 

o3 


3 
c3 


d 


3 
c3 


c3 


3 
03 


3 
03 


ca 


03 


03 


03 


a 


03 


03 


03 


3 
1 


o3 
h- 1 


3 
Is 

c3 
1-3 


3 

S3 

t-3 


1 


3 

Is 

ea 


3 

"5 
03 
1-5 


3 

1 

HH. 


"3 


3 
1 


3 

3* 


3 
ca 


3 

03 


3 

03 


3 

1 

i-q 


3 
% 

03 


3 

rt 

i-) 


- 

S3 


3 
03 


= 
rt 


03 


3 

Is 

c3 


















£ 


tn" 




03 


u 












3 




X 


s" 




CO 














03 
























03 


.3 


2 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


30 


co 


^ 


CO 
pi* 1 

03 


GO 
03 


^' 


^H 


3 


^ 






^ 


03 


a 


£ 


GO 


£ 


O 
fcd 


£ 




fad 


3 


63 

o 


53 
O 


b§ 


o 


3 
fad 


z 

3 


a 


3 

d 


= 

rt 



03 


3 


— 


a 

03 


3 


93 

pq 


d 

CO 


3 


3 




3 


3 
































































d 

03 

£ 










































Tt< 


- 

tH 






































be 


bO 








bfl 

.5 




















C 
•- 












•r 


d 


tN 


X 

a 
























2 


















— 






































d 






03 


























03 
















63 


r!- 






3 












J3 








Tl 


















- 






d 






63 






hn 








5 












d 

03 


d 

03 


^ 


03 




c 

s 

tn 

►3 


o3 
bO 

C 

u 

o 


>> 

d 
| 

3 


>> 

d 
03 

C3 

S 


03 

63 

o3 


03 

3 


03 
bC 

^O 


d 

3 


03 

3 

i-i 


03 

53 


03 

3 

ij 


bn 

rt 
pq 


03 

63 

03 


03 
53 

03 


03 


3 

03 
X 


o 

t-H 


b<J 

03 
I 

pq 


bl) 

rt 

03 


5 


bn 

03 

5 


03 

03 
CO 
















d" 


























j3 




1 

o3 

w 

d 

03 


w 

3 

03 

ca 

< 

"i 

b3 
X 


e§ 


r- 

o3 

-3 


o 

■r. 

i 

1 


03 

GO 
CO 

03 

QQ 

CO 

_o 
ea 
5 


03 

d 

03 

£ 


o 

O 

Q 

03 

ji 


2 

03 

3 
O 

3 


be 

(h 
03 

o 

'E 

3 
W 


I. 

.i 

'a 

"a 

03 

PQ 


03 

bO 

ft 
Ph 


GO 
g 

.2 


d" 

03 

O 
3 

03 

Q 


GO 

d 

03 

'?' 

o 

03 

O 


CO 

"X 
3 

rt 

Q 


03 

br 

o 

03 

o 


a 

rt 
3 

03 

bl 

o 

03 

O 


d 
o 

if 

d 

3 
— 


o 

rt 

rt 


6 

03 
P. 


5 
3 

rt 


3 














































,-H 

3 


3 

o 

ES 


3" 

O 


3 




o 


d 
o 

63 

GO 





3 



p* 


d 

_^ 

GO 

o 


_rt 

r. 

13 
O 


3 

ea 

">, 
3 


o 

03 


o 

03 


>. 

tH 


tH 
O 


o 


GO 

3 


3 
o 


o 

03 


03 

O 


3 
o 

1 


63 
03 
3 

3 
O 


W 


fc 


fc 


g 


fc 


£ 


fc 


fc 


rt 


Ph. 


Ph 


" 


Y< 


& 


S 


* 


fc 


ZP 


t? 


o 


CO 
(M 


30 

CM 


CO 


co 


*tf 


"* 


UO 


t> 


1^ 


5 


C3S 


6 

tN 


O 

CI 


50 
CM 




CO 


■* 


M 


CN 


CM 


■* 


d 

CN 






^ 




J, 


fl 


-J 


£ 


-< 


.3 


,3 


J* 


^2 


h3 


,£3 




















S3 
e3 


53 
o3 


63 

3 


63 


■_ 
t- 


tH 

o3 


rt 


g 


c3 


S 


P. 


S 


~ 


< 


<j 


5 


<J 


< 


> 

03 


rt 



138 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





a 


s 


g 


£ 


g 


s 


s 


S 


s 


S* 


g 


g 


g" 


g 


s 


g' 




t. 










- 




(h 




















c 


o 


C 




O 





o 


c 






o 






o 


_c 


; 






































u 


M 






fH 


in 


u 


u 


(4 


(h 




u 




(h 








CD 


CD 


ID 


CD 


ID 


CD 


<D 


CD 


CD 


CD 


<D 


CD 


CD 


ID 


CD 


CD 




P, 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


- 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 








o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


o 


o 




o 


o 









Z 




(h 


G 


<- 


(-, 


s- 


(h 




u 


















tj 


a 




a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


& 


a 


2 


.£ 


.s 


c 


a 


d 


c 


_c 


c 


o 


.S 


.S 


_g 


.2 


_g 


.£ 


_g 


» 


t3 


T3 


*0 


-a 


"O 


T3 


T3 


T3 


-d 


-o 


TS 


~ 


— 


-3 


T3 






c 


c 


S 


c 


C 


C 


c 


C 


fl 


c 


C 


c 


c 


c 




c 




s 


cs 


o3 


03 


03 


03 


o3 


03 


03 


03 
















3 


"= 


3 


~ 


"3 


"= 


3 


"= 


"= 


s 


"a 


^ 


13 


3 


3 


= 




* 


1b 


T* 


£ 


It 


£ 


Is 


^ 


|B 


'? 


'? 


1b 


Is 


> 


It 


% 




o3 


C3 


o3 


C3 


03 


03 


03 


- 


03 


c3 


c3 


c3 




e3 


•1 


03 




tl 


h-5 


^ 


>A 


^ 


.-3 


^ 


i-3 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


t-1 






o.2 




































































a, a 














CD 




















3 o 


































C <s 


M 




-^ 


M 


^ 


X 


CO 
CD 


_^ 


^ 










^ 








"3 


X 

CO 


"o 


SB 


= 


<= 


m 


to 


ta 


6 


: = 


i£ 


EC 


; = 


= 




^ 


v. 








































£ 






















QQ 


w 


co 


co 


CO 


X 


w 


X 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


X 


CO 


























a 


































-o 


































CO 


































M 










. 
























03 










G> 


































M 




„ 














to 






Q 










5 




bO 














.3 
















« 




ID 














CD 




CD 


Q 










o 




















































CD 




03 
















P 


















-D 


0) 










o 


£ 


"3 
C 
09 


>> 


si 

e 
'1 
a 

o3 


£ 


>> 


^ 


>> 


03 
M 
C 


B^ 


-3 
C 
03 


CO 


>> 


>> 


>1 


£ 




o 


g 


e 

CD 


c 

CD 


CD 


C 
CD 


CD 


a 


c 

CD 


"= 


^ 


; -f 


c 

CD 


ID 






15 


'Sc 


o 


- 


~ 


U) 




CJ 


03 


CD 














- 














CD 








"S 




i* 






o 


o 






03 




03 


03 


Z 


03 


/. 


C 


^ 




o 




rt 


&H 


^ 


« 




fe 






ffl 




< 


P 






&H 


&H 


tive. 




































50 
































M 


.3 
































r 3 


































^ 


e 








a 




„ 














~ 


_or 














a 

C3 


















o3 
p 
CD 

CO 

1-3 






3 


5 
o 

t-8 


CD 




03 
CO 

a 

CD 


CO 


E- 1 


C 
CD 

"S 

X 




C 


-2 


>-3 


o 


CD 

v. 

03 


a 

'3 




g 

.2 


a 
< 
a 


S 

ID 


£ 




c 

C3 


b 

CD 

g 


>> 

a 




>> 


73 

cU 


_e3 

3 

CD 


g 




5 


>-9 



1-3 


CD 


"3 
S 


02 


rt 

X 


X 


•"3 


CD 


< 


o3 


W 


6 


>-3 


> 








'3 


























>>'|> 3-. 






55* 


- 


























= X _ 






| 


pq 


























- : - o « 


































©2 03 




g 


o 
Q 


-2 
3 














>1 






c 














^" 






M 




_i 


CD 


M 






_/ 




1*1 

x - — 
a 




M 
_g 

CO 




co 


t- 






i~ 












f. 










c 










o 


CD 
•-3 

CD 


O 












JO 


-a 

CD 

'S 


> 

(D 


"o 

.s 


CD 

g 

"3 


>* 






CD 


.2 


CD 


1 


CD 




5 


£ 


s 


£> 


£ 


3 


- 


& 


° 


* 


55 


^ 


° 


~ 


Jz: 


fc 




- 


»o 


00 


JO 


QC 


CO 


CO 


CD 


of 


•* 


CD- 


■* 


C5 


^ 


cN 


oi" 


)ate 
of 

efer 
nee. 


CO 55 

s 


04 




















CN 


CM 








— p5 * 


1 




CD 

c 


CD 

— . 


CD 




1-3 


fcf 


a 

CD 
CO 


a 

CD 
X 


S' 
CO 


a 

X 


CD 
X 


O 

C 


o 


C 



1909.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



139 



p 


fl 


p 


? 


r 


a 


s 


a 


5 


S 


a 


S 


S 


a 


a* 


fl 


fi 


a 


























N 












c 


s 


a 


: 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


c 


o 










^ 


u 


h 


t-i 


M 


h 


._ 


u 


u 


Ih 


u 


t- 


u 


u 










03 


<o 


03 


03 


dj 


03 


03 


o 




03 


03 


03 


03 


03 


a 


r_ 


a 


a 


a 


ft 




a 


ft 


::. 


ft 


ft 


a 


ft 


ft 


ft 


a 


a 





n 


o 


o 


o 


o 


fl 





O 


o 


o 


n 


o 


o 







- 


O 






































a 


a 


a 


& 


a 


ft 


ft 


a 


ft 


ft 


ft 


ft 


a 


a 


ft 


ft 


a 


a 


a 


a 


d 


CI 


d 


d 


d 


d 


g 


d 


d 


c 


d 


d 


c 


d 


c 


3 


T) 


TJ 


TJ 


T-) 


Tj 


Ti 


T) 


TJ 


-a 


ti 


Ti 


TJ 


T5 


TJ 


TJ 


T3 


T3 


TJ 


a 


d 


d 


fl 


d 
































at 


03 


ca 


ca 


oa 


ca 


ca 


ca 


ea 


ca 


ca 


ca 


ea 




S3 




3 


3 


3 


P 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


= 


d 


3 


"3 


3 


* 


it 


it 


£ 


is 


? 


It 


ft 


It 


? 


N 


s 


ft 


it 


^ 


^ 


N 


ft 


- 


5 




in 


ctt 


ert 


Rl 


si 


ca 


ca 


ca 


si 


ca 


ea 


ca 


ea 


ol 


ea 


a 


t-1 


H^ 


1-1 


i-4 




























a 


« 








u 

03 










d 




X* 














































— 


00 


^! 


" 


44 


03 


^ 


44 


44 




a 


^ 




J=. 


m 


44 


44 


44 










a 


a 






X 

03 
















5 


TJ 

— 


£ 


£ 


o 


£ 


^ 



ca 


6 




^ 


t 


E 


t 


£ 


K 


s 


3 
X 


d 


fe 


fc 








X 


s 


X 


X! 


d 

X 


13 
X 


3 
X 












d 

03 










^ 






















































fcj) 








d 
u 








CJ 


03 














M 




C 




































o> 








d 








'3 
d 


ft 














0) 




d 
















ca 














3 




<o 








hi) 








lH 


d 


















TJ 


£ 






o 








O 

d 


o 




if 




-£ 






TJ 

3 




oi 


3 






ea 

hO 

d 












o 




o 








si 


hO 


a 

a 


>5 




£ 


>; 


^ 


bD 


Wl 


>; 


ft 

a 


>, 


ft 

a 


£ 


>, 


3 






















tH 




r 




u 


Ih 






rW 


to 




a 










a 

03 


















c3 


S] 


C 


to 


03 


CJ 


CJ 


o 


CO" 


^ 


d 


u 


d 


hfl 


a 


ea 


ejq 


i 






o3 




<rt 




01 




o 




ert 




O 


O 




m 


fc 


fe 


P4 


P 


J 


J 


t-1 


M 


X 


ta 


|2J 


h-1 


fc 


4h 


Uh 


pq 








CO 

■s 




























N 








w 




























e3 
















d 




~ 


M 
















02 

w 


o 

08 


03" 
d 


0) 

44 

S3 

Pm 


c 
o 

03 

d 




d 

a 


-3 

13 

d 

r- 


c 

O 


as 

td 

c 

S3 


Sj 

03 


d" 
ea 

S 
>. 

w 

H 
X 

ca 


C 
u 

e 

a 

Id 

a 


ci 
> 
O 

d 


6 


d* 

S3 


C 
u 

pq 


03 



to 


el 


U 

i-i 

rr. 

"o 

3 

t 

a 


03 

pq 
d 

A 
o 

H"5. 


TJ 

O 


c 

>-B 

M 

'5 
TJ 

d 


« 

03 

TJ 

d 
sj 

o 



fc 
1-9 

d 
,d 

c 

1-3 


03 

« 
O 


ca 
o 
rn 

H 
d 
o 

1-3 


w 

d 

03 


>> 

ft 

Qj 

-r 
c 
<; 


ca 
O 

.2 

'c 

c 

c 
<3 


a 

03 
CJ 

ea 
ea 

oc 


03 

C> 

a 

s3 

•-3 


d 

03 

ej 


u 

3 

a 

N 

O 

D 


3 






















'5 














>> 


'<■ 








ad 




^4 


44 


44 


ca 


44 


44 


44 






ea 

d 

93 


03 


















ii 


















O 








a 


O 


o 


O 


O 




O 


O 


O 




"C 


03 
»-9 


o 


K-l 




DC 


T 


r* 


>H 


>* 


^ 


K- 1 


03 


>H 


>H 


1* 




d 
o 

03 


a 

a 

O 

o 


ft 


fi 


d 


d 


ft 


ft 


is 


£ 


fi 


d 


^ 


ft 


* 


o 


•g 


ft 




CI 














03 




03 


03 




X 




o 




£ 


S 


= 


w 


fe 


fc 


fe 


fc 


^ 


a 


fc 


fc 


fc 


O 


s 


h-1 


&5 












Cl" 


CO 


PQ 


cr 


o" 


f-T 


CO 


^.J- 


(N 


(N 


■* 


^ 


^ 


cm 


<N 














1-1 


CO 




rt 


















> 


> 


> 


^ 


t> 


J 


> 


> 


6 


ei 


O 


a 


(J 


CJ 


6 


d 










o 




o 


O 


o 


o 


03 


03 


03 


03 


03 








c 


o 


fe 


& 


& 


& 


fc 


» 


fc 


^ 


Q 


P 


fi 


Q 


P 


a 


P 


P 



140 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



o 


a 

o 






flj 


-m 


o 


cti 


-1-3 


Pi 


CO 

3 


pj 


•i—s 


ce 


05 


X 

03 






-M 






*H 


a 


o 


o 








=4-1 


on 




o 


o 


C75 


> 


■i—i 






+J 




pi 


rH 
CO 


«H 






o 


«+-l 


03 


o 


q 






cu 


bli 


^ 


PI 


rl 




03 


n3 


H 


PI 


t-t 


03 


2 




cc 


Fh 




Brt 


0) 


03 


i ^ 


^ 


-4-3 




?H 


03 


o 

<H-1 


•+-3 


o 


bJD 
Pi 


fl 


f_( 


tn 


pi 


03 

> 


>-d 


o 


-+J 


O 


Pi 




03 


03 


g 


-M 


-+-3 


C3 




PI 

03 


03 






03 


CO 


O 
X 


+3 


W 





w 



PI ~ 

o . 

Pi ^ 

3 « 



03 cj 

-P -+-3 

^ 32 



o <& 



a a a 

M »i G 

O O O 



sea 

o o o 



aaaaaaaa 

oooooooo 



£ is 

03 03 



Of £ 



£ £ * 

03 03 03 

HH >-) H-! 






tf^OP)>-1^00 



« PI 



- £ 



R C -s 



a 03 

H K 



§ o 



> .2 

p- 5 



•2 £ 
c & 



.-t <N <N <M 






1909. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



141 



a 


a 


a 


a 


a' 


a 


£ 


8 


a" 


p, 


a 


a 


a 












u 






















c 





a 


z 


c 


- 


c 


o 





c 


o 


M 


H 


M 


M 


M 


u 


u 


u 


M 


M 








<x> 


<u 


V 




0) 




8J 


c 


09 










ft 


a 


a 


ft 


ft 


ft 


ft 


ft 


ft 


_ 


ft 


n 


a 


o 


p 


O 





c 





O 


o 





o 


o 


o 


o 




























ft 


a 


a 


ft 


ft 


ft 


a 


ft 


ft 


ft 


ft 


a 


a 


g 


G 


d 


c 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


c 


d 


T) 


TS 


Tl 


Tl 


Tj 


















d 


c 


C 


d 


d 


S 


d 


c 


d 


d 





d 


d 


d 


eg 




et] 


s3 


e3 


C3 


c3 


ed 


Bj 


a 


ea 


03 


3 


— 


P 


p 


P 


p 


3 


p 


a 


p 


p 


p 


p 




























£ 


is 


* 


* 


? 


£ 


P 


p 


p 


* 


* 


? 


^ 


el 


«) 


ert 


03 




















h-J 


i-l 


hJ 


l-l 




















■I. 


























d 


























5 




















































t- 


























a 






















d 




« 














































































c3 

CM 






















p 


p 
ca 




























«2 






















d 
o 


% 


CI 

- 
>> 
























TJ 








hfl 














a 


ca 




























d 
o 








TJ 












>> 


ca 


c3 


s 




m 




td 








fcn 






W) 


OJ 


ni 




O 
ft 

ft 
P 
to 

d 
o 






„ 


„ 


c 




o 


d 




'3 
"3 

2 


>> 

d 
o 
o 

M 




3 

ea 


>> 

d 

S 

^. 
(A 


>> 
c3 

B 

p 


ea 

p 


ft 
ft 
ea 


0' 

c 
ea 


d 
B 


d 
'5 

d 
"3 


o 

"3 

ca 


c 


1-1 


fc 


~ 


< 


h3 


pq 


pq 


M 


PI 


o 


% 


pq 






























~ 


























t- 








►>) 


















Sj 








d 


















-< 


is 


d 


d 


"c 


a 

c 
P 
Q 


to 
P 
- 


to 


(V 

p 


a 

"5 


c3 


~z 

u 

ea 

o 


e 


c 
.a 
o 


£ 




X 

d 

> 


P 

.2 
'd 

c 

d 

< 


Ph 

— 

1 


M 

£ 

-z 
d 

03 

< 


P 

>> 
<u 

c 
-Z 

'■1 


= 

7- 

rt 
D 


d 


ce 

< 


ea 

d 

z 




ea 

£ 






tJ 


























d 


























at 




M 












^ 










■r. 




M 


















03 

pa 




DO 

'o 

d 


0) 
T5 
O 


5 


o 


22 
"o 

d 


c 


6 


d 

c 

a 


01 

"S 

d 


O 


a; 

d 


C 

o 

a 




J5 




H> 




.c: 


Xi 






0) 






-H 


~ 


tf 





fe 


M 





C 


> 


i— 


^ 


~ 


> 


CO 


M - 


CO 


M 


OS 


of 


oi 


OS 


CO 


CO 


on 


CO 


00* 


rH 


<N 


<N 


1-1 










01 






Cl 


<N 


i'r 


ft 

02 


ft 

a-' 






> 


> 


> 


> 






ei 


o 









c 


c 


o 


O 


01 


a? 


o 


o> 


< 


c 


C 


fc 


fc 


% 


^ 


Q 


Q 


P 


P 



142 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



RULES OF PRACTICE 

In Interstate Rendition. 



Every application to the Governor for a requisition upon the 
executive authority of any other State or Territory, for the de- 
livery up and return of any offender who has fled from the 
justice of this Commonwealth, must be made by the district or 
prosecuting attorney for the county or district in which the 
offence was committed, and must be in duplicate original papers, 
or certified copies thereof. 

The following must appear by the certificate of the district or 
prosecuting attorney : — 

(a) The full name of the person for whom extradition is 
asked, together with the name of the agent proposed, to be 
properly spelled. 

(b) That, in his opinion, the ends of public justice require 
that the alleged criminal be brought to this Commonwealth for 
trial, at the public expense. 

(c) That he believes he has sufficient evidence to secure the 
conviction of the fugitive. 

(d) That the person named as agent is a proper person, and 
that he has no private interest in the arrest of the fugitive. 

(e) If there has been any former application for a requisition 
for the same person growing out of the same transaction, it 
must be so stated, with an explanation of the reasons for a 
second request, together with the date of such application, as 
near as may be. 

(/) If the fugitive is known to be under either civil or crim- 
inal arrest in the State or Territory to which he is alleged to 
have fled, the fact of such arrest and the nature of the pro- 
ceedings on which it is based must be stated. 

(g) That the application is not made for the purpose of en- 
forcing the collection of a debt, or for any private purpose what- 
ever; and that, if the requisition applied for be granted, the 
criminal proceedings shall not be used for any of said objects. 



1909.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 143 

(h) The nature of the crime charged, with a reference, when 
practicable, to the particular statute defining and punishing the 
same. 

(i) If the offence charged is not of recent occurrence, a satis- 
factor}^ reason must be given for the delay in making the appli- 
cation. 

1. In all cases of fraud, false pretences, embezzlement or 
forgery, when made a crime by the common law, or any penal 
code or statute, the affidavit of the principal complaining wit- 
ness or informant that the application is made in good faith, 
for the sole purpose of punishing the accused, and that he does 
not desire or expect to use the prosecution for the purpose of 
collecting a debt, or for any private purpose, and will not di- 
rectly or indirectly use the same for any of said purposes, shall 
be required, or a sufficient reason given for the absence of such 
affidavit. 

2. Proof b} r affidavit of facts and circumstances satisfying 
the Executive that the alleged criminal has fled from the jus- 
tice of the State, and is in the State on whose Executive the 
demand is requested to be made, must be given. The fact that 
the alleged criminal was in the State where the alleged crime 
was committed at the time of the commission thereof, and is 
found in the State upon which the requisition was made, shall 
be sufficient evidence, in the absence of other proof, that he is a 
fugitive from justice. 

3. If an indictment has been found, certified copies, in dupli- 
cate, must accompany the application. 

4. If an indictment has not been found by a grand jury, the 
facts and circumstances showing the commission of the crime 
charged, and that the accused perpetrated the same, must be 
shown by affidavits taken before a magistrate. (A notary 
public is not a magistrate within the meaning of the statutes.) 
It must also be shown that a complaint has been made, copies 
of which must accompany the requisition, such complaint to 
be accompanied by affidavits to the facts constituting the offence 
charged by persons having actual knowledge thereof, and that a 
warrant has been issued, and duplicate certified copies of the 
same, together with the returns thereto, if any, must be fur- 
nished upon an application. 

5. The official character of the officer taking the affidavits or 
depositions, and of the officer who issued the warrant, must be 
duly certified. 



144 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1909. 

6. Upon the renewal of an application, — for example, on 
the ground that the fugitive has fled to another State, not having 
been found in the State on which the first was granted, — new 
or certified copies of papers, in conformity with the above rules, 
must be furnished. 

7. In the case of any person who has been convicted of any 
crime, and escapes after conviction, or while serving his sen- 
tence, the application may be made by the jailer, sheriff, or other 
officer having him in custody, and shall be accompanied by cer- 
tified copies of the indictment or information, record of con- 
viction and sentence upon which the person is held, with the 
affidavit of such person having him in custody, showing such 
escape, with the circumstances attending the same. 

8. No requisition will be made for the extradition of any 
fugitive except in compliance with these rules.