(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's 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 .."

Public Document 



No. 12 



0% (EnmttuHtattalilj nf fUaBaarijuaetts. 



REPORT 



ATTORNEY -GENERAL 



FOR THE 



Year ending January 17, 1912. 




BOSTON: 

WEIGHT & POTTEE PRINTING CO., STATE PEINTEES, 

18 Post Office Square. 

1912. 



«£l)e OlommomDMlth of ittossachusetts. 



Department of the Attorney-General, 
Boston, Jan. 17, 1912. 

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives. 

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

Very respectfully, 

JAMES M. SWIFT, 

Attorney -General. 



Stye CommontDealtt) of ittassacfiuseita. 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 
State House. 



Attorney-General. 
JAMES M. SWIFT. 



Frederic B. Greenhalge. 
Fred T. Field. 
Andrew Marshall. 
Henry M. Hutchings. 



Engineer of Grade Crossings. 
Henry W. Hayes. 



Chief Clerk. 
Louis H. Freese. 



Statement of Appropriation and Expenditures. 



Appropriation for 1911, $45,000 00 

Expenditures. 

For law library, 496 18 

For salaries of assistants, 13,745 14 

For expert services, 171 27 

For clerks, 3,458 33 

For office stenographers, 2,400 00 

Telephone operator, 480 00 

For messenger, 1,200 00 

For expenses in the abolition of grade crossings: — 

Salary of engineer, $3,222 99 

Other expenses incidental thereto, . . 574 36 

3,797 35 

For office expenses, 2,389 32 

For court expenses, 3,661 99 

Total expenditures, $31,799 58 

Costs collected, 1,936 01 

Net expenditures, $29,863 57 



5Uje (Unmmottmralttj of fJJaaBarljwiFtta, 



Department of the Attorney-General, 
Boston, Jan. 17, 1912. 

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives. 

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

The cases requiring the attention of this department during 
the year, to the number of 5,338, are tabulated below : — 

Corporate franchise tax cases, 635 

Extradition and interstate rendition, 93 

Grade crossings, petitions for abolition of, 103 

Indictments for murder, 38 

Inventories and appraisals, 175 

Land Court petitions, 11 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Ar- 
mory Commissioners, 3 

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

and Land Commission, 4 

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

River Basin Commission, 29 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Massa- 
chusetts Highway Commission, 14 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Met- 
ropolitan Park Commission, 11 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Met- 
ropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, 13 

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

Board of Insanity, 8 

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

tham State School, 1 

Land-damage cases arising from the taking of land by the Grey- 
lock Reservation Commission, 2 

Miscellaneous cases arising from the work of the above-named 

commissions, 29 

Miscellaneous cases, 223 

Petitions for instructions under inheritance tax laws, ... 27 



viii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Public charitable trusts, 110 

Settlement cases for support of persons in State Hospitals, . . 11 
All other cases not enumerated above, which include suits to re- 
quire the filing of returns by corporations and individuals and 
the collection of money due the Commonwealth, . . . 3,798 



Capital Cases. 

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

Peter Delorey and James Mantir, indicted in Mid- 
dlesex County, March, 1909, for the murder of Annie Mul- 
lins, at Arlington, on March 27, 1908. They were arraigned 
June 16, 1909, and pleaded not guilty. Frank McDermott, 
Esq., Henry H. Winslow, Esq., and John A. E. Maroney, 
Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the defend- 
ants. In November, 1909, the defendants were tried by a 
jury before Fox and White, J.J. The result was a verdict 
of guilty of manslaughter against Peter Delorey, and a 
verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree against 
James Mantir. Motion of defendants for a new trial was 
denied, and defendants' exceptions were overruled. The de- 
fendant Peter Delorey was thereupon sentenced to State 
Prison for a term of not more than twenty nor less than 
eighteen years; and the defendant James Mantir was sen- 
tenced to State Prison for life. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Sarah S. Elmes, indicted in Plymouth County, October, 
1910, for the murder of an infant child, at Bridgewater, on 
June 4, 1910. She was arraigned March 15, 1911, and 
pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This plea was accepted by 
the Commonwealth, and the defendant was thereupon sen- 
tenced to the Reformatory for Women. The case was in 
charge of District Attorney Albert F. Barker. 

Walter G. Fall, indicted in Suffolk County, November, 
1910, for the murder of Frank A. Rees, at Boston, on Nov. 
10, 1910. He was arraigned Nov. 14, 1910, and pleaded not 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. ix 

guilty. William A. Morse, Esq., and Francis J. Geogan, 
Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
On Feb. 15, 1911, 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 Joseph C. Pelletier. 

Walter G. Fall, indicted in Suffolk CoTmty, November, 
1910, for the murder of Frederick Schlehuber, at Boston, on 
'Nov. 10, 1910. On Feb. 15, 1911, the defendant pleaded 
guilty to another indictment and this indictment was placed 
on file. The case was in charge of District Attorney Joseph 
C. Pelletier. 

Carmello Ferro, indicted in Middlesex County, June, 
1910, for the murder of Antonio DeLellis, at Framingham, 
on April 17, 1910. He was arraigned on June 20, 1910, 
and pleaded not guilty. Thomas J. Grady, Esq., and Max- 
ham E. Nash, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for 
the defendant. In June, 1911, the defendant was tried by 
a jury before Hardy, J. The result was a verdict of guilty 
of manslaughter, and the defendant was sentenced to State 
Prison for a term not exceeding seven nor less than five years. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

George Robert Freeman", indicted in Hampden County, 
May 1910, for the murder of Herbert E. White, at Ludlow, 
on Feb. 13, 1910. He was arraigned May 16, 1910, and 
pleaded not guilty. William H. McClintock, Esq., and Wal- 
lace K. Hardy were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. In May, 1911, the defendant was tried by a 
jury before Crosby, J. The result was a verdict of guilty 
of murder in the first degree, and the defendant was sen- 
tenced to death by electrocution during the week beginning 
October 8, 1911. This sentence was commuted to imprison- 
ment for life by the Governor, by and with the advice of the 
Council. The case was in charge of District Attorney Chris- 
topher T. Callahan. 



x ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

George Gianakos, indicted in Middlesex County, Septem- 
ber, 1910, for the murder of Aristides Georgopoulos, at 
Lowell, on July 30, 1910. He was arraigned Sept. 29, 1910, 
and pleaded not guilty. D. J. Donahue, Esq., and J. C. 
Johnston, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. On June 23, 1911, the defendant retracted his 
former plea, and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This plea 
was accepted by the Commonwealth, and the defendant was 
sentenced to State Prison. for a term not exceeding ten nor 
less than eight years. The case was in charge of District 
Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Wassili Ivankowski and Andrei Ipsex, indicted in 
Essex County, September, 1910, for the murder of Thomas 
A. Landregan, at Lynn, on June 25, 1910. They were 
arraigned Oct. 6, 1910, and pleaded not guilty. John P. S. 
Mahoney, Esq., was assigned by the court as counsel for 
Wassili Ivankowski, and William D. Chappie, Esq., was 
assigned by the court as counsel for Andrei Ipsen. In No- 
vember, 1910, the defendants were tried by a jury before 
Aiken, C.J. The result was a verdict of guilty of murder in 
the first degree, and on Nov. 18, 1910, the defendants were 
sentenced to death during the week beginning March 5, 1911 ; 
which sentence was carried out on March 7, 1911. The case 
was in charge of District Attorney W. Scott Peters. 

Peter Maxiti, indicted in Worcester County, May, 1910, 
for the murder of Charles W. Potter, at Douglas, on Dec. 28, 

1909. He was arraigned May 16, 1910, and pleaded not 
guilty. Michael T. Flaherty, Esq., Walter B. Kennedy, 
Esq., William A. Parshley, Esq., and Michael A. Heneberg, 
Esq., appeared as counsel for the defendant. In November, 

1910, the defendant was tried by a jury before Harris, J. 
The result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the second 
degree. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, 
and he was sentenced to State Prison for life. The case was 
in charge of District Attorney George S. Taft. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xi 

Charles Mazzoea, indicted in Plymouth County, October, 

1910, for the murder of Salvatore Morrelli, at Brockton, on 
Aug. 21, 1910. He was arraigned Oct. 10, 1910, and pleaded 
not guilty. William F. Kane, Esq., and J. E. Crowley, Esq., 
were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. In 
October, 1911, the defendant was tried by a jury before 
Quinn, J. The result was a verdict of guilty of man- 
slaughter, and on Oct. 27, 1911, the defendant was sentenced 
to State Prison for a term of not more than ten nor less than 
eight years. The case was in charge of District Attorney 
Albert E. Barker. 

Edward J. McXaxli-y, indicted in Hampden County, 
December, 1910, for the murder of Margaret E. ITcNanley, 
at Springfield, on Nov. 6, 1910. He was arraigned Jan. 3, 

1911, and pleaded not guilty. John P. Kirby, Esq., was as- 
signed by the court as counsel for the defendant. The de- 
fendant later retracted his former plea, and pleaded guilty to 
murder in the second degree. This plea was accepted by the 
Commonwealth, and the defendant was sentenced to State 
Prison for life. The case was in charge of District Attorney 
Christopher Callahan. 

Edward E. aLeevix, indicted in Suffolk County, Decem- 
ber, 1910, for the murder of John W. Carey, at Boston, on 
Dec. 10, 1910. He was arraigned Jan. 16, 1911, and pleaded 
not guilty. William H. Bent, Esq., was assigned by the court 
as counsel for the defendant. In September, 1911, the de- 
fendant was tried by a jury before Lawton, J. The result 
was a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and 
the defendant was sentenced to State Prison for life. The 
case was in charge of District Attorney Joseph C. Pelletier. 

Yahan Nalbaxdeix, indicted in Essex County, January, 
1910, for the murder of Minas K. Moomjian, at Lynn, on 
July 18, 1909. He was arraigned April 22, 1910, and 
pleaded not guilty. James H. Sisk, Esq., and Miran Sevasly, 



xii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. 
In February, 1911, the defendant was tried by a jury before 
Aiken, J. The result was a verdict of not guilty. The case 
was in charge of District Attorney Henry C. Attwill. 

Paolo Razzino, indicted in Worcester County, October, 

1910, for the murder of Luigi Palumbo, at Worcester, on Oct. 
9, 1910. He was arraigned Jan. 27, 1911, and pleaded not 
guilty. David F. O'Connell, Esq., and Jeremiah J. Moyni- 
han, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. Feb. 20, 1911, the indictment as to murder was 
nol prossed, leaving it to stand for manslaughter, and the 
defendant was tried by a jury before Fox, J. The result 
was a verdict of not guilty. The case was in charge of Dis- 
trict, Attorney James A. Stiles. 

Howard Steward, indicted in Hampden County, Decem- 
ber, 1910, for the murder of Thomas Donlin, at Springfield, 
on Oct. 1, 1910. He was arraigned Jan. 3, 1911, and pleaded 
not guilty. Willmore B. Stone, Esq., was assigned by the 
court as counsel for the defendant. The defendant later re- 
tracted his former plea, and pleaded guilty to murder in the 
second degree. This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, 
and the defendant was sentenced to State Prison for life. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney Christopher T. 
Callahan. 

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

Saevatore Accamporo, Pasquale Di Lorenzo, Valen- 
tino Stjsi and Michele Accomporo, indicted in Suffolk 
County, July, 1911, for the murder of Antonio Schiappa, 
at Boston, on July 3, 1911. They were arraigned Sept. 7, 

1911, and each pleaded not guilty. James H. Vahey, Esq., 
T. J. Grady, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for 
the defendants. In November, 1911, the defendants were 
tried by a jury before Chase, J. The result was a verdict of 
guilty of murder in the second degree against Salvatore Ac- 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xiii 

camporo; the other defendants were found not guilty, and 
discharged. The defendant Salvatore Accamporo was there- 
upon sentenced to State Prison for life. The case was in 
charge of District Attorney Joseph C. Pelletier. 

William J. Albert, indicted in Bristol County, February, 
1911, for the murder of Catherine Albert. He was arraigned 
Feb. 15, 1911, and pleaded guilty to murder in the second 
degree. Eobert A. Terry, Esq., was assigned by the court 
as counsel for the defendant. The plea of the defendant was 
accepted by the Commonwealth, and he was thereupon sen- 
tenced to State Prison for life. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney Joseph T. Kenney. 

Edmuxd Berube, indicted in Bristol County, June, 1911, 
for the murder of Morris Schwartz. He was arraigned June 
20, 1911, and pleaded not guilty. Edward Higginson, Esq., 
was assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. On 
Dec. 26, 1911, 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 Joseph T. Kenney. 

Fraxk J. Blaskovec, indicted in Middlesex County, Sep- 
tember, 1911, for the murder of Frances Wilkinson, at Som- 
erville, on July 21, 1911. Nov. 1, 1911, the defendant was 
adjudged insane and was committed to the Bridgewater State 
Hospital. The case was in charge of District Attorney John 
J. Higgins. 

Lukas Dardaria^, indicted in Bristol County, June, 1911, 
for the murder of John Dardarian. He was arraigned June 
20, 1911, and pleaded not guilty. No counsel was assigned 
to act for the defendant. On Nov. 23, 1911, the defendant 
retracted his former plea, and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. 
This plea was accepted by the Commonwealth, and the de- 
fendant was thereupon sentenced to State Prison for a term 



xiv ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

of not more than eighteen years nor less than fifteen years. 
The case was in charge of District Attorney Joseph T. Ken- 
ney. 

GuiSEPrE Di Maio, indicted in Middlesex County, Janu- 
ary, 1911, for the murder of Antonio Di Filippo, at Newton, 
on Nov. 27, 1910. He was arraigned March IT, 1911, and 
pleaded not guilty. John E. Crowley, Esq., was assigned by 
the court as counsel for the defendant. In June, 1911, the 
defendant was tried by a jury before Hardy, J. The result 
was a verdict of not guilty. The case was in charge of Dis- 
trict Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Thomas Haggerty, indicted in Suffolk County, June, 
1911, for the murder of Marie Haggerty, at Boston, on May 
3. 1911. He was arraigned Aug. 16, 1911, and pleaded not 
guilty. M. F. Kennedy, Esq., and James F. Kenney, Esq., 
were assigned by the court as counsel for the defendant. On 
Nov. 2, 1911, the defendant was adjudged insane, and was 
committed to the Bridgewater State Hospital. The case was 
in charge of District Attorney Joseph C. Pelletier. 

Felix Jaxoxis, indicted in Hampshire County, June, 
1911, for the murder of Frank Tomel, at Easthampton, on 
March 17, 1911. He was arraigned June 13, 1911, and 
pleaded not guilty. George P. O'Donnell, Esq., and Rufus 
H. Cook, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. On Oct. 25, 1911, 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 sentenced to State Prison for life. The 
case was in charge of District Attorney Richard W. Irwin, 
Stephen S. Taft, Esq., District Attorney pro tern, 

Maria Lima, indicted in Middlesex County, November, 
1911, for the murder of her infant child, at Lowell, on Oct. 
12, 1911, and for concealing the death of said child. She 
was arraigned Nov. 27, 1911, and pleaded not guilty. Sher- 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. xv 

win L. Cook, Esq., and William G. Andrew, Esq., were as- 
signed by the court as counsel for the defendant. So much of 
said indictment as charged murder was nol prossed on Nov. 
27, 1911, and the defendant was tried on the remaining 
charges of the indictment by a jury before McLaughlin, J. 
The result was a verdict of not guilty on first count, guilty on 
second count, and the defendant was thereupon sentenced to 
the House of Correction for a term of eleven months. The 
case was in charge of District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Michael Pachiouros, indicted in Middlesex County, 
June, 1911, for the murder of John Germanakos, at Lowell, 
on March 16, 1911. The defendant was arraigned June 16, 
1911, and pleaded not guilty. William H. Bent, Esq., and 
Bennett Silverblatt, Esq., were assigned by the court as coun- 
sel for the defendant. In November, 1911, the defendant was 
tried by a jury before McLaughlin, J. The result was a 
verdict of not guilty. The case was in charge of District At- 
torney John J. Higgins. 

Elizabeth Savoy, indicted in Norfolk County, Septem- 
ber, 1911, for the murder of her infant child. She was ar- 
raigned Sept. 29, 1911, and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. 
J. W. McAnarney, Esq., was assigned by the court as counsel 
for the defendant. Sept. 29, 1911, the indictment was nol 
prossed as to so much thereof as charged more than man- 
slaughter and as to so much thereof as charged concealment of 
the death of her infant child. The defendant was thereupon 
sentenced to the Reformatory for Women. The case was in 
charge of District Attorney Albert F. Barker. 

Nazif Usex, indicted in Worcester County, May, 1911, 
for the murder of Peter Marke, at Southbridge, on Eeb. 4, 
1911. He was arraigned June 5, 1911, and pleaded not 
guilty. George S. Taft, Esq., was assigned by the court as 
counsel for the defendant. In June, 1911, the defendant was 
tried by a jury before Aiken, C.J. The result was a verdict 
of guilty of manslaughter, and the defendant was thereupon 



xvi ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

sentenced to State Prison for a term of not more than five 
nor less than four years. The case was in charge of District 
Attorney James A. Stiles. 

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

Charles Alesando, indicted in Hampden County, De- 
cember, 1911, for the murder of Dominic Salvatore, at 
Russell, on June 24, 1911. He was arraigned Dec. 26, 1911, 
and pleaded not guilty. Richard J. Morrissey, Esq., was 
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 Christopher T. Callahan. 

Stefan Borasky, indicted in Hampden County, Decem- 
ber, 1911, for the murder of Rose Amansky, at Granville, 
on Sept. 27, 1911. He was arraigned Dec. 26, 1911, and 
pleaded not guilty. Joseph F. Carmody, Esq., was 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 Christopher T. Callahan. 

Harry H. Butts, indicted in Suffolk County, July, 1911, 
for the murder of Robert Williamson, at Boston, on June 21, 
1911. He was arraigned July 12, 1911, and pleaded not 
guilty. Joseph A. Dennison, Esq., was 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 
Joseph C. Pelletier. 

Peter Cassetti, indicted in Norfolk County, December, 
1911, for the murder of Nicholas Cassetti, at Weymouth, on 
Oct. 1, 1911. He was arraigned Dec. 22, 1911, and pleaded 
not guilty. No further action has been taken in this case. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney Albert F. Barker. 

Chester S. Jordan, indicted in Middlesex County, 
March, 1909, for the murder of Honora C. Jordan, at Somer- 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xvii 

ville, Sept. 1, 1908. He was arraigned April 15, 1909, and 
pleaded not guilty. Charles W. Bartlett, Esq., Harvey H. 
Pratt, Esq., and Jeremiah S. Sullivan, Esq., were assigned 
by the court as counsel for the defendant. In April, 1909, 
the defendant was tried by a jury before Stevens and Bell, 
J J. The result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first 
degree. The defendant's motion for a new trial was denied, 
and exceptions were overruled by the Supreme Judicial 
Court. The defendant was thereupon sentenced to death by 
electrocution during the week beginning March 12, 1911. 
The case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States 
on writ of error, and is now pending in that court. The case 
was in charge of District Attorney John J. Higgins. 

Harry Marshall and Lena Cusumano, indicted in 
Plymouth County, October, 1910, for the murder of Fran- 
cisco Cusumano, at Hull, on Sept. 18, 1910. They were 
arraigned 'Nov. 29, 1910, and pleaded not guilty. Thomas J. 
Grady, Esq., and William J. Coughlan, Esq., were assigned 
by the court as counsel for the defendants. In February, 
1911, the defendants were tried by a jury before Schofield, J. 
The result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first 
degree. Motion of defendants for a new trial was denied, 
and defendants' exceptions are now pending. The case is in 
charge of District Attorney Albert F. Barker. 

Silas ~N. Phelps, indicted in Franklin County, July, 
1910, for the murder of Emmet F. Haskins, at Monroe, on 
June 12, 1910. He was arraigned July 12, 1910, and dar- 
raigned July 21, 1910, and pleaded not guilty. William A. 
Davenport, Esq., and Harry E. Ward, Esq., were assigned 
by the court as counsel for the defendant. In November, 
1910, the defendant was tried by a jury before Schofield, J. 
The result was a verdict of guilty of murder in the first 
degree. The defendant's exceptions were overruled, and the 
defendant entered an appeal from an order overruling a 
motion in arrest of judgment, which order was affirmed by the 
Supreme Judicial Court, Oct. 20, 1911. On Oct. 25, 1911, 



xviii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

the defendant was sentenced to death by electrocution during 
the week beginning Dec. 31, 1911. An appeal from this sen- 
tence was dismissed and the sentence affirmed by the Supreme 
Judicial Court, Dec. 18, 1911. The case was in charge of 
District Attorney Richard W. Irwin. 

Clarence V. T. Richeson, indicted in Suffolk County, 
October, 1911, for the murder of Avis W. Linnell, at Boston, 
on Oct. 14, 1911. He was arraigned Nov. 13, 1911, and 
pleaded not guilty. William A. Morse, Esq., and Philip R. 
Dunbar, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for the 
defendant. The case is in charge of District Attorney Joseph 
C. Pelletier. 

Saverio Spano, indicted in Norfolk County, December, 
1911, for the murder of Guiseppe Rucher, at Quincy, on 
Dec. 3, 1911. He was arraigned Dec. 22, 1911, and pleaded 
not guilty. No further action has been taken in this case. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney Albert F. Barker. 

Bertram G. Spencer, indicted in Hampden County, 
May, 1910, for the murder of Martha B. Blackstone, at 
Springfield, on March 31, 1910. He was arraigned May 16, 

1910, and pleaded not guilty. R. P. Stapleton, Esq., and 
C. L. Young, Esq., were assigned by the court as counsel for 
the defendant. On Sept. 17, 1910, the defendant was com- 
mitted to the Bridgewater State Hospital for observation. 
In November, 1911, he was tried by a jury before Crosby, J., 
the trial being conducted by Attorney-General James M. 
Swift, assisted by the District Attorney. The result was a 
verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. Defendant's 
motion for a new trial is now pending. The case is in charge 
of District Attorney Christopher T. Callahan. 

Annie Tatosky, indicted in Plymouth County, June, 

1911, for the murder of an infant child, at Abington, on May 
3, 1911. She was arraigned June 14, 1911, and pleaded 
not guilty. No further action has been taken in this case. 
The case is in charge of District Attorney Albert F. Barker. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xix 



Grade Crossings. 

Construction has been in progress during the year at Ne- 
ponset, Somerville, Lynn, Worcester, Lowell, Weston, Nor- 
folk, Somerset, Swansea and Belchertown, and the engineer 
of grade crossings has made 34 visits of inspection in con- 
nection therewith. 

Forty-seven hearings before and conferences with special 
commissioners and auditors have been attended by this de- 
partment. Statements of expenditures numbering 48 and 
amounting to $2,182,670.51 have been examined. Objec- 
tions to items amounting to $168,682.89 have been made, 
of which amount $10,798.84 have been disallowed, and de- 
cisions as to $157,362.69 are pending. During the year, of 
objections filed to accounts during 1909, $731.39 have been 
disallowed, leaving an amount of $292.81 pending; of ob- 
jections made during 1910, $2,528.37 have been disallowed, 
and decisions as to $4,412.52 are pending; making a total 
for the year 1911 of $14,058.60 disallowed, and decisions as 
to $162,068.02 now pending. 

Special investigations for the Quincy and Braintree com- 
missions have been made by the engineer of grade crossings. 

Objection to certain accounts in connection with the 
Worcester grade crossings was made, and six hearings have 
been held thereon before the auditor, at some of which the 
Attorney-General appeared in person, in addition to the en- 
gineer of grade crossings and the Assistant Attorney-General 
by whom such objections are ordinarily conducted, and other 
hearings are to follow. 

Under authority of chapter 214 of the Acts of 1911 the 
engineer of grade crossings has been employed outside of 
this department by the Board of Railroad Commissioners 
thirty-four and one-half days. 

Entry Fee in Civil Actions. 
I call attention again to the recommendation made by my 
predecessor in his report of last year, which was as follows : — 

R. L., c. 204, § 6, provides that " in civil actions in which the com- 
monwealth or a county is the plaintiff no entry fee shall be paid, but 



xx ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

if the plaintiff prevails it shall be taxed against the defendant." 
There are numerous cases in which the Commonwealth is interested, 
in which, by a technical construction, the Commonwealth is required 
by the clerk to pay an entry fee. This is clearly not within the 
intent of the statute, though very likely within its literal meaning. 
I therefore suggest that an amendment be made, so that in all civil 
actions which are entered by the Commonwealth or a county no 
entry fee shall be paid. 

Although a draft of bill was submitted in connection with 
this recommendation, no legislation was passed thereon. I 
respectfully suggest that the amendment he made at this ses- 
sion. 



Collection of Penalties against Public-service 
Corporations. 

R. L., c. 121, § 32, provides a forfeiture for failure to file 
annual returns, as therein prescribed, on the part of gas and 
electric light corporations. The method of collection, as the 
law now stands, must he by an action of tort, or criminal com- 
plaint, which is a slow and ineffective method in practice. I 
recommend that said section be amended so that suits for 
penalties may be brought by information in equity in the 
Supreme Judicial Court. 

St. 1909, c. 483, § 3, provides that a fine shall be paid by 
gas companies for furnishing gas below the standard re- 
quired, and provides that said fine shall be paid into the treas- 
ury of the Commonwealth. The method of collection of this 
fine is by an action of tort or the ordinary criminal pro- 
cedure for the collection of a fine. This is a slow and in- 
effective method in practice, and I recommend that said sec- 
tion be amended so that the fine can be recovered by infor- 
mation in equity in the Supreme Judicial Court. 

Jury Service. 

It has been called to my attention that from time to time 

it happens that the work in a criminal session gives out, in 

counties in which separate sittings of the Superior Court 

are established for civil and criminal business, and the jurors 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxi 

could be advantageously used in a civil session; and some- 
times, though less frequently, the work in the civil sessions 
gives out, and the jurors could be advantageously used in 
the criminal session. For the purpose of enabling the court 
to utilize the jurors in such event I recommend an amend- 
ment to section 29 of chapter 157 of the Revised Laws, so 
that said section shall read as follows : — 

In the counties in which separate sittings of the superior court 
are established for civil and criminal business, criminal cases only 
shall be tried by jury at the criminal sittings, and civil cases only 
at the civil sittings, but the jurors summoned for either civil or 
criminal business may by order of the court be used interchangeably 
for either criminal or civil business, as occasion may require. 

Appointment of Appraisers. 
It has been called to my attention that an ancient statutory 
provision, now R. L., c. 139, § 6, which provides that ap- 
praisers of the original inventory of an estate may be ap- 
pointed by a disinterested justice of the peace is still some- 
times acted under. As the almost uniform, and by far the 
better, practice is that such appraisers are appointed by the 
Probate Court, I recommend that the above statute be 
amended so that appraisers shall be appointed only by the 
Probate Court. 

United Shoe Machinery Company. 
In July the attention of this department was directed to 
certain alleged practices and business methods and arrange- 
ments employed by the United Shoe Machinery Com- 
pany, and an investigation of the same was begun. Before 
it was fairly under way it became public that the United 
States government, through the Department of Justice, had 
been investigating the same matters for some five or six 
months, and that the whole subject had been submitted for 
consideration to the United States grand jury. The result 
of this action was the indictment in the federal court of sev- 
eral of the officers of the corporation. At that time I an- 
nounced that these indictments would not prevent the con- 
tinuance of the investigation by this department, as it 



xxii ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

seemed to me that the indictment of these officials did not 
get at the meat of the objections to the alleged business meth- 
ods of the corporation. ' I therefore continued the investi- 
gation so far as I was able. Recently, however, a proceed- 
ing in equity has been brought in the Circuit Court 'of the 
United States, entitled United States of America, petitioner, 
v. United Shoe Machinery Company of Neiv Jersey et als., 
defendants, which appears to cover every point of complaint 
which has been brought to my attention concerning this mat- 
ter. This action covers substantially the same procedure and 
ground that would be covered in case of prosecution under 
our State statutes. If successful, the result will be much 
broader and more far-reaching than any State proceeding 
could be, inasmuch as the corporations complained of are 
not Massachusetts corporations, and a large part of the opera- 
tion of said companies is carried on outside of this Com- 
monwealth. It has seemed to me, therefore, advisable to 
await the outcome of this petition in equity in the United 
States court before attempting to institute proceedings under 
our State law. 

In this connection I desire to call attention to the fact 
that the Attorney-General ordinarily is not the officer of 
the State government to discover facts. His principal duty 
is to pass upon questions of law, the facts having been fur- 
nished by the various departments in connection with which 
opinion or action is ought. (See Opinion of Attorney-Gen- 
eral Knowlton, 1 Op. Atty.-Gen. 275.) This department 
has no means provided for acquiring information and facts 
except through voluntary disclosure on the part of such per- 
sons as may have knowledge of them. In acquiring the in- 
formation obtained in this particular case I have had to 
depend largely upon the efforts of the State police and cer- 
tain other outside assistance. In a number of instances 
persons inquired of have refused to give the information re- 
quested or to discuss the matter. The effective way to ac- 
quire such information is by inquiry before a grand jury, 
where witnesses can be summoned and compelled to disclose 
their knowledge and information. In this connection I con- 
cur in the recommendation of His Excellency in his inau- 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. xxiii 

gural message, in substance that chapter 454 of the Acts of 
1908 be amended by striking out, in the first line of sec- 
tion 2, the words " or by his direction," so that said section 
shall read : " The attorney-general, or a district attorney, 
may bring an action," etc. 

Department of the Attorney-General. 

Without doubt the past year has been the busiest in the 
history of this department. This readily appears by com- 
parison of the work with that of recent years. For instance, 
the number of cases standing upon the dockets of the depart- 
ment for 1905 was 2,534; for 1906, 2,858; for 1907, 2,610; 
for 1908, 3,39S ; for 1909, 3,321 ; for 1910, 3,363 ; and for 
1911, 5,338. 

Comparing the official opinions rendered, it appears that 
in 1906, 122 opinions were given; in 1907, 113; in 1908, 
99; in 1909, 100; in 1910, 165; and in 1911, 246. 

The cases disposed of during the year number 4,294, leav- 
ing now pending in the department 1,044 cases. It also 
appears that the amount of money collected in the way of 
fines, forfeitures and other collections is larger than in any 
preceding year, amounting to $382,329.17. 

It is to be noted that this increased amount of work has 
been carried on without any proportional increase in the ex- 
pense of the department. 

Twelve cases have been argued before the Supreme Court 
of the Commonwealth during the year. 

There are two cases pending in the United States Su- 
preme Court> — the case of C ommonivealth v. Jordan on a 
writ of error from his conviction and sentence for murder, 
and C ommonivealth v. Baltic Mining Co., involving the con- 
stitutionality of the law concerning taxation of foreign cor- 
porations. 

The case against The Provident Institution for Savings 
in Boston, brought under the provisions of St. 1907, c. 340, 
and St. 1908, c. 590, §§ 56 and 57, has been decided in favor 
of the Commonwealth by the Supreme Court of the United 
States and said institution has paid to the Treasurer 
$114,729.14 thereunder. Petitions against other banks cov- 



xxiv ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1912. 

ered by said provisions are in process of filing, whereby, it 
is estimated some $500,000 will be turned over to the Treas- 
urer of the Commonwealth. 

During the year, also, the so-called milk rate cases have 
been heard before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in 
which an intervening petition was filed by my predecessor. 
I attended the hearings of these cases before the Interstate 
Commerce Commissioner at the taking of testimony in Bos- 
ton. A brief was submitted and argument made at the final 
hearing in Washington. 

With reference to the order adopted by the General Court 
on June 2, 1911, to report as to whether the New York, New 
Haven & Hartford Railroad Company has complied with 
respect to the Springfield Street Railway Company with 
the order of the Supreme Judicial Court under date of June 
23, 1908, I have to say that the answer to be given thereto 
is of such a special nature and so voluminous in its contents 
that I am compiling it in the form of a special report. 

After a service of two years as law clerk and six years as 
Assistant Attorney-General, Mr. Fred T. Field leaves this 
department at the expiration of his official year, to enter upon 
private practice. During his term of service he has displayed 
marked ability, zeal and efficiency in the performance of his 
duties. His departure is a loss to the service of the Com- 
monwealth. 

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

Respectfully submitted, 

JAMES M. SWIFT, 

Attorney-General. 



OPINIONS. 



Armories — Use for Public Purposes — Rallies of Political 
Parties and Meetings for the Discussion of Public Questions. 

Under the provision of St. 1908, c. 604, § 140, that " armories . . . shall 
not be used except by the organized militia for such military purpose 
or purposes incidental thereto as may be designated by the com- 
mander-in-chief: provided, however, that the commander-in-chief, 
upon terms and conditions to be prescribed by him and upon an 
application approved by the military custodian of an armory . . . 
may allow the temporary use of such armory for public purposes," 
an armory may be used for rallies of political parties or meetings 
for the discussion of questions of public policy which are of interest 
or benefit to the community at large. 

Jan. 19, 1911. 

Brig. Gen. Gardner W. Pearson, Adjutant General. 

Dear Sir : — In your communication of January 16 yon state 
that you are directed by His Excellency the Governor to request 
a written opinion from the Attorney-General upon the question 
whether or not State armories may be used for rallies of political 
parties and for meetings for the discussion of questions of public 
policy. 

St. 1908, c. 604, § 140, is as follows : — 

Armories provided for the militia shall not be used except by the 
organized militia for such military purpose or purposes incidental 
thereto as may be designated by the commander-in-chief: provided, 
however, that the commander-in-chief, upon terms and conditions 
to be prescribed by him and upon an application approved by the 
military custodian of an armory provided in any city or town for 
the militia, may allow the temporary use of such armory for public 
purposes. The compensation fixed by the commander-in-chief for 
every such temporary use shall be paid to the treasurer and receiver 
general within ten days after the occupation of the armory for such 
temporary use ceases, accompanied by the certificate of the quarter- 
master general that the sum so paid is the correct amount; and all 
moneys so received shall be paid into the treasury of the common- 
wealth. 



2 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

In an opinion dated Nov. 14, 1907, my predecessor advised 
the Adjutant-General that — 

A consideration of these statutes shows that it was the intention 
of the Legislature to permit a qualified and restricted use of armories 
for purposes other than military purposes. The term " public pur- 
poses," as used in the existing law, must be taken to impart a still 
wider use than primarily permitted, although the Legislature has 
not defined its limits. It is a matter of some difficulty to arrive 
at a satisfactory definition of the words " public purposes " as 
used in said act. The word " public " is defined by the Century 
Dictionary to mean " open to all the people, shared in or to be 
shared or participated in or enjoyed by people at large; not limited 
or restricted to any particular class of the community ; " and there 
is nothing in the statute under consideration which shows an inten- 
tion of the Legislature to give to it any new meaning or to change 
the signification which is given to the word in ordinary speech. 

I am of opinion, however, that, speaking generally, the words 
" public purposes n are intended to mean some purpose which is of 
general interest or benefit to the community at large, to which any 
person who desires may obtain admission, either with or without 
the payment of a reasonable fee. 

In this conclusion I concur, and am of opinion that meetings 
of political parties which are of general interest to the commu- 
nity at large and to which any person who desires may obtain 
admission, as well as meetings of like character for the discus- 
sion of questions of public policy, are public purposes within the 
provisions of St. 1908, c. 604, § 140, above cited. 

You further inquire " whether or not the Governor, as Com- 
mander-in-Chief, may allow the temporary use of armories for 
such purposes without charge." By reason of the provision that 
" the compensation fixed by the commander-in-chief for every 
such temporary use shall be paid to the treasurer and receiver 
general within ten days after the occupation of the armory for 
such temporary use ceases, accompanied by the certificate of the 
quartermaster general that the sum so paid is the correct amount, 
and all moneys so received shall be paid into the treasury of the 
commonwealth/' I am of opinion that the statute does not con- 
template that such use should be permitted without compensa- 
tion therefor to the Commonwealth. 

You further submit for my consideration an instruction, in- 
tended to be given to custodians of armories, as follows : — 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 3 

The use of the drill sheds of armories for rallies of political par- 
ties or meetings for the discussion of questions of public policy is a 
public purpose. 

You inquire whether or not such instruction is in accordance 
with the existing laws. With the qualification that rallies of 
political parties or meetings for the discussion of questions of 
public policy are such as to be of general interest or benefit to 
the community at large, I am of opinion that the instruction 
which you quote in substance agrees with existing laws. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Annual Appropriations — Statements of Amounts required for 
the Ensuing Fiscal Year — Governor and Council — Verifi- 
cation of Estimates — Examination and Audit of Books of 
Account. 

St. 1910, c. 220, § 1, requiring that every officer or board having charge 
of any department, institution or undertaking which receives an 
annual appropriation from the treasury of the Commonwealth, shall 
annually submit to the Auditor statements in detail showing the 
amounts appropriated for the current fiscal year and required for 
the ensuing fiscal year, and that the Auditor shall combine such 
statements with a like statement relating to his own department in 
one document, to be printed and submitted on or before the first 
Thursday in January to the Governor and Council for examination, 
and by the Governor transmitted to the General Court with such 
recommendations as he may deem proper, does not confer upon the 
Governor and Council, or upon the Governor alone, any new or addi- 
tional authority to examine, for the purpose of verifying or other- 
wise investigating such statements, the expenditures or books of 
accounts of, or to prescribe for such purpose the method of account- 
ing which shall be used by, any State officer or board. 

Jan. 21, 1911. 

His Excellency the Governor and the Honorable Council. 

Gentlemen" : — You have orally required my opinion upon 
the question of your authority, under the provisions of St. 1910, 
c. 220, to verify or to make investigation with reference to the 
estimates submitted to you by officers or boards having charge 
of any department, institution or undertaking which receives an 
annual appropriation of money from the treasury of the Com- 



4 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

monwealth in accordance with such provisions, by examining 
and auditing the books and accounts or prescribing the methods 
of accounting of such officers or boards. 

The statute to which you refer is as follows : — 

Section 1. Every officer or board having charge of any depart- 
ment, institution or undertaking which receives an annual appro- 
priation of money from the treasury of the commonwealth, includ- 
ing annual appropriations to be met by assessments, shall, annually, 
on or before the fifteenth day of November, submit to the auditor 
of the commonwealth statements in detail showing the amount 
appropriated for the current fiscal year and the amounts required 
for the ensuing fiscal year, with an explanation of the reason for 
any increased appropriation, and with citations of the statutes 
relating thereto, and with a statement of the expenditures for the 
current year and for each of the next preceding two years. The 
said estimates shall not include any estimates for special purposes 
or objects. The auditor of the commonwealth shall embody the 
said statements, with a like statement relating to his own depart- 
ment, in one document, which shall be printed, and shall be sub- 
mitted on or before the first Thursday in January of each year to 
the governor and council for examination, and the governor shall 
transmit the same to the general court with such recommendations, 
if any, as he may deem proper. The auditor shall also submit his 
estimates for the ensuing fiscal year for the ordinary and other 
revenue of the commonwealth which shall be made a part of the 
document herein provided for. Copies of the document shall be 
distributed to the members of the general court. 

Section 2. Officers, heads of departments, boards, commissions 
and trustees of institutions, who, in their annual reports, or other- 
wise, recommend appropriations from the state treasury for special 
purposes or objects, including appropriations to be met by assess- 
ments in addition to the ordinary running expenses, shall submit 
estimates thereof hi detail to the auditor of the commonwealth on 
or before the fifteenth day of November in each year, and he shall 
classify them and embody them in one document which shall be 
printed, and shall be submitted on or before the first Thursday in 
January of each year to the governor and council for examination, 
and the governor shall transmit the same to the general court with 
such recommendations, if any, as he may deem proper. He shall 
make recommendation as to how much should be raised by the issue 
of bonds and how much should be paid out of current revenue. 
Copies of the document shall be distributed to the members of the 
general court. 

Section 3. The plans, estimates and specifications made in 
accordance with the provisions of chapter five hundred and twenty 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 5 

of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and seven, or of amend- 
ments thereof, relating to any improvement described in either of 
the documents aforesaid, shall at the same time be submitted to the 
governor and council. 

Section 4. The auditor shall furnish to the governor .and coun- 
cil such further information in regard to the revenue, expenditures 
and other financial operations of the commonwealth, and in such 
form as the governor may require. 

Section 5. The governor may, in his discretion, transmit to the 
general court from time to time, with his recommendations, if any, 
thereon, particular items in either of the said documents, and may 
withhold other items for further investigation. 

Section 6. Section twenty-six of chapter six of the Revised 
Laws, as amended by section six of chapter two hundred and eleven 
of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and five and section five 
of chapter five hundred and ninety-seven of the acts of the year 
nineteen hundred and eight, and all acts and parts of acts incon- 
sistent herewith, are hereby repealed. 

Section 7. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 

It is to be observed that this statute provides that the Auditor 
shall in the first instance receive the estimates of State officers 
and boards and transmit them to the Governor and Council for 
examination, together with estimates for ordinary and other 
revenue of the Commonwealth made by him, and that the only 
power vested in the Governor with respect to such estimates is 
that of making "such recommendations as he may deem proper. 
It is also made the duty of the Auditor to furnish to the Gov- 
ernor and Council further information in connection with such 
estimates regarding the revenue, expenditures and other finan- 
cial operations of the Commonwealth in such form as the Gov- 
ernor may require. 

I am of opinion that this statute does not confer upon the 
Governor and Council, or upon the Governor alone, any new or 
additional right to examine the expenditures or books of account 
of, or to prescribe the method of accounting which shall be used 
by, any State officer or board for the purpose of verifying or 
otherwise investigating the estimates so required. It is already 
provided by St. 1908, c. 597, § 4, that — 

Under the direction of the auditor, the supervisor of accounts 
shall direct and control all the accounts in all departments, and shall 
have full authority to prescribe, regulate and make changes in the 
methods of keeping and rendering accounts, and shall see that they 
are properly maintained, and that all items are correctly allocated 



6 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

between capital receipts and disbursements and operating revenue 
and expense. He shall establish in each department a proper 
system of accounts, which shall be uniform so far as is practicable. 
He shall establish a proper system of accounting for stores, sup- 
plies and materials, and may provide, where he deems it necessary, 
for a continuing inventory thereof. He may inquire into the meth- 
ods of purchasing and handling such stores, supplies and materials 
by the departments, reporting to the auditor such changes as may 
in his judgment be deemed wise. He shall provide such safeguards 
and systems of checking as will insure, so far as is possible, the 
proper collection of all revenue due the commonwealth; and, where 
he deems it necessary, shall provide that forms and receipts shall 
be numbered consecutively, making the departments responsible for 
their use or cancellation; 

and by section 6 that — 

Whenever the word " departments " occurs in this act it shall be 
understood to include all departments, boards, commissions, institu- 
tions and offices of the commonwealth which incur expense or to 
which income accrues, unless the context requires a different inter- 
pretation. 

Under these provisions of law the Auditor is given full author- 
ity to prescribe, regulate and make changes in the methods of 
keeping or rendering accounts in all State departments, boards, 
commissions and offices, and to see, by audit or otherwise, that 
they are properly maintained; and there is nothing in the lan- 
guage of St. 1910, c. 220, to warrant a conclusion that by its 
enactment the Legislature intended to supersede or modify the 
authority of the Auditor under the statutes above cited by con- 
ferring upon the Governor and Council any supervision or con- 
trol of public expenses or the methods of accounting therefor. 
Upon the contrary, it is the obvious intention of the latter 
statute that the estimates furnished to the Governor and Council 
in accordance with its requirements should be furnished through 
the Auditor, and that any additional information which may be 
required in the premises should be supplied by him (§4). 

The general power of the Governor and Council to investigate 
the expenditures of State officers, boards or commissions was 
made the subject of an opinion by my predecessor to His Ex- 
cellency the Governor, dated April 26, 1909 (Attorney- General's 
Report, 1909, p. 31), in which it was stated that — 

The Governor and Council may at any time examine such bills 
and vouchers in the Auditor's department, and thus familiarize 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 7 

themselves with the expenditures of the Commonwealth as much as 
they wish. They may take such measures as they see fit to ascer- 
tain that the money appropriated for the various institutions in 
the Commonwealth is being- expended in the manner intended by 
the Legislature, and may make such personal investigation at the 
institutions themselves as may be necessary to make sure that this is 
being done; but they have no right to say that the money appro- 
priated by the Legislature shall not be expended in the way author- 
ized by it. There are various departments under the immediate 
supervision of the Governor, and in such departments it is his duty 
to see that the money appropriated is properly expended therein. 
There are other departments in which it is the duty of the head 
of such departments to see that the money appropriated is properly 
expended, and for which the Governor is not responsible, and in 
which he has no authority except so far as may be necessary to 
see that the warrants are drawn in accordance with the appropria- 
tions authorized by the Legislature. Should the Governor and 
Council be of opinion that the finances of any institution are not 
being properly and economically expended, the remedy would be by 
removal of the trustees or other officers over whom they have author- 
ity, in accordance with the statutes in such case made and provided. 
To this extent, under the Constitution and law of the Common- 
wealth the Governor and Council have authority to investigate the 
expenditures of any department, and to familiarize themselves as 
much as they see fit with any of the expenditures of the Common- 
wealth. 

I am, therefore, forced to the conclusion that, in the investi- 
gation of the estimates submitted to the Governor and Council, 
under the provisions of St. 1910, c. 220, the Governor and 
Council are not authorized to audit the books or accounts of any 
officer or board whose estimates are before them for considera- 
tion, or to prescribe any method of accounting to be followed 
by such officer or board, and that such information as may be 
required with respect to matters of finance, in addition to that 
supplied by the estimates themselves, is to be furnished by the 
Auditor in such form as the Governor may require. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Civil Service Commission — City of Boston — Appointment to 
Office — Investigation — Public Records. 

In the performance of the duties required by St. 1909, c. 486, § 10, that 
the Civil Service Commission shall make a careful inquiry into the 
qualifications of a nominee for office in the city of Boston, under 
such rules as they may, with the consent of the Governor and Council, 
establish, such commission act in a special and limited capacity under 
the authority of that section alone, and they are not controlled by 
the general provisions relating to civil service, in E. L., c. 19, and 
in the rules formulated thereunder. 

Letters and other memoranda received by the Civil Service Commission 
in the course of the investigation provided for in St. 1909, c. 486, 
§ 10, are not received, and are not required to be received, for filing 
within the meaning of E. L., c. 35, § 5, providing that the words 
" public records " shall mean " any written or printed book or paper, 
any map or plan of the commonwealth or of any county, city or 
town which is the property thereof and in or on which any entry 
has been made or is required to be made by law, or which any officer 
or employee of the commonwealth or of a county, city or town has 
received or is required to receive for filing; " and they are not, 
therefore, public records as therein defined. 

A member of the Legislature has no greater right to inspect letters or 
papers which are in the possession of the commission but are not 
public records, than has any other member of the public. 

Jan. 28, 1911. 
Warren P. Dudley, Esq., Secretary, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : — By the provisions of section 10 of chapter 486 of 
the Statutes of 1909, "An act relating to the administration 
of the city of Boston and to amend the charter of the said city/ 5 
certain duties with respect to the appointment of heads of depart- 
ments and members of municipal boards in the city of Boston 
were vested in the Civil Service Commission upon the receipt 
of a certified copy of a certificate of appointment from the mayor 
in the form provided in such section : — 

The commission shall immediately make a careful inquiry into 
the qualifications of the nominee under such rules as they may, 
with the consent of the governor and council, establish, and, if they 
conclude that he is a competent person with the requisite qualifica- 
tions, they shall file with the city clerk a certificate signed by at 
least a majority of the commission that they have made a careful 
inquiry into the qualifications of the appointee, and that in their 
opinion he is a recognized expert, or that he is qualified by educa- 
tion, training or experience for said office, as the case may be, and 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 9 

that they approve the appointment. ... If the commission does not 
within thirty days after the receipt of such notice file said certifi- 
cate with the city clerk the appointment shall be void. 

In the performance of these duties the Civil Service Commis- 
sion have formulated certain regulations which, so far as mate- 
rial, are : — 

2. Upon receipt of the said copy of certificate of appointment 
the Civil Service Commission shall make such inquiry concerning 
the training, experience, character and qualifications of the ap- 
pointee as it judges necessary. 

3. Upon request from the Civil Service Commission^ the mayor 
shall furnish to it such information as it may call for relating to 
the age, residence, experience, training, character and qualifications 
of the appointee ; and he shall forward to it any and all correspond- 
ence, papers, petitions, recommendations and protests in his pos- 
session relating to the appointee, all of which shall be returned to 
the mayor within thirty days after receipt from the city clerk of 
said copy of certificate of appointment. 

The city council and city clerk of Boston, and all commissioners 
and commissions appointed by the Governor, shall, upon request 
from the Civil Service Commission, furnish to it such information 
as it may call for relating to the age, residence, experience, train- 
ing, character and qualifications of the appointee. 

In connection with the careful inquiry which is required by 
the statute the commission have invited communications, both 
oral and in writing, with reference to persons appointed under 
the provisions of St. 1909, c. 486, § 9, and, as you state in your 
letter, " have, in fact, used many sources of information — data 
furnished in writing by the mayor or by the appointee ; personal 
conferences at the State House by the commission with the ap- 
pointee and with other citizens; personal investigation by the 
individual commissioners; testimony of sworn witnesses taken 
at the State House by the commission; official city and State 
reports and other documents; reports and notes made by agents 
and inspectors employed by the commission; letters written to 
the commission voluntarily by various citizens; letters written 
by citizens in response to letters of inquiry sent, out by the 
commission; letters written by citizens presumably in response 
to a general invitation to the public made by the commission 
in a notice issued to the press April 6, 1910." The notice to 
which you refer was as follows : — 



10 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

April 6, 1910. 

In order that the Civil Service Commission may fulfill in the most 
complete manner possible the duty imposed upon it by chapter 486 
of the Acts of 1909 in making " the careful inquiry " therein 
required into the qualifications of nominees for the positions of 
heads of departments, and in order that no injustice may be done 
to any nominee, or to the mayor of the citj^ of Boston, or to the 
public, by reason of the failure on the part of the commission to 
receive the fullest information, the commission hereby issues this 
formal notice that information as to the qualifications of a nominee 
presented to the commission at its office in the State House by any 
one, in person, or in writing over his signature, will be considered 
in the investigation which the commission will undertake under the 
rules framed by it and approved by the Governor and Council. 



You further advise me that a request in writing has been 
made by a member of the present Legislature, in the form fol- 
lowing : — 

So that your Board may have a definite request before you in 
writing, I respectfully submit the following : — 

As a member of the Legislature of 1911, and for the purpose of 
obtaining accurate information relating to a matter of legislation 
before said body, I desire to examine at your office at the State 
House, in the presence of the secretary of the Board, all the letters, 
petitions, communications, recommendations for and against the 
certification of Morris L. Morrison as a member of the board of 
assessors, and Joseph P. Lomasney as a member of the board of 
health of the city of Boston. 

A further request was thereafter made by the said member 
that the matter be referred to the Attorney-General, and in 
accordance therewith the Civil Service Commission submitted 
for the decision of the Attorney- General the following specific 
questions : — 

(1) Are such letters and papers, described as above, "records of 
their proceedings " or " recommendations of applicants received by 
them or by any officer authorized to make appointments, or to 
employ laborers or others within the scope of such rules," within 
the meaning of R. L., c. 19, § 5, and such as are under that statute 
required " to be preserved " and " to be open to public inspection ? n 

(2) Are such letters and papers "public records," within the 
definition prescribed in R. L., e. 35? 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 11 

(3) Are the commissioners under obligation by law to allow an 
individual member of the Legislature to inspect such letters and 
papers % " 

On January 20, in accordance with a request of the said 
member, a hearing was given by me, at which the Civil Service 
Commission was represented by its secretary, and the said mem- 
ber was fully heard upon all the questions raised by his original 
communication to the Civil Service Commission and by the 
inquiries of the commission as above quoted. To his statements 
and arguments I have given most careful consideration. Upon 
so much thereof as was addressed to the propriety of permitting 
an examination of letters or documents in the nature of evi- 
dence for or against persons appointed to office under the pro- 
visions of St. 1909, c. 486, § 9, which may be in the possession 
of the Civil Service Commission, as a matter of policy or fair- 
ness I cannot assume to pass except in so far as such considera- 
tions are involved in the construction of the statutes which are 
applicable in the premises. 

Eeplying specifically to the questions of the Civil Service 
Commission, therefore, my opinion is as follows : — 

(1) E. L., c. 19, § 5, provides that the commission — 

shall keep records of their proceedings and of examinations made 
by them or under their authority. Recommendations of applicants 
received by them or by any officer authorized to make appointments 
or to employ laborers or others, within the scope of such rules, shall 
be preserved. Such records and recommendations shall, under reg- 
ulations approved by the governor and council, be open to public 
inspection. 

This provision of law is found in the general statute which 
provides for the " selection of persons to fill appointive posi- 
tions in the government of the commonwealth and of the several 
cities thereof and the selection of persons to be employed as 
laborers or otherwise in the service of the commonwealth and 
said several cities" (section 6), under rules prepared by the 
commission and approved by the Governor and Council, which 
include — 

The classification of the positions and employments to be filled. 
Open competitive and other examinations to test the practical 
fitness of applicants. 

The filling of vacancies in and the selection of persons for public 



12 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

positions and employments in accordance with the results of such 
examinations, or in the order of application, or otherwise. 

Promotions, if practicable, on the basis of ascertained merit in 
the examination and seniority of service. 

A period of probation before an appointment or employment is 
made permanent. 

Preference to veterans in appointment and promotion. 

It is clear that in the performance of the duties required by 
the provisions of St. 1909, c. 486, § 10, hereinbefore quoted, 
the commission act in a special and limited capacity, under the 
authority of that section alone. They are not to be con- 
trolled by the general provisions relating to civil service, which 
are to be found in R. L., c. 19, and in the rules formulated 
thereunder. (See section 9.) The provisions of R. L., c. 19, 
§ 5, therefore, have no application to the proceedings of the 
commission under St. 1909, c. 486, § 10. 

(2) R. L., c. 35, § 5, denned the words "public records" 
as follows : — 

In construing the provisions of this chapter and other statutes, 
the words " public records " shall, unless a contrary intention clearly 
appears, mean any written or printed book or paper, any map 
or plan of the commonwealth or of any county, city or town which 
is the property thereof and in or on which any entry has been made 
or is required to be made by law, or which any officer or employee 
of the commonwealth or of a county, city or town has received or is 
required to receive for filing, and any book, paper, record or copy 
mentioned in the six following sections. The word "record" shall, 
in this chapter, mean any written or printed book, paper, map or 
plan. 

Speaking of this section, in an opinion dated Sept. 22, 1902 
(II. Op. Atty. Gen. 381), the Attorney- General stated that — 

This legislative definition cannot be held to include within its 
intention every paper which an officer of the Commonwealth receives 
and files. It must be limited to such as he is required by law to so 
receive for filing. Any other construction must be prejudicial to 
the rights and interests of the Commonwealth or its officers, and. 
indeed, of parties or persons making communications with such 
officers. 

And see Attorney- General's Report, 1907, p. 60. This sec- 
tion has been construed and this view has been confirmed in the 
case of Bound v. Police Commissioner, 197 Mass. 218, where, 
at page 220, the court say : — 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 13 

The petitioner contends that such a paper, returned to the 
Licensing Board, is a public record under the R. L., c. 35, § 5, 
because it is a paper which an officer of the city has received or 
is required to receive for filing*. An examination of this section 
shows that it relates to books, papers and maps which are intended 
for the use of the public. We are of opinion that the returns by 
pawnbrokers are not papers received for filing. There are statutes 
which require that certain papers be filed in the office of the city 
or town clerk, or in some registry, for inspection by all persons 
interested. Such papers are " received for filing " within the mean- 
ing of the statute; but the statute as to returns by pawnbrokers 
makes no provision for filing. The licensing boards may preserve 
them in such a way as they choose. 

While the facts in the two cases are not identical, I am 
bound to follow the construction therein declared. To make 
any letter, paper or document in the possession of the Civil 
Service Commission a " public document " within the meaning 
of E. L., c. 35, § 5, therefore, the commission must have re- 
ceived or must be required to receive such letter, paper or docu- 
ment for filing under the terms of some particular statute. No 
such requirement is to be found in St. 1909, c. 486, § 10. The 
commission are broadly authorized to " make a careful inquiry 
into the qualifications of the nominee under such rules as they 
may, with the consent of the governor and council, establish," 
and, if their conclusion is favorable to such nominee, they are 
required to file with the city clerk a certificate to that effect. 
This inquiry is to be governed only by their discretion and by 
such rules as, with the consent of the Governor and Council, 
they may adopt for their own guidance. 

The rules so far adopted, which I have already quoted, do 
not in my opinion require the filing of any letter, paper or docu- 
ment by the commission. They do, in Eule 3, require the mayor 
to forward to the commission " any and all correspondence, pa- 
pers, petitions, recommendations and protests in his possession 
relating to the appointee," and they provide for the return of 
the same, after the commission have reached a decision, but 
this provision has no bearing upon like documents addressed 
to and received by the commission in the course of their in- 
quiry, and, so far as it is material at all, suggests an intent 
that such matters should not be retained and filed by the com- 
mission. 

I am therefore constrained to conclude that the letters and 
other memoranda to which your inquiry is directed are not 



14 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

received for filing, and are not required to be filed, by any 
law which has been called to my attention. They are received 
by the commission in connection with the specific duties re- 
quired by the provisions of St. 1909, c. 486, § 10, for the pur- 
pose of aiding the commission in the performance of those 
duties. The commission are not required to receive or to retain 
and preserve them; and they are retained and preserved, if 
at all, only for the information or convenience of the commis- 
sion. Since they are not received and are not required to be 
received for filing, within the meaning of R. L., c. 35, § o, 
they are not public records as defined in that section. 

(3) A member of the Legislature, as such, has no greater 
right to inspect letters or papers which are in the custody of 
the commission, but are not public records, than has any other 
member of the public, and his individual rights are to be meas- 
ured by those of the public generally. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Volunteer Militia — Armory Commission — Construction of 

Armories. 

The duty of the armory commission, under the provision of St. 1908, 
c. 604, § 133, as amended by St. 1909, c. 323, § 1, that " if in their 
judgment the needs of the service demand it, subject to the approval 
of the commander-in-chief, . . . shall construct armories, not ex- 
ceeding three yearly, until the volunteer militia shall be provided 
with adequate quarters," is to construct armories until the volunteer 
militia are provided with adequate quarters, subject to the limita- 
tion that there shall not be under construction in any one year more 
than three such armories. 



Brig. Gen. Gardner W. Pearson, Adjutant General. 

Dear Sir: — Relative to the construction of St. 1908, c. 604, 
§ 133, as amended by St. 1909, c. 323, § 1, which, so far as 
material, is as follows : — 

The armory commissioners shall rebuild, remodel or repair armo- 
ries of the first class which have been injured or destroyed by fire, 
and may reconstruct, remodel, enlarge or otherwise improve existing 
state armories, if in their judgment the needs of the service demand 
it, subject to the approval of the commander-in-chief, and, in addi- 
tion, shall construct armories, not exceeding three yearly, until the 
volunteer militia shall be provided with adequate quarters. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 15 

you submit the following questions for my opinion : — 

1. Must the armory commission build any armories? 

2. Must they build from one to three? 

3. Must they build three each year? 

Assuming that to the first and second questions should be 
added the word " yearly/'' I understand your inquiry is in sub- 
stance to require my opinion upon the duties of the commis- 
sioners with respect to the construction of armories in any given 
year. 

The duty of the commission seems to be plain. They are 
to " construct armories . . . until the volunteer militia shall 
be provided with adequate quarters." The provision that they 
shall not construct more than three of such armories yearly is 
a limitation upon this duty. Except for this limitation the 
matter is in the discretion of the commission, and if they in good 
faith construct armories as rapidly as possible for the accom- 
modation of the volunteer militia they are not required in any 
one year to begin the construction of either one, two or three 
new armories. I am of the opinion that the limitation above 
referred to means that the commission shall not have under 
construction in any one year more than three such armories. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



License — Keeper of Hospital for Care of Insane and Feeble- 
minded — Suitable Person — Resident or Consulting Phy- 
sician. 

Under the provisions of St. 1909, c. 504, § 24, that " the governor and 
council may, upon the recommendation of the state board of insanity, 
license any suitable person to establish and keep a hospital or private 
house for the care and treatment of the insane, epileptic, feeble- 
minded, and persons addicted to the intemperate use of narcotics 
and stimulants," a physician who is employed by the owner or 
owners of such hospital or private house as resident physician in 
charge, or who is on the staff of consulting physicians connected 
therewith, is not a suitable person to receive such license. 

Feb. 8, 1911. 
Owex Copp, M.D., Executive Secretary, State Board of Insanity. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion in regard to the 
provisions of section 24 of chapter 504 of the Acts of the year 
1909, which is as follows : — ■ 



16 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The governor and council may, upon the recommendation of the 
state board of insanity, license any suitable person to establish and 
keep a hospital or private house for the care and treatment of the 
insane, epileptic, feeble-minded, and persons addicted to the intem- 
perate use of narcotics or stimulants, and may at any time revoke 
such license. No such recommendation shall be made unless the 
said board is satisfied that the person applying* therefor is a duly 
qualified physician, as provided in section thirty-two, and has had 
practical experience in the care and treatment of such patients. 
Any person owning or maintaining such a hospital or private house 
on the date 'of the passage of this act shall be entitled to maintain 
the same under the provisions of law in force at that time, except 
that every such hospital or house shall be subject to the visitation 
and supervision of the state board of insanity. 

Your specific inquiries are as follows : — 

1. Is a physician, who is employed by the owner or owners as 
resident physician in charge, on a sala^ or for a share in the 
profits, a proper person to be granted a license under this section? 

2. Is a physician, who is not in charge of or residing in such a 
hospital or private house and who has no pecuniary interest in the 
business, but who is on the staff of consulting physicians, a proper 
person to be granted a license under this section? 

In my opinion it is contemplated by the statute that a license 
" to establish and keep a hospital or private house for the care 
and treatment of the insane, epileptic, feeble-minded, and per- 
sons addicted to the intemperate use of narcotics or stimulants," 
shall be granted only to a person who is to be the responsible 
head of such hospital or private house, that is, "to one who 
exercises control or proprietorship " of it. Cf. Commonwealth 
v. Kimball, 105 Mass. 465, 467. On this view of the law it is 
obvious that the answer to your second inquiry must be in the 
negative. Your first inquiry raises a more difficult question, 
but in my judgment it must be answered in the same way. The 
" physician who is employed by the owner or owners as resident 
physician in charge " is not the responsible head of the hospital 
or private house in such a sense as to entitle him to be licensed. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 17 



County Treasurer — Salaries of Chris of the Court, County 
Commissioners and County Treasurer — Increased Popu- 
lation — Readjustment. 
Further legislative authority is required before a county treasurer may 
lawfully pay increased salaries to the clerks of the courts, the 
county commissioners and the county treasurer upon the basis of 
increased population as determined by St. 1904, c. 451, § 1. 

March 3, 1911. 
Frank L. Dean, Esq., Controller of County Accounts. 

Dear Sir : — By your letter of February 2 you request my 
opinion upon the construction to be given to St. 1904, c. 451, 
" An Act relative to the salaries of clerks of the courts, county 
commissioners and county treasurers," in which it is provided, 
in section 1, that — 

The counties of the commonwealth, for the purpose of establish- 
ing the salaries of clerks of the courts, county commissioners and 
county treasurers, are hereby divided into nine classes, according to 
the following table; and the annual salaries of the clerk of the 
courts, county commissioners and county treasurer, in full for all 
services performed by them, for each county in a class, shall be as 
therein specified, payable by the said county in monthly instalments. 

Then follow nine classes, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, of 
which classes A and D may be taken as examples. 

Class A. Counties having a population of less than fifteen thou- 
sand, to wit, the counties of Nantucket and Dukes County; sala- 
ries : — Clerk of the courts, six hundred dollars ; commissioners 
(Nantucket, none), four hundred dollars; treasurer (Nantucket, 
none), three hundred dollars. 

Class D. Counties having a population of from sixty thousand 
to ninety thousand, to wit, none ; salaries : — Clerk of the courts, 
twenty-four hundred dollars; commissioners, twenty-two hundred 
dollars; treasurer, eleven hundred dollars. 

The precise question upon which you desire to be advised is 
whether or not the county treasurer, upon being satisfied by 
official information of the result of the latest census, is author- 
ized to pay to the clerks of the courts, the county commissioners 
and to himself as county treasurer, salaries under the next 
higher class in any case where the census shows that a county 



18 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

has gained sufficiently in population to be taken from the class 
below and placed therein. 

The act to which you refer forms one of five statutes passed 
in 1904; the other four being chapter 452, " An Act to establish 
the salaries of registers of deeds and assistant registers of 
deeds ; " chapter 453, " An Act to establish the salaries of the 
justices, clerks and assistant clerks of certain police, district 
and municipal courts ; " chapter 454, " An Act to establish the 
salaries of the chief justice, associate justices, clerks and as- 
sistant clerks of the municipal court of the city of Boston ; " 
and chapter 455, " An Act to establish the salaries of the judges, 
registers and assistant registers of probate." Chapter 452, rela- 
tive to the salaries of registers of deeds and assistant registers 
of deeds, provides, in section 1, that " registers of deeds shall 
receive annual salaries based upon the following scale," and 
establishes three classes, A, B, and C. In section 2 it was pro- 
vided that — 

The salaries of registers of deeds and assistant registers of deeds 
hereinbefore specified shall be readjusted in January, nineteen hun- 
dred and six, and every five years thereafter, upon the basis of the 
average yearly receipts of the respective registries for the five pre- 
ceding years, in accordance with the classification set forth in sec- 
tion one. 

Chapter 455 was substantially similar in form, providing, in 
section 1, that — 

Judges, registers and assistant registers of probate shall receive 
from the treasury of the commonwealth annual salaries based upon 
the following scale. If the amount in any case comprised in the 
first two classes exceeds an even hundred number of dollars by a 
sum less than fifty dollars, the excess shall be deducted; and if the 
excess is fifty dollars or more a sum shall be added sufficient to 
make the excess an even hundred dollars. . . . 

Section 2 provides : — 

Salaries of judges, registers, and assistant registers of probate 
shall be readjusted in the year succeeding each national or state 
census, in accordance with the classification set forth in section one. 

Both of these statutes contain express provision for readjustment 
at regular periods upon the basis of population or receipts of 
monev. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 19 

Chapters 451 and 453, which establish classes according to 
population, contain no such provision for readjustment, and 
do not refer to the State or national census, or to any other 
official determination of the population upon which the divi- 
sions are to be based. They both purport to establish salaries, 
and not to establish divisions by which the salaries are to be 
determined from time to time. 

Chapter 451 has been several times amended. St. 1905, 
c. 179; St. 1906, cc. 276, 290; St. 1907, c. 253; St. 1910, c. 537; 
and see St. 1907, c. 145, § 2; St. 1909, c. 232. But none of these 
amendments is of much assistance in determining the question 
now under consideration. In the case of chapter 453, however, 
a statute which in form is substantially like chapter 451, the 
amendments are more instructive. Thus, in St. 1905, c. 165, 
it is provided that — 

The police court of Lowell, being a court the judicial district of 
which has, and has had since the twenty-fifth day of April in the 
year nineteen hundred and four, a population of more than one 
hundred thousand, shall be included in class B as denned in section 
one of chapter four hundred and fifty-three of the acts of the year 
nineteen hundred and four, entitled " An Act to establish the sala- 
ries of the justices, clerks and assistant clerks of certain police, 
district and municipal courts"; and the salaries of the justice, spe- 
cial justices, clerk and assistant clerk of the police court of Lowell 
shall be those which are established by said chapter for the courts 
included in the said class B, to be so allowed from the first day of 
July in the year nineteen hundred and four. 

And in St. 1908, c. 323, which, in like terms, transferred the 
police court of Lawrence from Class D, where it was placed 
by chapter 453, to Class C, such transfer was made by reason 
of an increased population which entitled it to be so trans- 
ferred. See also St. 1906, c. 325. Of more significance than 
either of these, however, is St. 1905, c. 339, which provided for 
a specific readjustment after the taking of the decennial census 
of the year 1905, to be " effected in each case by the county 
treasurer of the county concerned, in accordance with the pro- 
visions of said chapter [St. 1904, c. 453] ; and, beginning with 
the first day of January in the year nineteen hundred and six, 
the said salaries shall be paid according to the said readjust- 
ment." And finally, in St. 1910, c. 501, it was provided, in 
section 1, that — 



20 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The salaries of the justices, clerks and assistant clerks of the dis- 
trict, police and municipal courts, other than the municipal court 
of the city of Boston, and the classes into which said courts are 
distributed, when the population of the judicial district of each of 
said courts as ascertained by the last preceding national or state 
census permits it, shall be so readjusted, by the officer paying the 
salary, as to correspond with the classes and salaries provided for 
by chapter four hundred and fifty-three of the acts of the year 
nineteen hundred and four, and acts in amendment thereof and in 
addition thereto. Payment of salaries so readjusted shall begin on 
the first day of July of the year in which said census is taken. 

The obvious purpose of this statute was to establish a method 
by which the salaries of the officers included within the provi- 
sions of St. 1904, c. 453, might be readjusted in accordance 
with the schedules of salaries contained in that chapter without 
further recourse to the Legislature, and furnishes the strongest 
evidence that without such additional provision the Legislature 
did not deem that the statute as originally enacted authorized 
such readjustment. Since St. 1904, c. 451, is in form sub- 
stantially similar to chapter 453, I can see no reason why the 
construction given to the latter chapter should not apply to 
the former, and I must, therefore, advise you that in my opinion 
further legislative authority is required before the county treas- 
urer may lawfully pay increased salaries to the clerks of the 
courts, the county commissioners and the county treasurer upon 
the basis of an increased population of the county concerned. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



State Board of Health — Sources of Water Supply — Regula- 
tion — Artificial Reservoirs — Boating and Fishing. 

E. L., c. 75, § 133, as amended by St. 1907, c. 467, § 1, providing in part 
that the State Board of Health "may make rules and regulations 
to prevent the pollution and to secure the sanitary protection of all 
such waters as are used as sources of water supply," and "may 
delegate the granting and withholding of any permit required by such 
rules or regulations to state boards and commissions and to select- 
men in towns and to boards of health, water boards and water com- 
missioners in cities and towns, to be exercised by such selectmen, 
boards and commissions . . . ; and upon complaint of any person 
interested said board shall investigate the granting or withholding 
of any such permit and make such orders relative thereto as it 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 21 

may deem necessary for the protection of the public health," does 
not authorize the State Board of Health, upon petition of certain 
inhabitants of a town requesting such Board to cause suitable rules 
and regulations to permit fishing in certain reservoirs artificially 
constructed and now owned and used as a source of water supply by 
such town, to require the water and sewer board thereof to issue 
permits for fishing, since the regulation of boating or fishing or of 
any use of such reservoirs which does not directly relate to the 
preservation of the purity thereof is for such town to establish. 

March 7, 1911. 
Hexry P. Walcott, M.D., Chairman, State Board of Health. 

Dear Sir : — By a communication dated February 25 you 
seek my opinion upon certain questions respecting the rights 
of the State Board of Health in the matter of a petition which 
has been entered by certain inhabitants of the town of Winches- 
ter, requesting that the Board cause suitable rules and regula- 
tions to permit fishing in certain reservoirs owned and used as 
a source of water supply by the town of Winchester. The facts 
as presented by the communication of the Board and the papers 
annexed thereto, so far as material, appear to be substantially 
as follows — 

Under the provisions of St. 1872, c. 265, and St. 1873, c. 277, 
the town of Winchester was authorized to construct, own and 
maintain reservoirs in the territory lying along the easterly 
side of the town within its limits and in the adjoining towns 
of Medford and Stoneham, and subsequently did construct, and 
now owns and maintains, three reservoirs on small streams 
which are the headwaters of certain tributaries of the Aberjona 
Eiver or Mystic Lake. One of these reservoirs, known as the 
North Eeservoir, is situated partly in Stoneham and partly in 
Winchester; another, the South Eeservoir, is wholly within the 
limits of the city of Medford, and the Middle Eeservoir is situ- 
ated chiefly in Stoneham but partly also in Winchester and 
Medford. A large part of the area which constitutes the water- 
shed of these reservoirs is the property of the town of Winches- 
ter and the remaining portion of these watersheds is within 
the limits of the metropolitan parks reservation. I am advised, 
and, therefore, assume, that the town of Winchester owns in 
fee the beds of the several reservoirs and the land surrounding 
them, and that none of the three is a great pond or charged 
with any of the public rights to which, in the absence of re- 
strictive legislation, great ponds are subject. 

On April 1, 1909, acting upon the petition of the water and 



22 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

sewer board of the town of Winchester, the State Board of 
Health adopted certain rules and regulations for the purpose 
of preventing the pollution and securing the sanitary protection 
of the three reservoirs above mentioned. These rules were 
adopted under authority of R. L., c. 113, § 75, and, among other 
things, provided : — 

13. No person shall bathe in, and no person shall, unless per- 
mitted by a written permit of the water and sewer board of the 
town of Winchester, fish in, or send, drive or put any animal into, 
North Reservoir, so called, in the towns of Stoneham and Winches- 
ter, Middle Reservoir, so called, in the towns of Stoneham and 
Winchester and the city of Medford, or South Reservoir, so called, 
in the city of Medford, said reservoirs being used by the town of 
Winchester as sources of water supply. No person other than a 
member, officer, agent or employee of said water and sewer board, 
or public officer whose duties may so require, shall, unless so per- 
mitted by a written permit of said board, enter or go, in any boat, 
skiff, raft or other contrivance, on or upon the water of either of 
said reservoirs, nor shall enter or go upon, or drive any animal 
upon, the ice of either of said reservoirs. 

The granting and withholding of permits required by rules 13 
and 14 is hereby delegated by the State Board of Health to the 
water and sewer board of the town of Winchester. 

The petition filed with the State Board of Health recites that 
" at divers times since the adoption of the aforesaid Rules and 
Regulations by said State Board of Health, they (the peti- 
tioners) have made application to the water and sewer board 
of the town of Winchester for permits to fish in said reservoirs, 
but that said Board has always refused to grant the same/' 
and that a petition presented to said Board by the same peti- 
tioners, requesting that permission to fish might be issued under 
rules and regulations which should be sufficient to preserve the 
purity of the water, was refused by the Winchester Water and 
Sewer Board. The petition then prays that the State Board 
" cause to be prepared forthwith suitable rules and regulations 
under which fishing in said reservoirs may be carried on, and 
that said Winchester water and sewer board, or such other 
board or boards, individual or individuals, as may in the judg- 
ment of this Board be deemed expedient, be directed to grant 
such permits in accordance with such rules and regulations." 

The jurisdiction of the State Board of Health in the premises 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 23 

is founded upon the provisions of E. L., c. 75, § 113, which, as 
amended by St. 1907, c. 467, § 1, provides as follows: — ■ 

Said board may cause examinations of such waters to be made to 
ascertain their purity and fitness for domestic use or their liability 
to impair the interests of the public or of persons lawfully using 
them or to imperil the public health. It may make rules and regu- 
lations to prevent the pollution and to secure the sanitary protec- 
tion, of all such waters as are used as sources of water supply. 
Said board may delegate the granting and withholding of any per- 
mit required by such rules or regulations to state boards and com- 
missions and to selectmen in towns and to boards of health, water 
boards and water commissioners in cities and towns, to be exercised 
by such selectmen, boards and commissions, subject to such rec- 
ommendation and direction as shall be given from time to time by 
the state board of health; and upon complaint of any person inter- 
ested said board shall investigate the granting or withholding of 
any such permit and make such orders relative thereto as it may 
deem necessary for the protection of the public health. 

While the duty of the State Board of Health under this and 
the preceding section (section 112), which vests in said Board 
the general oversight and care of all inland waters and of all 
streams and ponds used by any city, town or public institution 
or by any water or ice company in this Commonwealth as sources 
of water supply, is primarily to prevent pollution and to secure 
the sanitary protection of waters which are used as sources of 
water supply, it has, by reason of the amendment contained 
in St. 1907, c. 467, not only the right to delegate power to 
grant or withhold permits to boat, fish or cut ice upon sources 
of water supply, but also the duty, upon complaint, to investi- 
gate the granting or withholding of such permits, which par- 
takes of the nature of an appellate jurisdiction; and, in the case 
of a great pond, a petition like the present would probably 
require some action upon the part of the Board in the nature 
of a review of the proceedings of the State or local authorities 
to whom had been delegated the granting and withholding of 
any permits required by the rules and regulations of the Board, 
and a consideration of their action with respect to the with- 
holding or granting of any particular permit or permits con- 
cerning which complaint was made by the petitioner. 

In the present case, however, upon the assumption already 
made, the town of Winchester, in its corporate capacity, owns 
the shores, the bed and the waters of all three reservoirs; and, 



24 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

while the State Board of Health may restrict their use because 
they are sources of water supply, it can have no right, without 
the consent of the town, or of the authorized agents of the town, 
in the premises, who may be assumed to be the Water and Sewer 
Board of Winchester, to require any use thereof which is not 
necessary for the purpose of protecting them as such sources 
of water supply. In the case of a great pond a rule which 
permits fishing or boating either continues an existing public 
right or revives one which for a time has been prohibited, but 
here the Board is not dealing with a great pond, but with an 
artificial reservoir in which the public have no rights, and 
which, apart from such regulations as may be necessary to pro- 
tect its purity as a source of water supply, is subject to such 
use for fishing or boating as the town of Winchester, or its 
agents, may see fit to make of it, subject to the general laws 
which govern the preservation and the taking of fish. 

I am, therefore, of opinion that the State Board of Health 
has no authority to require the water and sewer board of 
Winchester to issue permits for fishing, and that the regulation 
of boating or fishing, or of any use of the reservoirs in question 
which is not directly required to preserve the purity thereof, is 
for the town of Winchester to establish or determine. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Civil Service — City of Boston — Veterinary Inspector, Vet- 
erinary Medical Inspector and Veterinarian. 

The positions of " veterinary inspector," " veterinary medical inspector " 
and " veterinarian " are within the classification established by civil 
service rule 7, class 11, which includes " inspectors other than in- 
spectors of work, and persons doing similar work, excepting railroad 
inspectors, in the service of the Commonwealth or of any city 
thereof," and are therefore subject to the civil service law and rules. 

March 11, 1911. 
Warren P. Dudley, Esq., Secretary, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir: — In behalf of the Civil Service Commission you 
request my opinion as to whether the positions in the health 
department of the city of Boston, termed, respectively, " vet- 
erinary inspector/' " veterinary medical inspector " and " vet- 
erinarian," are classified under the civil service law and rules. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 25 

You state that the duties of the persons holding such posi- 
tions are as follows : — 

The duties of the person acting as " veterinary inspector " are 
the general inspection of dressed meat and of animals intended for 
slaughter at the abattoir. The duties of the " veterinary medical 
inspector n and of the two " veterinarians/' whom the board of 
health is about to appoint, are stated by the board of health as 
follows: the duties are to examine for diseases in animals and to 
report to the board of health for its action; to investigate the 
sources of outbreaks of diseases and their communication from 
animal to animal, and from animal to man; and to examine and 
report upon diseases of animals in life and pathological conditions 
at the autopsy and on the meat market; and the board of health 
states that the successful performance of the work requires the 
special qualification of professional training. 

The facts stated do not bring the positions within any of 
the general statutory exceptions from the application of the 
civil service law (R. L., c. 19, § 9), nor am I aware of any 
statute which specifically excepts these positions therefrom. 
The question is, therefore, whether they are classified under 
the civil service rules. 

Civil service rule 7, which provides for the classification of 
the official service, includes as class 11, — ■ 

Inspectors other than inspectors of work, and persons doing sim- 
ilar work, excepting railroad inspectors, in the service of the com- 
monwealth or of any city thereof. 

In my opinion the positions in question are classified within 
this rule. The word " inspector " has a broad meaning. It 
is defined in the Century Dictionary as follows : — 

One who inspects or oversees; one whose duty it is to secure by 
supervision the proper performance of work of any kind, or to 
ascertain by examination the quality or condition of the work, or of 
any article offered for sale or transfer; a public officer charged 
with such duties; as, the inspectors of election or of police; an 
inspector of weights and measures. 

The form of the rule itself indicates that the word "in- 
spector " is not limited in its meaning to an inspector of work. 
Inspectors of work are classified with foremen of laborers, in 
class 22. Class 11 includes all other inspectors. Without at- 



26 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

tempting to define precisely the meaning of the word " in- 
spector/ 5 I advise yon that in my opinion it is broad enough 
to include the positions of veterinary inspector, veterinary medi- 
cal inspector and veterinarian, as such positions are described 
by you. In my judgment the fact that "the successful per- 
formance of the work requires the special qualification of 
professional training " does not except the positions from the 
application of the civil service law and rules. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Amendment to Constitution — Submis- 
sion to People. 

"Where a proposed amendment to the Constitution was duly agreed to by 
a majority of the Senate and two-thirds of the members of the House 
of Eepresentatives in two successive years, as provided in Article 
IX. of the Amendments of the Constitution of the Commonwealth 
but no further action was taken with respect thereto, it may be 
submitted to the people as required by said article by a resolve 
passed in the usual manner by a subsequent Legislature. 



Russell D. Crane, Esq., House Chairman, Committee on Consti- 
tutional Amendments. 
Dear Sir : — You have submitted to me a proposed resolve 
(House, No. 795) providing for submitting to the people the 
article of amendment to the Constitution authorizing the use 
of voting machines at all elections. This article provides 
that, — 

Voting machines or other mechanical devices for voting may be 
used at all elections under such regulations as may be prescribed 
by law: provided, however, that the right of secret voting shall be 
preserved. 

The proposed amendment was duly agreed to by a majority 
of the senators and two-thirds of the members of the House of 
Representatives present and voting thereon during the legisla- 
tive session of 1909, and was referred to the General Court next 
to be chosen, which in 1910 agreed thereto, as required by 
Article IX. of the Amendments to the Constitution of the 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 27 

Commonwealth. No further action was taken by the Legis- 
lature of that year, and your present communication requires 
my opinion upon the question whether or not the present Gen- 
eral Court may submit such proposed amendment to the people, 
as provided in the article of the amendment above cited. 
Article IX. is in full as follows : — 

If, at any time hereafter, any specific and particular amendment 
or amendments to the constitution be proposed in the general court, 
and agreed to by a majority of the senators and two-thirds of the 
members of the house of representatives present and voting thereon, 
such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on the 
journals of the two houses, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, 
and referred to the general court then next to be chosen, and shall 
be published: and if, in the general court next chosen as aforesaid, 
such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a 
majority of the senators and two-thirds of the members of the 
house of representatives present and voting thereon, then it shall 
be the duty of the general court to submit such proposed amend- 
ment or amendments to the people; and if they shall be approved 
and ratified by a majority of the qualified voters, voting thereon 
at meeting's legally warned and holden for that purpose, they shall 
become part of the constitution of this commonwealth. 

The article contains no specific direction as to the precise 
time when a proposed amendment shall be submitted to the 
people, and does not expressly limit the authority of the Legis- 
lature in this respect to the General Court which agrees to 
a proposed amendment already passed upon by the General 
Court of the previous year, and if such limitation exists it 
exists only by necessary implication. I am aware of no decision 
of the court upon the point raised by your inquiry, and the 
question seems to be one of novel impression. In the absence 
of judicial authority in the premises I am inclined to the opinion 
that no sufficient reason is apparent for limiting the power of 
the General Court to submit to the people a proposed amend- 
ment of the Constitution to the particular Legislature by which 
such proposed amendment was agreed to; and if no action with 
respect to submission was taken by such Legislature, an amend- 
ment so adopted may be submitted to the people for their action 
by a subsequent Legislature, in the form of a resolve passed 
in the usual manner. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



28 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Co-operative Bank — Unincorporated Association — Way or 
Manner of transacting Business — Savings Bank. 

An unincorporated association formed for the purpose of accumulating 
a fund for the purchase of real estate and for building thereon, for 
making loans and for accumulating a fund to be returned to the 
stockholders, the property of which is vested in trustees and the 
shares of which mature when they reach the value of $500, with 
provision for assignment or withdrawal, and which does not offer 
to its members — who are persons having one or more shares of 
stock who have signed the articles of association — the money so 
accumulated according to the premium or rate of interest paid by 
them for priority, but invests such money as the funds of a savings 
bank are invested, does not transact "the business of accumulating 
the savings of its members and loaning to them such accumulation in 
the manner of a co-operative bank " in violation of the prohibition 
of R. L., c. 114, § 1. 

Qucere, whether the way or manner in which such association transacts 
its business might not lead the public to believe that such business 
was that of a savings bank. 

March 28, 1911. 
Hon. Arthur B. Chapin, Bank Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion upon certain 
questions relative to the Attleborough Savings and Loan Asso- 
ciation. 

The Attleborough Savings and Loan Association is unincor- 
porated. Its purpose, as stated in the preamble to its Articles 
of Association, is that " of accumulating a fund for the pur- 
chase of real estate and for building thereon, for removing 
incumbrances therefrom, for making loans, and for the further 
purpose of accumulating a fund to be returned to stockholders." 
Any person holding one or more shares of the stock and having 
signed the Articles of Association is a member of the association. 
Articles of Association, Article 1. The title to the property of 
the association is vested in trustees, Article 4. Investments 
may be made in loans " on first mortgages of real estate, in 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, upon shares of this association, 
and upon such other securities as savings banks are authorized 
to take under the laws of Massachusetts/' also " in real estate in 
the town of Attleborough," Article 8. Members pay monthly 
dues of $2 per share and fines for default of payment, Article 
10. Shares mature when they reach the value of $500, Article 
13. Provision is made for assignment or withdrawal of shares, 
Article 9. You further state that "the money accumulated is 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 29 

not offered to the members according to the premiums or rate 
of interest bid by them for priority, but is invested almost 
precisely as are the funds of a savings bank." 
Your first inquiry is as follows : — 

Is this association, on the evidence submitted, transacting the 
business of accumulating the savings of its members and loaning 
to them such accumulations in the manner of a co-operative bank, 
contrary to the provisions of section 1 of chapter 114 of the Revised 
Laws? 

E. L., c. 114, § 1, provides, in part, that — 

No person, and no association or corporation, except foreign asso- 
ciations and corporations duly licensed by the board of commis- 
sioners of savings banks prior to the fourteenth day of April in 
the year eighteen hundred and ninety-six to transact business in 
this commonwealth, shall transact the business of accumulating 
the savings of its members and loaning to them such accumulations 
in the manner of a co-operative bank, unless incorporated in this 
commonwealth for such purpose. 

I am of opinion that the association in question does not 
transact " the business of accumulating the savings of its mem- 
bers and loaning to them such accumulations in the manner of 
a co-operative bank," contrary to the provisions of the statute 
quoted. 

It would be difficult to distinguish the manner in which the 
association in question transacts the business of accumulating 
the savings of its members from that of a co-operative bank. 
The association, however, does not loan to them such accumu- 
lations in the manner of a co-operative bank. The loaning of 
such accumulations to such of the members as make the best 
offers is characteristic of a co-operative bank. See Atwood v. 
Dumas, 149 Mass. 167, 169; Attorney-General v. Pitcher, 
183 Mass. 513, 516. The loaning of money to its members upon 
their shares is merely incidental in the case of the association 
in question. There are no provisions that such loans shall be 
made to those members who offer the greatest premiums or rates 
of interest, as in the case of a co-operative bank. E. L., c. 114, 

§ 11- 

Your second inquiry is as follows : — 

In this association soliciting or receiving deposits or transacting 
business in the way or manner of a savings bank • contrary to the 
provisions of section 16 of chapter 590 of the Acts of 1908? 



30 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

St. 1908, c. 590, § 16, provides as follows: — 

No corporation, either domestic or foreign, and no person, part- 
nership or association except savings banks and trust companies 
incorporated under the laws of this commonwealth, or such foreign 
banking corporations as were doing business in this commonwealth 
and were subject to examination or supervision of the commis- 
sioner on June first, nineteen hundred and six, shall hereafter make 
use of any sign at the place where its business is transacted having 
thereon any name, or other word or words indicating that such 
place or office is the place or office of a savings bank. Nor shall 
such corporation, person, partnership or association make use of 
or circulate any written or printed or partly written and partly 
printed paper whatever, having thereon any name, or other word 
or words, indicating that such business is the business of a savings 
bank; nor shall any such corporation, person, partnership or asso- 
ciation, or any agent of a foreign corporation not having an estab- 
lished place of business in this commonwealth, solicit or receive 
deposits or transact business in the way or manner of a savings 
bank, or in such a way or manner as to lead the public to believe, 
or as in the opinion of the commissioner might lead the public to 
believe, that its business is that of a savings bank. 

Though it is not absolutely clear that its way or manner of 
transacting business is that of a savings bank, I advise you 
that you may properly be of the opinion that the way or man- 
ner in which it transacts its business might lead the public to 
believe that its business is that of a savings bank. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Public Highways — Use — Erection of 
Structures over Public Ways — Eminent Domain — Public 
Purpose. 

A proposed bill which provides that upon petition and after public 
notice and a public hearing the board of street commissioners of the 
city of Boston may, with the approval of the mayor, issue a permit 
to certain individuals named therein " to construct and maintain a 
bridge across Avon Street in said city for the purpose of connecting 
buildings owned by them on opposite sides of said street or for the 
purpose of a fire escape, on such conditions and subject to such 
restrictions as said board may prescribe," purports to confer upon 
such individuals an absolute right to be granted by the city of 
Boston, and in so far as the grant of such right would be incon- 
sistent with the rights of other persons, to require the exercise of 
the power of eminent domain without provision for compensation. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 31 

A proposed bill which authorizes the city of Boston through its mayor, 
if it shall sell the whole or a part of its real estate on Mason Street 
in said city, " to grant to the purchaser of said estate, and his 
successors in title, the right to connect the real estate so sold with 
property on Tremont Street opposite said real estate by means of a 
covered passageway or bridge over Mason Street," and provides for 
the compensation of any person whose property may be injured by 
the erection of the structure so authorized, appears to contemplate 
the exercise of the power of eminent domain, not for a public pur- 
pose but for the benefit of certain individuals who may purchase 
the real estate described therein. 

Both bills are therefore objectionable upon constitutional grounds. 

March 31, 1911. 
D. T. Montague, Esq., House Chairman, Committee on Cities. 

Dear Sir : — You have submitted to me on behalf of the 
joint standing committee on cities certain bills now pending 
before that committee, and have stated that my opinion is de- 
sired upon the following specific question: "With reference to 
House bills numbered 817 and 451, would either or both of 
these bills, if passed, be in your opinion constitutional ; or, to put 
it in another way, is there any constitutional objection to the 
passage of these bills ? " 

House Bill No. 817 is entitled "An Act to authorize the 
Construction of a Bridge over Avon Street in the City of Bos- 
ton," and provides in section 1 that — 

Upon petition and after seven days' public notice published in at 
least three newspapers published in the city of Boston, and a public 
hearing thereon, the board of street commissioners of the city of 
Boston may, with the approval of the mayor, issue a permit to Eben 
D. Jordan and Edward J. Mitten to build and maintain a bridge 
across Avon street in said city for the purpose of connecting build- 
ings owned by them on opposite sides of said street, or for the 
purpose of a fire escape, on such conditions and subject to such 
restrictions as said board may prescribe. 

House Bill No. 451 is entitled " An Act to authorize the 
Bridging of Mason Street in the City of Boston," and provides 
that — 

The city of Boston by its mayor is hereby authorized and empow- 
ered, if it shall sell the whole or part of its real estate on Mason 
street in said city, to grant to the purchaser of said estate and 
his successors in title the right to connect the real estate so sold 
with property on Tremont street opposite said real estate by means 



32 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

of a covered passageway or bridge over Mason street, said covered 
passageway to be not more than twenty feet in width and at the 
bottom of the floor not less than twenty feet above the street level. 

In section 3 provision is made for the compensation of any 
person whose property may be damaged by the erection of the 
structure so authorized. 

I assume that both Avon Street and Mason Street were laid 
out and constructed as public highways, and that although the 
fee of the land remains in the landowner, the public have ac- 
quired in such streets an easement of travel which includes 
" every kind of travel and communication for the movement or 
transportation of persons or property which is reasonable and 
proper in the use of a public street." New England Telephone 
& Telegraph Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., 182 Mass. 397, 399; 
see also Cheney v. Barker, 198 Mass. 356, 362. The easement 
so acquired extends to the use of structures either above or 
below the surface of the way, when such structures " are used 
by the public or a part of the public, or are held and used in 
private ownership for the benefit of the public." New England 
Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Boston Terminal Co., supra; 
Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mass. 586, 588. But these uses and the 
facilities therefor must be "reasonable in reference to their 
effect upon adjacent property, as well as their effect upon other 
kinds of public uses of the street," and " a use of the street 
which would constitute a grave private nuisance to property 
at the side of the street could not have been contemplated by 
the law as being acquired by a taking for a highway or street." 
Lentell v. Boston & Worcester Street By. Co., 202 Mass. 115, 
119. Thus, elevated structures in the street for the use of street 
railways or other instrumentalities of transportation have been 
declared by the Legislature to impose an additional servitude 
upon land taken for street purposes, and provision has been 
made for any injury to property caused by them. St. 1894, 
c. 548, § 8; and see St. 1903, c. 163, § 3. Lentell v. Boston 
& Worcester Street By. Co., supra; Baker v. Boston Elevated 
By. Co., 183 Mass. 178. This would seem to have been the 
theory upon which one of the two bills now before me (House 
Bill No. 817) was drafted, for it contains, in section 3, pro- 
vision for compensation to any person whose property may be 
injured by the construction of the bridge authorized in section 
1. House Bill No. 451, however, contains no such provision, 
and, if the structure authorized by it may be considered to be 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 33 

an instrumentality of public travel, transportation or communi- 
cation, fairly raises the question whether the erection and main- 
tenance of such a structure should be held to be a reasonable 
and proper use of a public street, or is a use which was not 
included in the original easement and imposes a new servitude 
upon the land taken for which compensation must be made. 
This question is not free from difficulty. The court has de- 
clared, in Sears v. Crocker, 184 Mass. 586, at page 588, that — 

Our system, which leaves to the landowner the use of a street 
above or below or on the surface, so far as he can use it without 
interference with the rights of the public, is just and right, but the 
public rights in these lands are plainly paramount and they include, 
as they ought to include, the power to appropriate the streets above 
or below the surface as well as upon it, in any way that is not 
unreasonable, in reference either to the acts of all who have occa- 
sion to travel or to the effect upon the property of abutters. 

Abutters are bound to withdraw from occupation of streets above 
or below the surface whenever the public needs the occupied space 
for travel. The necessary requirements of the public for travel 
were all paid for when the land was taken, whatever they may be, 
and whether the particulars of them were foreseen or not. The 
only limitation upon them is that they shall be of a kind which is 
not unreasonable. 

The question in each case must depend primarily upon public 
necessity and the conditions which exist with reference to the 
particular locality affected. If the public use of the streets at 
or near Avon Street or Mason Street require that there should 
be an elevated structure over either or both of those streets, in 
order that public travel, transportation or communication may 
be maintained between points upon either side of such streets, 
I am inclined to the opinion that the erection of such a structure 
might well be held to impose no additional servitude upon the 
highway beneath. 

But it is essential that the need for such means of communi- 
cation should be a public need, and that it should be open to 
the public. Nothing in either of said bills shows that the 
structures therein authorized are required by any public neces- 
sity or are to be instrumentalities of public travel. On the 
contrary, it seems that they are not designed primarily for the 
use of the public, as such, but to serve the convenience of abut- 
ting owners and to enhance the value of their property. In 



34 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

House Bill No. 817 the permission which, may be granted upon 
compliance with the requirements therein set forth is to two 
individuals, and is " for the purpose of connecting buildings 
owned by them on opposite sides of said street ; " and in House 
Bill No. 451 the right to maintain such structure is granted 
to the purchasers of certain real estate now held by the city of 
Boston, and is made appurtenant thereto. 

Where a public highway is laid out and constructed the ease- 
ment secured by the public is no more than an easement of 
travel. The fee remains in the landowner, who may make any 
use of his property not inconsistent with its use as a highway. 
Commonwealth v. Morrison, 197 Mass. 199, 205; Cheney v. 
Barker, 198 Mass. 356, 362. If the erection and maintenance 
of structures like those contemplated by the two bills aforesaid 
are not inconsistent with the paramount rights of the public 
in the streets over which such structures are to pass, the land- 
owner requires no permission from the Legislature to erect them. 
" The Legislature is the supreme authority in regard to public 
rights in the streets and highways " (Boston Electric Light Co. 
v. Boston Terminal Co., 184 Mass. 566, 570), and it may define 
or limit the extent of the rights which it deems necessary for 
the public, or may even abandon some of them by permitting 
uses of' abutting property which, without such permission, 
would involve an interference with the public use, provided that 
such abandonment does not go far enough to amount to an 
appropriation of public property to private uses. The proposed 
acts seem to be more than a legislative declaration that the use 
of private property in the manner which they describe does 
not interfere with the public easement of travel, — or, in other 
words, a definition or limitation of the public use, — and are, 
in my opinion, objectionable upon constitutional grounds, in 
that they assume to confer upon private persons rights with 
respect to the use of abutting property which are made para- 
mount to the rights of other persons, which, to that extent, 
would be an appropriation of those rights, requiring the exer- 
cise of the power of eminent domain. In House Bill No. 871 
the exercise of this power is clearly contemplated, for it pro- 
vides in section 3 for the compensation of any one whose prop- 
erty may be injured by the erection of the structure authorized. 
House Bill No. 451 contains no such provision, but, since it 
purports to confer an absolute right to be granted by the city 
of Boston, would necessarily require the exercise of such power 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 35 

in so far as the grant of such right would interfere with the 
rights of others. No information has been submitted to me 
respecting the exact limits of the property affected by the pro- 
posed legislation or the nature of the title by which it is held. 
Said property is not even certainly described in the bills them- 
selves. For this reason I am necessarily confined to a discus- 
sion of the general principles which appear to be applicable in 
the premises. These lead me to the opinion that there is con- 
stitutional objection to the passage of either of the bills sub- 
mitted to me. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Appropriation of Money raised by Taxa- 
tion — Public Purpose — Museum of Fine Arts. 

The Constitution of the Commonwealth, in chapter V, section II, im- 
poses upon the Legislature the duty " in all future periods of this 
commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, 
and all seminaries of them," and " to encourage private societies and 
public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of 
. . . arts, sciences, . . . and a natural history of the country," and 
the appropriation of money in the reasonable performance of the 
duty so imposed would be for a public purpose. 

A proposed bill authorizing the city of Boston to appropriate money, not 
exceeding $50,000 in any single year, for the maintenance and 
support of the Museum of Pine x^.rts in said city, subject to certain 
conditions to be performed by the trustees of such museum, as 
therein prescribed, would therefore be constitutional. 

Under existing law, however, the city of Boston has no authority to 
appropriate money for such purpose. 

March 31, 1911. 
D. T. Montague, Esq., House Chairman, Committee on Cities. 

Dear Sir : — You have required my opinion upon the follow- 
ing question : — 

With reference to House Bill No. 1527, is there any constitutional 
objection to the passage of this bill; and, if not, does the city of 
Boston now have, in your opinion, the right, without additional 
legislation, to appropriate money for the purposes named in the 
bill? 

House Bill No. 1527 authorizes and empowers the city of 
Boston to appropriate money, not exceeding $50,000 in any 



36 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

single year, for the maintenance and support of the Museum of 
Fine Arts, subject to the condition that the trustees thereof — 

shall continue to open their buildings and collections for free admis- 
sion to the people of Boston the same number of days in the week 
as they now do, and that said trustees shall annually report to the 
mayor and the school committee of the city of Boston statistics 
showing the financial condition of said museum, its income and 
disbursements, and the nature and kind of instruction given by 
it and the number of its teachers and pupils. 

Money raised by taxation may be expended only for a public 
purpose. Lowell v. Oliver, 8 Allen, 247, 253; Opinion of the 
Justices, 204 Mass. 607, 611. The power of the Legislature 
to authorize an appropriation by the city of Boston for the bene- 
fit of the Museum of Fine Arts must depend upon whether or 
not the purpose for which such institution was established is 
a public purpose. In Kingman v. Brockton, 153 Mass. 255, 
in discussing a statute authorizing the erection of a memorial 
hall at the public expense the court said : — 

That statute . . . may be vindicated on the same ground as stat- 
utes authorizing the raising of money for monuments, statues, gates 
or archways, celebrations, the publication of town histories, parks, 
roads leading to points of fine natural scenery, decorations upon 
public buildings, or other public ornaments or embellishments, de- 
signed merely to promote the general welfare, either by providing 
for fresh air or recreation, or by educating the public taste, or by 
inspiring sentiments of patriotism or of respect for the memory 
of worthy individuals. The reasonable use of public money for 
such purposes has been sanctioned by several different statutes, and 
the constitutional right of the Legislature to pass such statutes rests 
on sound principles. 

This language was cited with approval in the case of Attor- 
ney-General v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476. See Williams v. Parker, 
188 TJ. S. 491; see also Higginson v. Nahant, 11 Allen, 530; 
Hubbard v. Taunton, 140 Mass. 467. 

I have before me no precise and definite information as to 
the purposes for which the Museum of Fine Arts was organized 
and is maintained, but I assume that among the objects of that 
institution is the promotion of the education and culture of 
the public generally in the fine arts, and upon such assumption 
I am of opinion that its maintenance may well be held to be 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 37 

a public purpose within the principles laid down in the deci- 
sions above cited. The Constitution itself imposes upon the 
Legislature the duty, " in all future periods of this common- 
wealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, 
and all seminaries of them," and " to encourage private socie- 
ties and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the 
promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manu- 
factures and a natural history of the country" (C. V., § II.) ; 
and the appropriation of money in the reasonable performance 
of this duty would doubtless be for a public purpose. Attorney- 
General v. Williams, supra, p. 480; Ilanscom v. Lowell, 165 
Mass. 419; and see Commonwealth v. Boston Advertising Co., 
188 Mass. 348, 351. For authority that the citizens of Boston 
may be directly taxed, see Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen, 500. 

You have further required my opinion as to whether or not 
the city of Boston now has the right, without additional legis- 
lation, to appropriate money for the purposes named in House 
Bill Xo. 1529. In my opinion it has not. The only provision 
of law which could now authorize such an expenditure is E. L., 
c. 26, § 28, which is as follows: — 

The city council may, by a yea and nay vote of two-thirds of the 
members of each branch thereof present and voting, appropriate 
money for armories for the use of the state militia, for the celebra- 
tion of holidays, and for other public purposes to an amount not 
exceeding in any one year one-fiftieth of one per cent of its valua- 
tion for such year. 

This section was construed in Hubbard v. Taunton, already 
cited, in which the court, in refusing to restrain the expendi- 
ture of the sum of $200 to pay for twelve public band concerts, 
used the following language : — 

The word " other " implies that the celebration of holidays is a 
public purpose within the meaning of the act, and indicates that 
purposes which are public only in that sense are included within its 
scope, although they look rather more obviously to increasing the 
picturesqueness and interest of life than to the satisfaction of rudi- 
mentary wants, which alone we generally recognize as necessary. 
We know of no simple and merely logical test by which the limit 
can be fixed. It must be determined by practical considerations. 
The question is one of degree. But, in reply to the petitioners' 
argument, we may say that, if the purpose is within the act, we 
do not see whv the citv council mav not create the occasion. Tak- 



38 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

ing into account the history and language of the act, the safeguards 
attached to the exercise of the power, the smallness of the sum 
allowed to be expended, and the fact that it has long been assumed 
to be within the power of cities to give such concerts in the open 
air, we are not prepared to say that a case is presented for an 
injunction. 

In view of the language above quoted I do not think that 
the section above cited should be held to authorize the expendi- 
ture of money for public purposes which are permanent and 
enduring, and which may require a large annual appropriation 
of money raised by taxation. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Public Highways — License — Use for 
Commercial or Advertising Purposes. 

A city may constitutionally be authorized to require, and to issue through 
its board of supervisors, licenses for the use of specified parts of 
public streets therein for the storage and sale of merchandise for 
purposes necessary for the construction or repair of works or build- 
ings and for commercial or advertising purposes in cases where 
the consent of the abutting owner or owners has been obtained. The 
issuance of such licenses, if confined within reasonable limits, con- 
stitutes a definition by public authority of the public use of a 
highway. 

April 4, 1911. 
Paul I. Lombard, Esq., Joint Committee on Cities. 

Dear Sir: — On behalf of the joint committee on cities yon 
have requested my opinion " as to the constitutionality of the 
enclosed bill entitled i An Act relative to the use of streets in 
the city of Springfield.' " More precisely, I assume the ques- 
tion to be whether or not the use of the public streets for the 
purposes and in the manner described in said act is constitu- 
tional. 

Section 1 of said proposed bill provides that — 

The board of supervisors of the city of Springfield may require 
and issue licenses, subject to the provisions hereof, for the use of 
specified parts of public streets in said city, for the storage and sale 
of merchandise, for purposes necessary for the construction or 
repair of works or buildings and for all other purposes requiring 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 39 

the opening of streets, the use thereof for commercial or advertising 
purposes or for purposes causing more than the ordinary interrup- 
tion or impairment of travel thereon. 

Section 2 provides that any person who desires such a license 
shall make written application therefor, stating his name, resi- 
dence and place of business, and describing the location, shape 
and dimensions of the space which he desires to occupy, the 
structures which he proposes to use, and the kinds of mer- 
chandise which he wishes to store or sell. It further provides 
that — 

He shall submit as part of his application the written consent to 
the issuance of said license on the part of the owner or owners of 
the premises in front of which he desires to carry on business and 
of the tenants of the ground floor of such premises, if the license 
requested is for the sale or storage of merchandise. When the priv- 
ilege for which a license is asked is to be exercised in front of the 
premises owned by the city of Springfield, the owner's consent 
herein provided for shall not be required. 

Such a use of the streets does not fall within the limits of 
the public easement of travel {Commonwealth v. Morrison, 
197 Mass. 199, 203; Haberlil v. Boston, 190 Mass. 358), and 
the Legislature could confer no authority in the premises with- 
out the consent of the owner of the fee. Such consent, however, 
appears to be provided for in the bill submitted to me, and if 
the use therein licensed does not amount to such a great and 
permanent obstruction as to constitute a public nuisance or an 
appropriation of public property to private uses, I am of opin- 
ion that the Legislature may authorize the issuance of such 
license by the city government of Springfield. 

Said act may be construed as permitting the supervisors of 
the city of Springfield to define the limits of the public use and 
to determine what uses by a private person may be permitted 
without conflicting therewith. If confined within reasonable 
limits such use would be constitutional. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



40 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Constitutional Lair — Taxation — Exemption — ■ Charitable 
Corporation — Land acquired by Institution incorporated 
for Care of Insane. 

A proposed bill which provides that " no private corporation or associa- 
tion now existing or hereafter incorporated for the care of the 
insane shall acquire land ... to be exempt from taxation without 
the consent of the legal voters of the town or governing board of a 
city where such land is situated," would not be unconstitutional as 
creating an unreasonable exception from the provisions of law for 
exemption applicable to property of charitable corporations gener- 
ally, or because it delegates to cities and towns power to determine 
whether specific land therein which may be acquired by such in- 
stitutions shall be included within the exemption applicable to land 
owned by charitable institutions generally. 

April 12, 1911. 

Arthur S. Davis, Esq., Chairman, House Committee on Bills in the 
Third Beading. 

Dear Sir : — In behalf of the committee on bills in the 
third reading of the House of Representatives, you have re- 
quested my opinion as to whether House Bill No. 1170, if 
enacted, will be constitutional and valid. It provides that — 

No private corporation or association now existing or hereafter 
incorporated for the care of the insane shall acquire land in a city 
or town of the commonwealth to be exempt from taxation without 
the consent of the legal voters of the town or governing board of 
a city where such land is located. 

I am of opinion that the bill, if enacted, will be constitutional 
and valid. My reasons for this view follow. 

The property of institutions for the care of the insane is 
now exempted from taxation so far as it is included within 
the provisions of St. 1909, c. 490, Part I., § 5, cl. 3, which 
exempts from taxation — 

The personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable and sci- 
entific institutions and of temperance societies incorporated within 
this commonwealth, the real estate owned and occupied by them or 
their officers for the purposes for which they are incorporated, and 
real estate purchased by them with the purpose of removal thereto, 
until such removal, but not for more than two years after such 
purchase. Such real or personal property shall not be exempt if 
any of the income or profits of the business of such corporation 
is divided among the stockholders or members, or is used or appro- 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 41 

priated for other than literary, educational, benevolent, charitable, 
scientific or religious purposes, nor shall it be exempt for any year 
in which such corporation wilfully omits to bring in to the assessors 
the list and statement required by section forty-one. 

The effect of the bill in question, if enacted, will be to ex- 
clude from this exemption land thereafter acquired by an in- 
stitution for the care of the insane, unless at the time such 
land is acquired the city or town within which it is situated 
votes that it shall be exempt from taxation. 

The constitutional provision relative to the taxation of land 
requires that taxes shall be reasonable and proportional. Const. 
Mass., Part 2, c. I., § 1, Part IV. It is now too late to argue 
that this provision prohibits exemptions. Bay v. Lawrence, 
167 Mass. 371. " We have . . . constitutional requirements 
for the encouragement of literature and science, the diffusion 
of education among the people, and the promotion of ' general 
benevolence, public and private charity 7 and other kindred 
virtues. (Const. Mass., c. 5, § 2.) As taxation of the people 
may be imposed for these objects, property used for literary, 
educational, benevolent, charitable or scientific purposes may 
well be exempted from taxation. Such exemptions do not pre- 
vent the taxation of the people from being proportional and 
equal/' Opinion of the Justices, 195 Mass. 607, 608-9. 

The questions raised by you are, therefore : — 

1. Whether land held by an institution for the care of the 
insane may be excepted from the provision for exemption ap- 
plicable to property of charitable institutions generally. 

2. "Whether, if such land may be so excepted, the Legislature 
may delegate to the cities and towns in which the land lies 
the power of determining whether specific land thereafter ac- 
quired by an institution for the care of the insane, charitable 
in its nature, shall be included within the exemption applicable 
to land owned by charitable institutions generally. 

The only limitation upon exemptions is that they must be 
reasonable. See Minot v. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113, 124. The 
purpose for which they are made must be proper. See Opinion 
of the Justices, supra. They must not be " such as to render 
the general tax on property throughout the Commonwealth un- 
equal and disproportionate." See Commonwealth v. People s 
Five Cents Savings Bank, 5 Allen, 428, 437. It is, however, 
"peculiarly within the discretion of the Legislature to deter- 



42 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

mine what exemptions should be made in apportioning the 
burdens of taxation among those who can best bear them/' 
Minot v. Winthrop, supra. Even if it was required that all 
persons or institutions similarly situated be treated alike, the 
Legislature could undoubtedly find that there was a reasonable 
ground for distinguishing between land and other property, 
between property already acquired and property to be acquired, 
and between institutions for the care of the insane and other 
charitable institutions. The first question must, therefore, be 
answered in the affirmative. 

The question as to whether the Legislature may delegate to 
the cities and towns in which the land lies the power of deter- 
mining whether specific land thereafter acquired by an institu- 
tion for the care of the insane, charitable in its nature, shall 
be included within the exemption applicable to land owned 
by charitable institutions generally, in turn divides itself into 
two, namely: (a) Whether the State may make such a special 
exemption; and (b) if the State may do so, whether it may 
delegate the power to make such special exemptions to the 
cities and towns in which the property is respectively situated. 
Both must, in my opinion, be answered in the affirmative. 

Since the adoption of the Constitution, and before, the Legis- 
lature has made such exemptions and has limited general ex- 
emptions in particular cases. See for a collection of statutes 
House Document, 1910, No. 1395, appendix B; Phillips Acad- 
emy v. Andover, 175 Mass. 118. These statutes have been con- 
sidered by the court, though their validity seems not to have 
been discussed. See Harvard College v. Kettell, 16 Mass. 204; 
Hardy v. Waltham, 7 Pick. 108; Phillips Academy v. Andover, 
supra; Rice v. Bradford, 180 Mass. 545 ; Evangelical Baptist 
Society v. Boston, 192 Mass. 412. In Northampton v. County 
Commissioners, 145 Mass. 108, the court affirmed the constitu- 
tionality, in certain aspects, of a special statute in regard to 
the taxation of a particular charity. Long acquiescence, there- 
fore, furnishes a strong reason for supporting special exemp- 
tions of particular charitable institutions, in the absence of 
clear objections thereto. There is, however, in my judgment, 
no objection on constitutional grounds to such statutes. As 
already stated, the justification for a special exemption of a 
charitable institution is, that since taxation may be imposed for 
the purposes for which such institution is organized, the prop- 
erty used for such purposes may be exempted from taxation. 
The Legislature may undoubtedly appropriate money raised by 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 43 

taxation for the use of one charitable institution without mak- 
ing an appropriation for the use of others of the same class. 
The same result is accomplished indirectly by specifically ex- 
empting from taxation the property of such institution. The 
propriety of such legislation seems to have been recognized by 
the Supreme Court of the United States. Grand Lodge v. 
New Orleans, 166 U. S. 143, 149; see, however, Baltimore City 
v. Starr Church, 106 Md. 281. 

As the Legislature may make such a special exemption, so 
it may delegate the power to do so. The Legislature may dele- 
gate to cities and towns legislative power over subjects which 
are proper for municipal control. Stone v. Charlestown, 
114 Mass. 214; Opinion of the Justices, 160 Mass. 586, 590; 
Brodbine v. Revere, 182 Mass. 598, 600. It has delegated many 
powers relating to taxation. In Merrick v. Amherst, 12 Allen, 
500, the court sustained as constitutional a statute authorizing 
a town to raise money by taxation for an agricultural college 
to be established therein by the Commonwealth. It would seem 
that the exemption from taxation of the property of an insti- 
tution which was used for a public purpose might equally well 
be delegated. See Caverly- Gould Co. v. Spring-field, 83 Vt. 396, 
403. The language to the contrary in Brewer Brick Co. v. 
Brewer, 62 Me. 62, has been criticised. In Gray on Limita- 
tions of Taxing Power, p. 292, the author says : — ■ 

Inasmuch as the delegation of power to municipalities to impose 
taxes and to fix the rate is so integral a part of the governmental sys- 
tem, it cannot be believed that constitutional requirements of uni- 
formity were intended to prohibit such delegations of power. And 
if this be so, the Maine decision seems unfounded. 



Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Free Transportation of Letter Carriers in 
Uniform on Street Railways — Safety, Health or Proper 
Convenience of the Public. 

A statute requiring street railway companies to carry free on their pas- 
senger cars United States letter carriers in uniform in the city or 
town in which such letter carriers are employed, does not tend to 
promote the safety, health or proper convenience of the public, 
but is an arbitrary enactment in favor of the persons designated, 
letter carriers in uniform, and, as such, is unconstitutional and void. 



44 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

April 22, 1911. 
James W. Kimball, Esq., Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Dear Sir : — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
an order adopted by the Honorable House of Representatives on 
the twenty-fourth day of March, 1911, which is as follows: — 

Ordered, That the Attorney-General be requested to inform the 
House of Representatives whether, in his opinion, a statute requiring 
street railway companies to carry free on their passenger cars United 
States letter carriers in uniform, in the city or town in which they 
are employed, would be constitutional and valid. 

Under date of April 10, 1901, Attorney-General Knowlton 
advised the Honorable Senate that a bill requiring transporta- 
tion of letter carriers at a rate less than that collected from 
ordinary passengers was in his opinion unconstitutional so far as 
it concerned the Boston Elevated Railway Company, on the 
ground that such bill, if enacted, would, impair the obligation 
of the contract contained in the charter of that company. II Op. 
Atty.-Gen. 261. This opinion was undoubtedly correct, and is 
applicable with equal or greater force to a statute such as is 
described in the order above set forth. 

I am, however, of opinion that such a statute would be un- 
constitutional as applied to street railway companies generally. 
The right of the Legislature to regulate fares charged by street 
railway companies is undoubted, but it cannot, " under pretence 
of regulating fares and freights,* 7 require a street railway com- 
pany " to carry persons or property without reward/* See 
Stone v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 116 U*. S. 307, 331. The 
rate fixed must be reasonable. Obviously, a requirement that 
any class of persons (here " United States letter carriers in 
uniform " ) be carried free is not a reasonable or proper exer- 
cise of the distinctively rate-making power. 

If the statute is to be justified at all, it must be justified 
under the police power in its broader sense, i.e., the power to 
legislate "for the safety, health or proper convenience of the 
public.*'* Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 
173 U. S. 684, 698, 699. Legislation for these purposes is not 
necessarily bad because it imposes an incidental pecuniary loss 
upon the carrier. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. North Caro- 
lina Corporation Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 24, 25; Interstate 
Railway Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79, 87. It cannot, of 
course, be assumed that any class of persons can be carried free 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 45 

by a street railway company without some, though perhaps 
slight, pecuniary loss to the company. A requirement of such 
free transportation cannot be sustained under the police power 
unless such requirement is reasonably adapted to promote "the 
safety, health or proper convenience of the public." The free 
transportation of United States letter carriers as a class, even 
though limited to carriers who are in uniform, does not tend 
to promote the public safety, the public health or the public 
convenience. It does not benefit the public generall}', but is 
" an arbitrary enactment in favor of the persons spoken of " 
(i.e., United States letter carriers in uniform). See Lake Shore 
& Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, supra, p. 699. No 
reason appears which justifies the discrimination between United 
States letter carriers in uniform, as a class, and all other per- 
sons. See Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 
supra, pp. 694, 695; Interstate Railway Co. v. Massachusetts, 
supra. 

For these reasons I am of opinion that a statute " requiring 

street railway companies to carry free on their passenger cars 

United States letter carriers in uniform, in the city or town in 

which they are employed," would not be constitutional and valid. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Intoxicating Liquors — License — Licensed Place — Licensed 

Premises. 

In E. L., c. 100, § 13, as amended by St. 1910, e. 476, § 1, providing in 
part that " in cities and towns which vote to authorize the sale of 
intoxicating liquors, the number of places licensed for the sale of 
such liquors shall not exceed one for each one thousand of the popu- 
lation," and that " Nowhere in the commonwealth shall a fourth or 
fifth class license be granted to be exercised upon the same premises 
with a license of any of the first three classes " with certain ex- 
ceptions therein stated, the words " licensed places " must be con- 
strued to mean places where a license is to be exercised, and such 
places are identical with licensed premises, except where two or 
more licenses are granted to the same person to be exercised upon 
the same premises. 

A proposed bill providing that a licensed place " may consist of one or 
more rooms or premises adjoining but having no interior connection 
or means of communication with each other," would directly affect 
the provisions of E. L., c. 100, § 13, as amended by St. 1910, c. 476, 
§ 1, for the reason that under its provisions a license of the fourth 



46 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

or fifth class might be exercised with a license of any of the first 
three classes at a single licensed place, although in a room or rooms 
physically separated from those in which was exercised any lieense 
of the first three classes. 

May 1, 1911. 
Hon. Allen T. Treadway, President of the Senate. 

Dear Sir : — I have to reply to an order of the Honorable 
Senate requesting my opinion upon the following questions of 
law: — 

(1) Whether or not the provisions of section 1 of the bill now 
pending before the Senate, and printed as Senate Bill No. 454, a 
copy of which is transmitted herewith, directly or indirectly nullify 
or repeal the provisions of chapter 476 of the Acts of 1910, being 
an act relative to the granting of licenses for the sale of intoxicating 
liquor? 

(2) Is the definition of " licensed place " in the accompanying bill, 
printed as Senate Bill No. 454, inconsistent with the meaning of the 
" place which may be licensed " under the provisions of chapter 476 
of the Acts of 1910? 

(3) Does the existing law regarding the sale of intoxicating liquors 
permit two separate licensed rooms, if adjoining but having no in- 
terior connection or means of communication with each other, to be 
counted as one " place licensed for the sale of such liquors " within 
the meaning of chapter 476 of the Acts of 1910? 

Section 1 of chapter 476 of Statutes of 1910 amended Re- 
vised Laws, chapter 100, section 13, by inserting at the ninth 
and tenth lines the following provision : — 

Nowhere in the commonwealth shall a fourth or fifth class license 
be granted to be exercised upon the same premises with a license 
of any of the first three classes, except that a licensed innholder, 
who has a license of any of the first three classes may likewise be 
granted a lieense of the fourth or fifth class for the purpose of 
supplying liquor to guests who have resorted to his inn for food or 
lodging. 

Section 13, therefore, now reads as follows : — 

In cities and towns which vote to authorize the granting of licenses 
for the sale of intoxicating liquors, the number of places licensed 
for the sale of such liquors shall not exceed one for each one thousand 
of the population as ascertained by the last preceding national or 
state census, but one such place may be licensed in any town having 
a population of less than one thousand. In Boston, one such place 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 47 

may be licensed for each five hundred of the population, but in no 
event shall the total number of licensed places therein exceed one 
thousand. Nowhere in the commonwealth shall a fourth or fifth 
class license be granted to be exercised upon the same premises with 
a license of any of the first three classes, except that a licensed inn- 
holder, who has a license of any of the first three classes may likewise 
be granted a license of the fourth or fifth class for the purpose of 
supplying liquor to guests who have resorted to his inn for food 
or lodging. No more than one license shall be granted by any one 
vote of the licensing board. Such licenses shall be numbered in 
regular order as granted, and any license granted contrary to, or in 
excess of, the provisions of this section shall be void; but in a 
town voting as aforesaid at its last annual town meeting which has 
less than five thousand permanent residents according to the last 
preceding state or national census but has an increased resident 
population during the summer months, the selectmen may, on or 
before the fifteenth day of May in any year, apply to the chief of 
the bureau of statistics of labor to have an enumeration made of the 
temporary or summer residents of such town. Said chief shall there- 
upon make such enumeration, between the twenty-third and the 
twenty-eighth clay of June next following, under such rules as he 
shall establish. A person who has not been a resident of such town 
for at least three days preceeding the enumeration shall not be 
regarded as a temporary or summer resident thereof. Said chief 
may employ, for such enumeration, such persons as may be neces- 
sary, who shall in all cases be residents of the town if suitable and 
competent persons can be found; otherwise, non-residents may be 
employed. The chief shall report the total number of such temporary 
or summer residents to the selectmen of the town on or before said 
twenty-eighth day of June. The expenses incurred in making such 
special enumeration shall be paid by the commonwealth. The treas- 
urer and receiver general shall thereupon issue his warrant, as pro- 
vided in section thirty-four of chapter twelve, requiring the assessors 
of such town to assess a tax to the amount of the expense incurred 
in making this special enumeration, and such amount shall be col- 
lected and paid over to the treasurer and receiver general in the same 
manner as other state taxes. The selectmen may, in April, receive 
applications for such licenses and investigate and publish the same; 
and may grant one such license for each five hundred of such tem- 
porary resident population, not including the permanent inhabitants 
of such town, as ascertained by said special enumeration, to take 
effect on the first day of July and to expire on the first day of 
October next following. A selectman, member of a licensing board 
or census enumerator who violates any provision of this section 
shall be punished by a fine of five hundred dollars. 



48 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Section 18 of chapter 100 of the Revised Laws contains a 
definition of the five classes of licenses hereinbefore referred to. 

First class. To sell liquors of any kind to be drunk on the 
premises. 

Second class. To sell malt liquors, eider and light wines containing 1 
not more than fifteen per cent of alcohol, to be drunk on the premises. 

Third class. To sell malt liquors and cider, to be drunk on the 
premises. 

Fourth class. To sell liquors of any kind, not to be drunk on the 
premises. 

Fifth class. To sell malt liquors, cider and light wines containing 
not more than fifteen per cent of alcohol, not to be drunk on the 
premises. 

The bill which in the order of the Honorable Senate is stated 
to be now pending before that body provides in section 1 that — 

A license of the fourth or fifth class to sell intoxicating liquors 
may be granted and issued to be exercised with a license of any of 
the first three classes in any place licensed for the sale of intoxicating 
liquors. Within the meaning of this act a licensed place may consist 
of one or more rooms or premises adjoining but having no interior 
connection or means of communication with each other. Each li- 
cense when so issued shall specify the room or rooms or premises 
in such licensed place in which each license is to be exercised and 
no sales of intoxicating liquors shall be made under a fourth or fifth 
class license in any room or rooms specified in a license of any of the 
first three classes, or having, except in licensed inns, any interior 
connection or means of communication with the room or rooms 
where intoxicating liquor is sold under a license of any of the first 
three classes. 

The answers to the specific inquiries above quoted must de- 
pend upon the definition given to the words " places licensed " 
as found in section 13 of chapter 100 of the Revised Laws, 
and " licensed premises " as used in said chapter. The latter 
term clearly signifies the premises described in the application 
for the license, and in the license itself, as those upon which 
such license is to be exercised and enjoyed. See R. L., c. 100, 
§§ 14, 15 and 17. 

Upon careful consideration of these and other provisions con- 
tained in chapter 100 of the Revised Laws, I am of opinion 
that the " licensed places " referred to in section 13 must be 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 49 

construed to mean places where a license is to be exercised; or, 
in other words, the places of business described in the appli- 
cation for the license, in the notice of such application and 
in the license itself, as provided in sections 10, 13 and 14, 
and that in meaning this phrase is identical with " licensed 
premises," except in cases where two or more licenses are 
granted to the same person to be exercised upon the same 
premises, in which case all such licenses, being exercised upon 
the same premises, would be exercised at one licensed place, 
and the number of licensed places with reference to population 
would not be increased thereby. 

Upon this construction of the phrases " licensed premises " 
and " licensed places/' St. 1910, c. 476, § 1, as hereinbefore 
quoted, in providing that fourth and fifth class licenses shall 
not be granted to be exercised upon the same premises with 
a license of the first three classes, except in the case of a li- 
censed innholder, in effect requires that licenses of the fourth 
and fifth classes shall not be exercised at licensed places where 
a license of the first three classes is exercised, with the result 
that the number of licensed places will be increased to the 
extent that fourth and fifth class licenses are granted to li- 
censees who are not innholders and who must, therefore, exercise 
such licenses upon licensed premises not described in any li- 
cense of the first three classes. Senate Bill No. 454, to which 
the first and second inquiries of the Honorable Senate are 
directed, defines a licensed place as " one or more rooms or 
premises adjoining but having no interior connection or means 
of communication with each other," and provides that a license 
of the fourth and fifth classes may be exercised at the same 
licensed place with a license of any of the first three classes, 
or, in substance, that a licensed place may include two or more 
licensed premises described in separate licenses. Such, in my 
opinion, being the effect of the proposed bill, I reply specifically 
to the inquiries of the Honorable Senate as follows : — 

1. I am of opinion that while Senate Bill No. 454 cannot 
be said to directly or indirectly nullify or repeal the provisions 
of chapter 476 of the Acts of 1910, it does directly affect such 
provisions in that, under existing laws, as above construed, a 
fourth or fifth class license may not be exercised in the same 
licensed place or upon the same premises with a license of the 
first three classes, whereas, under the proposed bill a license of 
the fourth or fifth class may be exercised with a license of any 



50 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

of the first three classes at a single licensed place although not 
upon the same licensed premises, with the result that the number 
of licensed places will be substantially the same as they were 
before the enactment of St. 1910, c. 476, although licenses of 
the fourth and fifth classes must still be exercised in a room 
or rooms physically separated from the room or rooms in which 
was exercised any license of the first three classes. 

2. I am of opinion that the definition of " licensed places " 
in Senate Bill No. 451 is inconsistent with the definition of 
the " place which may be licensed " as referred to in R. L., 
c. 100, § 13, as amended by St. 1910, c. 476, for the reason 
that under existing laws a place which may be licensed or a 
licensed place is substantially identical with the phrase " li- 
censed premises," where only one license is exercised upon such 
premises. 

3. This inquiry in terms purports to require my opinion upon 
the question whether or not existing law regarding the sale 
of intoxicating liquor permits two separate licensed rooms to 
be counted as one place licensed for the sale of liquor, within 
the meaning of R. L., c. 100, § 13, as amended by St. 1910, 
c. 476, § 1. Replying, therefore, to the inquiry as phrased, 
I am of opinion that under the conditions described therein the 
rooms might be considered as a single place " licensed for the 
sale of such liquors," within the meaning of the section cited, 
if they were both described as the " licensed premises " in an 
application for a single license of any one of the five classes, 
and were used in the exercise of such license, or if they were 
both described in two or more applications for licenses of dif- 
ferent classes which may be legally exercised by the same li- 
censee, as, for instance, an innkeeper. Upon the other hand, 
such rooms could not be counted as one such licensed place if 
each were described in a separate application for a license of 
any one of the five classes, or if one were described in an appli- 
cation for a license for one of the first three classes and the 
other were described in an application for a license of the fourth 
or fifth class. I assume, however, that the Honorable Senate 
in fact desires to be advised whether or not, if a license of any 
one of the first three classes be exercised in one of the rooms 
described in the inquiry, and a license of the fourth or fifth 
class be exercised in the other room so described, the two rooms 
together may be counted as one licensed place; and upon this 
assumption I am constrained to answer in the negative. Each 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 51 

room, being described as the licensed premises in a separate 
license, is, in my opinion, a place licensed for the sale of such 
liquors within the meaning of E. L., c. 100, § 13, as amended 
by St. 1910, c. 476, § 1. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General 



Constitutional Laic — Bates — Street anal Elevated Railway 
Corporations — Boston Elevated Railway Company — Im- 
pairment of Obligation of Contract — Discrimination — 
Equal Protection of Law. 

A proposed bill, providing that " on all street and elevated railways 
in this commonwealth the fares which are now five cents shall be 
reduced to three cents between the hours of six and eight in the 
morning and five and seven in the evening," would, in the case of 
the Boston Elevated Railway Company, be unconstitutional and 
void because it would impair the obligation of the contract estab- 
lished by the charter of that corporation (St. 1907, c. 500, § 10) 
authorizing such corporation to establish and take a toll or fare not 
exceeding five cents, which sum should not be reduced by the Legis- 
lature during a period of twenty-five years after the passage of 
such statute. Such proposed bill would not be unconstitutional as 
to other street or elevated railway corporations as constituting so 
unjust a discrimination in favor of the Boston Elevated Railway 
Company and against such other companies as to deny the latter 
the equal protection of the laws. 

May 3, 1911. 

Hon. Frank P. Bennett, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Street 

Railways. 
Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion as to whether 

House Bill No. 1370, if enacted, would be constitutional. This 

bill is in the following terms : — 

Section 1. On all street and elevated railways in this common- 
wealth the fares which are now five cents shall be reduced to three 
cents between the hours of six and eight in the morning and five 
and seven in the evening. 

Section 2. Violation of this act shall be punished by fine or im- 
prisonment at the discretion of the court. 

That the Legislature has the power to regulate the rates of 
fare on street and elevated railways within the Commonwealth 
cannot be doubted. Dow v. Beidelman, 125 U. S. 680; Smyth 
v. Ames, 169 IT. S. ±6Q: Minneapolis d- St. Louis R.R. Co. v. 



52 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Minnesota, 186 IT. S. 257; Interstate Railway Co. v. Massachu- 
setts, 207 TJ. S. 79; S. C, sub nomen Commonwealth v. Inter- 
state Consolidated Railway Co., 187 Mass. 436. This power, 
however, does not extend to the regulation of foreign or inter- 
state commerce. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific R.R. Co. v. 
Illinois, 118 TJ. S. 557. It must not be so exercised as to im- 
pair the obligation of any contract contained in the charter 
of a street or elevated railway company (Georgia Railroad & 
Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 179; Stone v. Farmers' 
Loan & Trust Co., 116 U. S. 307, 325), or to deny to the com- 
pany the equal protection of the laws, or to deprive it of prop- 
erty without just compensation and without due process of law. 
See cases supra. 

A rate-regulating statute which exceeds the power of the 
Legislature in any of these respects is, of course, unconstitu- 
tional. "Whether such a statute is beyond the legislative power 
depends upon the facts in each specific case. A rate-regulating 
statute may be constitutional as to one street or elevated rail- 
way company and unconstitutional as to another. It may be 
constitutional at one time as to a street or elevated railway 
company and at another time be unconstitutional as to the same 
company. Smyth v. Ames, 171 U. S. 361, 365. I cannot, 
therefore, give you an opinion of universal application, nor 
have I the facts before me upon which to give you an opinion 
as to specific cases except as to the Boston Elevated Railway 
Company. 

In the case of the Boston Elevated Railway Company the bill, 
if enacted, would be unconstitutional because impairing the 
obligation of the contract contained in the charter of that cor- 
poration. St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, authorizes that corporation 
to " establish, and take a toll or fare, which shall not exceed 
the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage in the same 
general direction on the roads owned, leased or operated by it/' 
and provides that " this sum shall not be reduced by the legis- 
lature during the period of twenty-five years, from and after 
the passage of this act," with a proviso that the Board of Rail- 
road Commissioners may, upon petition, after notice and hear- 
ing, reduce such toll or fare, but that such toll or fare shall 
not, without the consent of the corporation, be so reduced as to 
yield less than a certain fixed income. This provision, as I 
have already advised you in an opinion in regard to the con- 
stitutionality of House Bill No. 1164, undoubtedly creates a 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 53 

contract between the Commonwealth and the Boston Elevated 
Railway Company. II Op. Atty.-Gen. 261, 426, 429 ; Opinion 
of the Attorney- General to the House of Representatives, April 
22, 1911. The right to charge a toll or fare of five cents, which 
shall not be reduced except in a prescribed manner, is of the 
essence of the contract. A change in this particular is clearly 
an impairment of the contractual rights of the company under 
its charter. Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 
368, 398; Minneapolis v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 215 U. S. 
417, 434; see, also, Interstate Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, supra, 
p. 86. 

Since the bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional as to the 
Boston Elevated Railway Company, it may be urged that it 
would therefore be unconstitutional as to all other street and 
elevated railway companies, for the reason that it denies to 
them the equal protection of the laws in that it requires them 
to carry passengers at a lower rate than that fixed for passengers 
upon the lines of that corporation. In the absence of the facts 
of each specific case, however, I cannot say that there is not a 
reasonable ground for distinction between that corporation and 
all other street and elevated railway companies. See Interstate 
Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, supra, p. 85 ; Covington & Lexington 
Turnpike Co. v. Sanford, 164 U. S. 578, 597, 598. But even 
if the facts of each case do not justify the distinction between 
the Boston Elevated Railway Company and other companies, 
the fact that the former cannot be subjected to the act in ques- 
tion without violating its contractual rights, which are pro- 
tected by the Constitution, is probably in itself sufficient to 
justify the discrimination. As was said by Mr. Justice Holmes 
in Interstate Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, supm, p. 85: — 

If the only ground were that the charter of the Elevated Railway 
contained a contract against the imposition of such a requirement, 
it would be attributing to the Fourteenth Amendment an excessively 
nice operation to say that the immunity of a single corporation pre- 
vented the passage of an otherwise desirable and wholesome law. 

It may be, though I do not think so, that the bill, if enacted 
in its present form, would not be held to be separable, and that 
since unconstitutional as to the Boston Elevated Railway Com- 
pany it would be unconstitutional as to all street and elevated 
railway companies. I cannot, however, conceive of any way in 
which this question can be raised, since companies other than 



54 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

the Boston Elevated Railway Company could object to the stat- 
ute only on the ground that it was unconstitutional as to them. 
See Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 160; Interstate By. Co. 
v. Massachusetts, supra. I am therefore of opinion that the 
bill, if enacted, would not be unconstitutional as to companies 
other than the Boston Elevated Railway Company on the ground 
that it discriminated against them. 

As to whether it would be unconstitutional as to such other 
companies on other grounds, it is, as I have said, impossible to 
determine upon the facts before me. Whether in any case it 
would be unconstitutional as interfering with foreign or inter- 
state commerce, or as impairing the obligation of a contract, 
could readily be determined. Whether in any case it deprives 
a corporation of its property without just compensation and 
without due process of law involves a detailed knowledge as to 
the financial condition of the corporation and the amount of 
business done by it. 

I advise you, therefore, that in my opinion the bill, if enacted, 
would be unconstitutional as to the Boston Elevated Railway 
Company, and that it would not be unconstitutional as to other 
street and elevated railway companies on the ground that it 
discriminated between them and the Boston Elevated Railway 
Company, but that no further advice can be given as to its 
constitutionality as to such other companies upon the facts 
before me. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Contract — Boston Elevated Railway 
Company — Free Transfers. 

St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, which provides that the Boston Elevated Railway 
Company may " establish, and take a toll or fare, which shall not 
exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage in the 
same general direction upon the roads owned, leased or operated 
by it," which " sum shall not be reduced by the legislature during 
the period of twenty-five years, from and after the passage of this 
act," with the further provision that the Board of Railroad Com- 
missioners may, upon petition and after notice and a hearing, re- 
duce such toll or fare, but that such toll or fare shall not, without 
the consent of the corporation, be so reduced as to yield less than a 
certain fixed income, and which further provides that " said cor- 
poration shall also provide free transfer from elevated to surface 
and from surface to elevated cars at all stations of the elevated 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 55 

lines reached by surface lines and from one elevated ear or train to 
another at junction points entitling a passenger to a continuous ride 
in the same general direction," and such further free transfers on 
all the surface lines as may be required by the Board of Eailroad 
Commissioners, created a contract between the Commonwealth and 
the Boston Elevated Eailroad Company; and a proposed amendment 
to the section above quoted, providing in part that such corporation 
" may establish for its sole benefit a toll or fare which shall not 
exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage between 
the terminals and transfer points of said roads, and transfer checks 
shall be issued or transfers made on demand without additional 
payment, which shall entitle the passenger to a continuous ride from 
any station or transfer point to any other station or transfer point 
on the system," such transfers to be issued from and between mid- 
night and six o'clock in the morning, on cars leaving certain specified 
stations, so as to render to passengers the same amount of service 
during the hours from midnight to 6 o'clock in the morning for the 
same fare as they receive during the other hours of the day, is un- 
constitutional and void, for the reason that it changes the require- 
ments as to transfers established by such contract. 

May 3, 1911. 

Hon. Frank P. Bennett, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Street 

Railways. 

Dear Sir: — You have requested my opinion as to whether 
House Bill No. 1164, if enacted, would be constitutional. This 
bill is entitled " An Act relative to free transfers on the cars of 
the Boston Elevated Eailroad Company," and amends St. 1894, 
c. 548, by substituting for section 16 thereof a new section. As 
St. 1894, c. 548, § 16, is not now in force, having been repealed 
by St. 1897, c. 500, § 22, it is obvious that the bill is not in 
proper form. I assume, however, that the intention is to amend 
St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, which is the section now in force dealing 
with the same subject-matter, and I answer your question upon 
that assumption. 

From the title of the bill and from the petition which accom- 
panies it, I infer that the purpose of the bill is to change the 
requirement as to transfers, and I therefore consider primarily 
its constitutionality in this aspect. 

St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, authorizes the Boston Elevated Bail- 
way Company to " establish and take a toll or fare which shall 
not exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage 
in the same general direction on the roads owned, leased or 
operated by it," which " sum shall not be reduced by the legis- 
lature during the period of twenty-five years, from and after 



56 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

the passage of this act," with a provision, however, that the 
Board of Railroad Commissioners may, upon petition, after 
notice and hearing, reduce such toll or fare, but that such toll 
or fare shall not, without the consent of the corporation, be 
so reduced as to yield less than a certain fixed income. The 
section further provides that — 

Said corporation shall also provide free transfer from elevated 
to surface and from surface to elevated ears at all stations of the 
elevated lines reached by surface lines and from one elevated car or 
train to another at junction points entitling a passenger to a con- 
tinuous ride in the same general direction, and such further free 
transfers on all the surface lines of railway owned, leased or oper- 
ated by it, as may be satisfactory to or required by the board of rail- 
road commissioners. 

The proposed act provides, in part, as follows : — 

Said corporation may establish for its sole benefit a toll or fare 
which shall not exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous 
passage between the terminals and transfer points of said routes. 
And transfer checks shall be issued or transfers made on demand, 
without additional payment, which shall entitle the passenger to a 
continuous ride from any station or transfer point to any other 
station or transfer point on the system and said transfers shall be 
issued from and between the hours of twelve midnight and six in the 
morning on cars leaving and arriving at Adams square, Hanover 
street, Scollay square and Northampton street, Boston, and Harvard 
square, Cambridge, and Uphams Corner, Dorchester, so as to render 
passengers the same amount of service during the hours of twelve 
midnight and six in the morning for the same fare as they receive 
during the other hours of the day. 

The provisions of St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, undoubtedly created 
a contract between the Commonwealth and the Boston Elevated 
Railway Company (II Op. Atty.-Gen. 261, 426, 429; Opinion 
of the Attorney-General to the House of Representatives, April 
22, 1911), and this contract is still in force. The right to 
charge a toll or fare of a fixed amount which shall not be 
reduced except in a prescribed manner is of the essence of the 
contract. So is the limitation as to the transfers which may 
be required. A change in the rate other than in the prescribed 
manner, or, what is equivalent thereto, a change in the require- 
ments as to transfers, is an impairment of the contractual 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 57 

rights of the company. See Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. 
Co., 184 U. S. 368, 398; Minneapolis v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 
215 U. S. 417, 434; see also, Interstate Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, 
207 U. S. 79, 86. 

The proposed act clearly changes the requirements as to trans- 
fers. It substitutes for a requirement that the corporation shall 
provide " such further free transfers on all the surface lines 
of railway owned, leased or operated by it, as may be satis- 
factory to or required by the board of railroad commissioners," 
certain absolute requirements. It is immaterial that the rail- 
road commissioners might make even more stringent require- 
ments than are made by the proposed act. The corporation is 
entitled to have the requirements made in the manner fixed 
by its contract. To this extent at least, the bill, if enacted, 
would be unconstitutional. I do not imply that there are not 
other aspects in which it would be unconstitutional. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Governor — Statement or Estimate of Proposed Expenditures 
— Investigation of Officers, Departments or Institutions of 
the Commonwealth — Employment of Agents or Experts. 

The authority of the Governor under St. 1910, c. 220, § 1, in substance 
requiring that certain statements and estimates should be submitted 
to the Governor and Council, and that the Governor should transmit 
the same to the General Court with such recommendations, if any, 
as he might deem proper, was not extended by the provisions of 
St. 1911, c. 82, authorizing him " to employ such persons as he may 
deem proper to make such investigation of any of the commissions, 
departments or institutions of the commonwealth as he believes is 
necessary to enable him to carry out the provisions of chapter two 
hundred and twenty of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and 
ten," and his power to investigate, by means of agents, investiga- 
tors or experts employed under the provisions of the chapter last 
cited, any officer, department or institution, must be predicated upon 
the existence of a statement of proposed expenditures and of other 
matters required by St. 1910, c. 220, which is to be transmitted to 
the Legislature. 

It follows, therefore, that after the Governor has transmitted to the 
Legislature the statements or estimates of expenditure in relation 
to any particular officer, department or institution there is no longer 
authority or occasion for any such investigation. 



58 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

May 11, 1911. 
Hon. Elmer A. Stevens, Treasurer and Receiver-General. 

Dear Sir : — You submit for my consideration a communica- 
tion dated May 8, 1911, in which you say, in part, that — 

Under authority of His Excellency the Governor, given by chapter 
82 of the Acts of the year 1911, on or about the middle of March 
last, Mr. Harvey S. Chase began an investigation of the department 
of the Treasurer and Receiver-General. He was granted free access 
to every book and record in the department and there was shown 
and explained to him everything he desired. 

On March 28 he rendered a report to the Governor, the Executive 
Council and the joint committee on ways and means. This report 
was sent to the Legislature by the Governor and referred to the joint 
committee on ways and means. 

and, further, that Mr. Chase — 

has demanded of me the privilege of further investigating this de- 
partment and thus covering the same ground of his previous investi- 
gation. 

I desire, therefore, to be advised of the extent of the authority 
for investigating this department given by chapter 82 of the acts 
of the General Court of this year. 

You further state that Mr. Chase was appointed by the Gov- 
ernor to conduct an investigation, on March 17, 1911, by a 
written authority, in part as follows : — 

Acknowledging your favor of to-day, you are hereby authorized 
to conduct an investigation in regard to the offices of the Treasurer, 
... in accordance with the provisions of the legislative act approved 
March 2, 1911, a copy of which is hereto attached. 

Said chapter 82 of the Acts of 1911 did not extend the gen- 
eral power of the Governor with respect to investigations, as 
denned and described in an opinion rendered ta the Governor 
by the Attorney-General, dated April 26, 1909. The statute 
was passed solely for the purpose set forth therein, namely, to 
enable the Governor " to carry out the provisions of chapter 
two hundred and twenty of the acts of the year nineteen hun- 
dred and ten," which is the so-called " Walker act." 

The effect of this latter statute was determined by the Su- 
preme Court in an opinion of the justices to the Senate, dated 
April 7, 1911, which is, in part, as follows: — 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 59 

The St. of 1910, c. 220, has made but a very small change in the 
law of the Commonwealth. . . . 

The only new provision in this particular is the requirement that 
it [estimates and statements] shall be submitted " to the governor 
and council for examination, and the governor shall transmit the 
same to the general court with such recommendations, if any, as 
he may deem proper." . . . Under this statute, after the document 
has been printed it is to be formally submitted to the Governor and 
Council for examination, as well as distributed to the members of 
the General Court; w 7 hile under the former statute the governor was 
left to obtain a copy as he might. Under the present statute he is 
to transmit it to the General Court, so that they may know that he 
has had an opportunity to examine it, and he may make recommenda- 
tions or not, as he chooses. . . . The only material effect of this 
statute is to give a legislative invitation to the Governor to examine 
the documents prepared by the Auditor, and to make recommenda- 
tions upon the subjects contained in them if he chooses, and also to 
give him an implied assurance that his recommendations as to the 
amount of the appropriations will receive respectful consideration. 

The duty and power of the Governor in the premises, there- 
fore, being confined to the transmission of the statements of 
estimates for appropriations submitted to the Auditor by the 
various State officers, boards and commissions, and transmitted 
by the Auditor to the Governor, to be accompanied by a recom- 
mendation or not, as he sees fit, it follows that his power to 
investigate any officer, department or institution must be predi- 
cated upon the existence of a statement of proposed expendi- 
tures and of other matters required by St. 1910, c. 220, which 
may be transmitted by him to the Legislature. The employ- 
ment of agents, investigators and " experts " is only such as 
the Governor believes is necessary to enable him to carry out 
the provisions of said St. 1910, c. 220. If there are no such 
estimates for the current year before him for transmission, and 
upon which before transmission he seeks further information, 
it follows that there is no authority or occasion for any investi- 
gation under said St. 1910, c. 220, or St. 1911, c. 82. 

With reference to this you state that — 

The regular appropriations for salaries and expenses of this de- 
partment were approved by the Governor on February 11, being 
chapter 26 of the acts of this year, and on February 17 His Excel- 
lency sent a special message to the House of Representatives recom- 
mending the enactment of a bill authorizing the payment of the sum 
of $343,691, the sinking fund requirements for the payment of the 



60 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

direct debt of the Commonwealth for the year 1911, and $167,833.33 
for the payment of certain serial bonds falling due during said year. 
This bill was passed and approved by His Excellency on March 17, 
being chapter 157 of the acts of this year. 

It appears, therefore, that when Mr. Chase was first appointed 
by the Governor the statement or estimate of expenses from the 
department of the Treasurer, which had been before the Gov- 
ernor under the requirements of said St. 1910, c. 220, had 
already been transmitted to the Legislature by the Governor, 
and the appropriation had been made and approved by the 
Governor. Further, it appears that the statement with refer- 
ence to the sinking funds had also been transmitted to the 
Legislature and had been enacted into law, with . the approval 
of the Governor. So far, then, as relates to the department 
of the Treasurer itself, or to the sinking fund requirements, the 
Governor did not have before him any statement or estimate 
under the provisions of said St. 1910, c. 220. There was, there- 
fore, no ground for an investigation by the Governor, or his 
agent, " to enable him to carry out the provisions of chapter 
two hundred and twenty of the acts of the year nineteen hun- 
dred and ten," as specified in St. 1911, c. 82. I am of opinion, 
therefore, that so far as relates to the operation, maintenance 
and management of the department of the Treasurer and 
Receiver-General Mr. Chase was without authority from the 
beginning, and that the investigation that has been made was 
made by the consent and with the acquiescence of the Treasurer. 

I am of opinion, therefore, that as Mr. Chase has no authority 
to conduct an investigation into the management or methods 
or details of the department of the Treasurer and Receiver- 
General, you are within your rights in refusing him permission 
so to do. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Public Park — Change of Use — Bacfc 
Bay Fens — Proprietary Rights. 

It is within the power of the Legislature to authorize the park commis- 
sioners of the city of Boston to permit the erection of a public 
schoolhouse upon land known as the Back Bay Fens, acquired in 
fee by the city of Boston under authority of St. 1875, c. 185, 
which provided in section 3 that such commissioners should " have 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 61 

the power to locate within the limits of the city of Boston one 
or more public parks, and for that purpose from time to time 
to take in fee, by purchase or otherwise, any and all such lands as 
said board may deem desirable therefor, ..." since the proposed 
use of the land in question is undoubtedly for a public use and no 
proprietary rights will be affected thereby. 

Mat 11, 1911. 
Hon. Allen T. Treadway, President of the Senate. 

Deae Sie : — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of 
an order of the Honorable Senate requiring my opinion upon 
the following question of law : " Are the provisions of section 
1 of the bill printed as Senate, No. 441, now pending in the 
Senate, a copy of which is transmitted herewith, constitu- 
tional?" 

The section to which the order refers is as follows : — 

Section 1. The park commissioners of the city of Boston are 
hereby authorized, upon the request of the schoolhouse commis- 
sioners of the said city, with the approval of the school committee 
of said city, to permit the erection of a building for the high school 
of commerce within the limits of the Back Bay Fens in said city of 
Boston. 

The Back Bay Fens, so called, were acquired in 1877 by the 
park commissioners of the city of Boston, under authority of 
St. 1875, c. 185. This statute provided in section 3 that said 
commissioners should " have power to locate within the limits 
of the city of Boston one or more public parks; and for that 
purpose, from time to time, to take in fee, by purchase or other- 
wise, any and all such lands as said board may deem desirable 
therefor ; . . ." By section 6 it was provided that — 

The fee of all lands taken or purchased by said board under this 
act shall vest in the city of Boston, and said city shall be liable to 
pay all damages assessed or determined, as provided in the preceding 
section, and all other costs and expenses incurred by said board in 
the execution of the powers vested in them by this act. Said city 
shall also be authorized to take and hold in trust or otherwise any 
devise, grant, gift or bequest that may be made for the purpose of 
laying out, improving or ornamenting any parks in said city. 

Section 17 contained a provision making the act effective upon 
acceptance by a majority of the legal voters of the city of Bos- 
ton present and voting; and the act was accepted in accordance 



62 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

with such provision on June 9, 1875. I am informed by the 
corporation counsel of the city of Boston that the park commis- 
sioners acquired title by purchase and without condition, and 
that in order to perfect the title of the city said lands were 
subsequently taken in fee under authority of the provision of 
St. 1875, c. 185, § 3, above quoted. 

From this statement of the situation it appears that the Back 
Bay Fens are held for park purposes and that the fee therein 
is in the city of Boston. The question is whether it is within 
the power of the Legislature to authorize the park commis- 
sioners of said city to permit the erection of a public school- 
house upon this land now held for park purposes. 

This question must, in my opinion, be answered in the 
affirmative. The proposed use of the land in question is un- 
doubtedly for public purposes. The legal title to the land, 
though acquired at the expense of the city, is held by it in trust 
for the public. Holt v. City Council of Somerville, 127 Mass. 
408. The Legislature represents the interests of the public 
and controls the use which is made of the park. No action on 
the part of tax-paying citizens or voters or of the city council is 
required. Codman v. Crocker, 203 Mass. 147, 152, 153. The 
power of the Legislature in this respect is extensive. In Com- 
monwealth v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 511, the court pointed out 
that " when no proprietary right interferes, the Legislature 
may end the right of the public to enter upon the public place 
by putting an end to the dedication to public uses. So it may 
take the lesser step of limiting the public use to certain pur- 
poses." On this principle it may, it seems, subject to this 
limitation, change the public use. Cf. Mt. Hope Cemetery v. 
Boston, 158 Mass. 509, 511. This principle is, therefore, broad 
enough to justify the proposed act if such act does not affect 
proprietary rights. Upon the facts before me it does not appear 
that there are any proprietary rights which will be affected by 
the erection of a schoolhouse in the park. Upon that assump- 
tion, the provisions of section 1 of the bill are, therefore, con- 
stitutional. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



1912.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 63 



Constitutional Law — Taxation — National Banks — Tax on 

Deposits. 

A proposed bill, in substance imposing upon all or certain of the deposits 
in national banks within the Commonwealth an annual tax of not 
more than one-half of one per cent., if enacted, would be unconstitu- 
tional as a tax upon the property of the depositors or upon the 
property of the bank because it is not proportional within require- 
ment of the Constitution of Massachusetts, Part IT., c. 1, § 1, Art. 
IV., that taxes levied upon property must be " proportional and 
reasonable." 

Such a bill would also be unconstitutional as a tax upon the property 
of the bank because it is in conflict with Eevised Statutes of the 
United States, § 5219, which restricts the power of a State to tax 
national banks to a taxation of the shares of stock in the names of 
the shareholders and to an assessment of the real estate of the bank. 

As an excise upon the privileges of the depositors, such bill would be 
unconstitutional because the mere right to take and hold property 
cannot be made the subject of an excise tax; and as an excise upon 
any privileges of the bank, it would be unconstitutional because it 
would be in conflict with the provisions of Eevised Statutes of the 
United States, $ 5219, above cited. 

May 13, 1911. 

Norman H. White, Esq., Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means. 

Dear Sir : — In behalf of the committee on ways and means 
of the House of Representatives you have requested my opinion 
as to whether or not House Bill No. 1827 is constitutional, 
"and whether the State can legislate on a matter of this kind 
.pertaining to national banks." 

House Bill No. 1827 is as follows: — 

Section 1. The provisions of chapter three hundred and forty- 
two of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and nine shall apply 
to national banks having a place of business in the commonwealth 
of Massachusetts, and said provisions shall only apply to such of 
the deposits therein referred to as do not exceed in amount the 
limits imposed upon deposits in savings banks by section forty-six 
of chapter five hundred and ninety of the acts of the year nineteen 
hundred and eight and acts in amendment thereof and addition 
thereto. 

Section 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 

St. 1909, c. 342, referred to in this bill, imposes upon 
" every trust company having a savings department, ... an 
annual tax on the amount of its deposits therein," substantially 
such as is imposed upon savings banks (St. 1909, c. 490, Part 



64 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

III., §§ 21-23), — that is, "an annual tax of one half of one 
per cent on the amount of its deposits," — except that for the 
years 1910, 1911 and 1912 a smaller rate is fixed; and section 
4 exempts from local taxation deposits taxed nnder the provi- 
sions of that act. St. 1908, c. 590, § 46, as amended, referred 
to in the bill, permits savings banks to " receive on deposit 
from any person not more than one thousand dollars/' and to 
allow interest thereon, " and upon the interest accumulated 
thereon, until the principal, with the accrued interest, amounts 
to two thousand dollars." See St. 1909, c. 491, § 7. The effect 
of the bill, if enacted and valid, would be to impose upon all 
or certain of the deposits in the national bank an annual tax of 
not more than one-half of one per cent. It is not necessary 
for me to consider the construction of the act, since upon any 
construction it is, in my opinion, invalid upon fundamental 
grounds. 

The Constitution of this Commonwealth contains two provi- 
sions authorizing taxation, which are to be found in Part II., 
c. I., § I., Art. IV. The General Court is authorized to " im- 
pose and levy proportional and reasonable assessments, rates 
and taxes, upon all the inhabitants of, and persons resident, 
and estates lying, within the said commonwealth; and also to 
impose and levy reasonable duties and excises upon any produce, 
goods, wares, merchandise, and commodities whatsoever, brought 
into, produced, manufactured, or being within the same; . . ." 
In substance, the first provision authorizes proportional and 
reasonable taxes upon property; the second, reasonable excises 
upon privileges. 

Section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 
" is the measure of the power of a State to tax national banks, 
their property or their franchises. By its unambiguous provi- 
sions the power is confined to a taxation of the shares of stock 
in the names of the shareholders and to an assessment of the 
real estate of the bank. Any state tax therefore which is in 
excess of and not in conformity to these requirements is void." 
Owensboro National Bank v. Oivensboro, 173 U. S. 664, 669. 
See also Third National Bank of Louisville v. Stone, 174 U. S. 
432, 

The tax sought to be imposed by the bill in question would 
be unconstitutional as a tax upon the property of the depositors 
or upon the property of the bank because not proportional 
(Opinion of the Justices, 195 Mass. 607) ; and as a tax upon 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 65 

the property of the bank would be void because in conflict 
with the federal statute referred to. It would be unconstitu- 
tional as an excise upon the privileges of the depositors, for the 
depositors are merely owners of money on deposit, that is, 
creditors of the bank, and " the mere right to own and hold 
property " such as this " cannot be made the subject of an excise 
tax" (Opinion of the Justices, supra, p. 614): and would be 
void as an excise upon any privilege of the bank, because in 
conflict with the federal statute referred to. The tax cannot 
in any view be considered as a tax on the " shares of stock in 
the names of the shareholders " or " an assessment of the real 
estate of the bank." See Owensboro National Bank v. Owensboro, 
supra. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Citizen — Voters — Formation of Credit Union. 

Under the provision of St. 1909, c. 419, § 3, that " seven or more citizens 
of this commonwealth who have associated themselves by an agree- 
ment in writing for the purpose of forming a credit union, may . . . 
become a corporation . . .," the persons signing such agreement need 
not be voters. 

May 24, 1911. 
Hon. Arthur B. Chapin, Bank Commissioner. 

Dear Sir: — By your letter of May 23 you require my opin- 
ion "as to whether the law (St. 1909, c. 419, § 3) requires all 
of the applicants for a credit union to be citizens in the sense that 
they must be voters." 

The section cited provides that — 

Seven or more citizens of this commonwealth who have associated 
themselves by an agreement in writing for the purpose of forming a 
credit union may, with the consent of the board of bank incorpora- 
tion, become a corporation upon complying with all the provisions 
of section three of chapter one hundred and fourteen of the Revised 
Laws, except those which relate to the limit of capital to be accu- 
mulated. 

Your letter states you have before you an agreement of asso- 
ciation signed " by seven applicants, only five of whom are 
naturalized citizens of this Commonwealth." I assume the two 
remaining applicants are unnaturalized aliens. 



66 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The language of the section above quoted is explicit and re- 
quires that all the parties to the agreement therein provided for 
must be citizens of the Commonwealth. An unnaturalized alien 
is not a citizen of the United States, and therefore cannot be- 
come even by residence a citizen of the Commonwealth. It 
follows that the board of bank incorporation may not consent to 
the formation of a corporation by such applicants. 

Replying to your specific inquin', however, I have to advise 
you that the act does not require that citizens who may associate 
themselves for the purpose of forming a credit association should 
be voters. A citizen is not necessarily a voter. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General 



Mercantile Establishment — Premises of Telegraph Company. 

Premises maintained by a telegraph company do not constitute a mer- 
cantile establishment within the provision of St. 1909, c. 514, § 17, 
that " ' mercantile establishments ' shall mean any premises used for 
the purpose of trade in the purchase or sale of any goods or mer- 
chandise, and any premises used for the purposes of a restaurant 
or for publicly providing and serving meals." 

May 31, 1911. 
Gen. J. H. Whitney, Chief of the Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir: — By a communication dated May 19 you request 
my opinion upon the question whether or not the Postal Tele- 
graph Company and similar corporations are to be considered 
as mercantile establishments, and therefore as coming within 
the provision of St. 1909, c. 514, § 56, 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 four following sections . . . shall be em- 
ployed in any factory, workshop or mercantile establishment." 

The act in which the above provision of law is found is a 
codification of the laws relating to labor, and in section 17 cer- 
tain words and phrases as used in such codification, including 
the phrase " mercantile establishments," are defined. The pro- 
vision is as follows : — 

" Mercantile establishments " shall mean any premises used for 
the purposes of trade in the purchase or sale of any goods or mer- 
chandise, and any premises used for the purposes of a restaurant 
or for publicly providing and serving meals. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 67 

I am of the opinion that the premises maintained by the 
Postal Telegraph Company are not used for the purposes of 
trade in the purchase or sale of any goods or merchandise, or 
for the purposes of a restaurant or for publicly providing and 
serving meals. It follows, therefore, that such premises are 
not to be considered as a mercantile establishment. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Hours of Labor — Vacations — Persons employed at State 
House — Governor — Governor and Council. 

Neither the Governor nor the Governor and Council have any power to 
determine the hours of labor or the length of vacations for persons 
employed at the State House. 

June 1, 1911. 

His Excellency Eugene X. Foss, Governor. 

Sir : — You have requested my opinion as to " what power, 
if any, the Governor or the Governor and Council have with 
regard to determining the hours of labor for employees at the 
State House, and with regard to the length of their vacations." 

In my opinion neither the Governor nor the Governor and 
Council have any power in regard to the hours of labor for 
emplo} T ees at the State House, or in regard to their vacations, 
except so far as they may have power over employees in the 
executive department. The hours of labor of the different em- 
ployees are to be determined, in my opinion, by the head of the 
department in which such employee is employed. So long as 
such heads of departments act reasonably there is apparently 
no authority in any one to interfere. 

I am aware that on July 15, 1872, the Council adopted the 
following order : — 

Ordered, That all persons employed in the various departments in 
the State House shall be on duty daily from 9 o'clock a.m. to 4 
o'clock p.m., with an intermission of one hour for dinner; and that a 
vacation not longer than one month be allowed to each employee. 

This was apparently adopted under authority of St. 1866, 
c. 67, which gave to the Executive Council the right to fix the 
office hours of the departments. This statute, however, was 
repealed by St. 1879, c. 236. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



68 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Constitutional Law — Governor — Bills and Resolves — Action 
— Five Days Sundays — Holidays. 

Under the provision of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, Part II., 
e. I., § I., Art. II., that " if any bill or resolve shall not be returned 
by the governor within five days after it shall have been presented, 
the same shall have the force of a law," the governor is to be allowed 
five full days, beginning at 12 o'clock midnight next following the 
time when the bill is presented, in which to exercise his right either 
to signify his approval by signing such bill or to return it with his 
objections in writing to the Senate or House of Eepresentatives. 

In computing such period of five days, Sunday is to be excluded and 
holidays included. 

June 1, 1911. 
His Excellency Eugene X. Foss, Governor. 

Sir : — I have the honor to reply to the inquiry of Your 
Excellency, transmitted to me through your secretary, whether 
or not, under the provision of the Constitution of the Common- 
wealth, Part the Second, Chapter I., section I., Article II., 
" if any bill or resolve shall not be returned by the governor 
within five days after it shall have been presented, the same shall 
have the force of a law," the five days may be construed to begin 
upon midnight of the day on which the bill is presented to the 
Governor, exclusive of Sundays and holidays. 

I am of opinion that in acting under the constitutional pro- 
vision above quoted the Governor is to be allowed five full days, 
beginning at 12 o'clock midnight next following the time when 
the bill is presented, in which to exercise his right either to 
signify his approval of such bill by signing it or to return it 
with his objections, in writing, to the Senate or House of Repre- 
sentatives, and that in the computation of such periods of five 
days Sundays are to be excluded. 

With reference to the question of holidays, I have not been 
able to find any judicial decisions on the point. It is a general 
rule, however, that anything may be legally done on a holiday 
which is not expressly prohibited, and that as to the legality of 
business done, holidays are different from Sundays. My con- 
clusion from the cases I have examined on this point is that 
in the case of Sunday it is to be inferred that no work shall be 
done, but that in the case of a holiday any work may be done 
which is not prohibited by law. There is no prohibition upon 
the Governor forbidding him to veto a bill on a holiday, and 
I therefore assume that he may do so. As he may express his 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 69 

veto on a holiday, I am of the opinion that the better rule is 
to include the holiday as one of the five days allowed under the 
constitutional provision. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Statute — Presumption of Lawful Passage — Administrative 

Officers. 

The presumption arising from the proper custody and due authentication 
of an act of the Legislature that such act was passed in accord- 
ance with the requirements of the Constitution, should be regarded 
as binding upon administrative officers, and such act should be re- 
garded by them as having " the force of a law." 

June 7, 1911. 

Warren P. Dudley, Esq., Secretary, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : — In behalf of the Civil Service Commission you 
request my opinion as to whether St. 1911, c. 119, which is en- 
titled " An Act relative to qualifications for examination by 
the civil service commission,' 7 has the " force of a law." This 
act, after having passed both branches of the General Court, 
was " laid before the Governor for his revisal," and was by him 
returned to the House of Eepresentatives, in which branch it 
originated, without his approval. Thereupon, as appears from 
the journal, a quorum being present, more than two-thirds of 
the members present but less than two-thirds of the entire 
membership (unless the members paired in favor be counted) 
agreed to pass it. Thereafter, it was sent to the other branch, 
and was approved by two-thirds of the members present. You 
seek my advice as to whether upon these facts the act was legally 
passed; that is. whether the constitutional requirement for the 
passage of a bill over the Governor's veto, that two-thirds of 
the Senate or House of Eepresentatives, in which it originated, 
should agree to pass it (Const., Part II., c. I., § I., Art. II.), 
was complied with. 

The bill is now deposited with the Secretary of the Common- 
wealth, who, under the Constitution (Part II., c. II., § IV., Art. 
II.), has the custody of the records of the Commonwealth. It 
bears the statements, signed, respectively, by the speaker of the 
House and the president of the Senate, that it was passed to be 
enacted by those branches. It also bears the statement, signed 
by the speaker and by the clerk of the House, that the bill, 



70 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

" having been returned to the House of Representatives by His 
Excellency the Governor with his objections thereto in writing, 
is passed by the House of Representatives notwithstanding said 
objections, two-thirds of the members having voted in the 
affirmative;" and the statement, signed by the president and 
by the clerk of the Senate, that it " has been passed in concur- 
rence by the Senate, the objections of His Excellency the Gov- 
ernor to the contrary notwithstanding, two-thirds of the members 
present having approved the bill." Said bill is, therefore, in 
the proper custody and duly authenticated, and is presumed 
to have been enacted in accordance with constitutional require- 
ments. Whether such presumption can be overcome by refer- 
ence to the legislative journals is a matter upon which the 
courts are not in agreement. The Supreme Court of the United 
States holds that a bill which is in proper custody and duly 
authenticated is conclusive evidence of its execution and valid 
enactment (Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649; Flint v. Stone- 
Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107), and the same view is held by nu- 
merous State courts. Other State courts take a different view. 
Without expressing an opinion as to the view which is likely 
to be adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court of this Common- 
wealth when the case comes before it, I advise you that the 
presumption arising from proper custody and due authentication 
should be regarded as binding upon administrative officers, and 
that said act should be regarded by your commission as having 
the " force of a law." I do not, of course, intend by so advis- 
ing you to imply that if the journals were referred to it would 
appear that the bill was not legally enacted. Upon careful con- 
sideration I have concluded that I ought not to express an 
opinion in answer to that inquiry. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Corporation — Charter — Purpose — Holding Company — Ac- 
quisition of Stock of Domestic Street Raihvay, Gas and 
Electric Light Corporations. 

Under the provisions of St. 1903, c. 437, § 7, as amended by St. 1906, 
c. 286, § 7, that " three or more persons may associate themselves 
by a written agreement of association with the intention of form- 
ing a corporation under general laws for any lawful purpose which 
is not excluded by the provisions of section one except to buy and 
sell real estate," a corporation may be organized for the purpose 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 71 

" to buy and hold a majority of the shares of the capital stock of 
any street railway, gas and electric light companies organized under 
the laws of this commonwealth to do business within this common- 
wealth." 

June 9, 1911. 
Hon. William D.'T. Trefry, Commissioner of Corporations. 

Dear Sir : — You request my opinion as to whether " a cor- 
poration may be organized under chapter -137 of the Acts of the 
year 1903 for the following purpose : ' to buy and hold a ma- 
jority of the shares of the capital stock of any street railway, 
gas and electric light companies organized under the laws of 
this Commonwealth to do business within this Commonwealth.' " 
It is well established in this Commonwealth that a corpora- 
tion may be organized under the general law^s for the purpose 
of acquiring the stock of other corporations under the provisions 
of St. 1903, c. 4:37, § 7, as amended by St. 1906, c. 286, § 7, 
which is as follows : — 

Three or more persons may associate themselves by a written 
agreement of association with the intention of forming a corporation 
under general laws for any lawful purpose which is not excluded by 
the provisions of section one except to buy and sell real estate. 

By section 1, as amended by St. 1910, c. 385, it is provided 
that the purposes excluded from its provisions are : — 

the purpose of carrying on the business of a bank, savings bank, 
co-operative bank, trust company, surety or indemnity company, or 
safe deposit company, or to corporations organized under general or 
special law T s of this commonwealth for the purpose of carrying on 
within the commonwealth the business of an insurance company, 
railroad, electric railroad or street railway company, telegraph or 
telephone company, gas or electric light, heat or power company, 
canal, aqueduct or water company, cemetery or crematory company, 
or to any other corporations which now have or may hereafter have 
the right to take or condemn land within the commonwealth, or to 
exercise franchises in public ways granted by the commonwealth or 
by any county, city or town; but, except as hereinbefore provided, 
the provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the 
organization of a corporation under the provisions of this act for 
the purpose of carrying on any lawful business outside of this com- 
monwealth. 

The question is then presented whether the ownership of stock 
for purposes of investment or control is a lawful purpose under 
the foregoing provisions of law. 



72 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

In and of itself the ownership of stock is undoubtedly a law- 
ful purpose; and if expressly authorized, stock may be acquired 
and held for purposes of investment or bought and sold for pur- 
poses of profit. It is only when contrary to public policy as 
declared by express statute or by the principles of common law 
that such holding will become unlawful. Is such acquisition 
and ownership unlawful when the stock to be owned and the 
corporations to be controlled are not business corporations but 
public-service corporations, such as gas and electric light or 
street railwa}' companies? I am aware of no provision of law 
which expressly forbids such ownership in the case of public- 
service corporations. 

It has been suggested that the organization of a business cor- 
poration to acquire the stock of or to control public-service 
corporations is in effect the organization of public-service cor- 
porations under the business corporation law (St. 1903, c. 437), 
which constitutes a violation of so much of section 1 as provides 
that it shall not apply to the corporations enumerated, including 
street railway companies and electric light companies. In my 
opinion, however, this contention is disposed of by the language 
of the court in Pullman Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Co., 115 U. S. 
587, and in Peterson v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 
205 U. S. 364, 391, where the court said: — 

It is true that the Pacific company practically owns the controlling 
stock in the Gulf company, and that both companies constitute ele- 
ments of the Rock Island system. But the holding of the majority 
interest in the stock does not mean the control of the active officers 
and agents of the local company doing business in Texas. That fact 
gave the Pacific company the power to control the road by the 
election of the directors of the Gulf company, who could in turn 
elect officers or remove them from the places already held; but this 
power does not make it the company transacting the local business. 

This record discloses that the officers and agents of the Gulf com- 
pany control its management. The fact that the Pacific company 
owns the controlling amounts of the stock of the Gulf company, and 
has thus the power to change the management, does not give it 
present control of the corporate property and business. 

This conclusion, however, is based upon the assumption that 
the holding corporation is organized in good faith to conduct 
the business of acquiring and owning the stock specified, and is 
not a device or trick to avoid the consequences of illegal acts 
or to accomplish a purpose which would not be permitted to a 
public-service corporation. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 73 

The question whether the organization of a holding company 
for the purpose of acquiring the stock of and controlling a public- 
service corporation is against public policy as tending to create 
a monopoly is a more difficult one. Numerous cases in other 
jurisdictions have decided contrary to such organization. In 
this Commonwealth, however, it appears to be the established 
policy to restrict competition in the case of such public-service 
corporations as gas and electric light companies and street rail- 
way companies, subject to regulation by the State. See TV eld 
v. Gas and Electric Light Commissioners, 197 Mass. 556, 558. 
Indeed, it may be said that in this Commonwealth all public- 
service corporations are so supervised and controlled by the 
public authorities that there is no longer unrestricted competi- 
tion, upon the theory that the rights of the public are better 
served by careful regulation than by unregulated competition. 

In this Commonwealth, also, there appears to be no public 
policy opposed to the creation of holding companies, so called, 
even when they are for the purpose of holding the stock of 
public-service corporations. Thus, by St. 1909, c. 519, the 
Boston Railroad Holding Company was incorporated for the 
purpose " of acquiring and holding the whole or any part of 
the capital stock, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of 
the Boston and Maine Railroad, and of voting upon all certifi- 
cates of stock so acquired and held . . " For many years 
voluntary associations, resembling in many of their attributes 
corporations, have been organized and are maintained to acquire 
the stock of public-service corporations. 

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the public policy of the 
Commonwealth does not appear to be opposed to the creation 
of holding companies created for the purpose of acquiring and 
holding the stock of street railways or gas and electric light 
companies, and that a provision authorizing such acquisition 
and holding, in the charter of a business corporation organized 
under the general laws, would not express an unlawful purpose 
as against public policy. That is, in my opinion a corporation 
may be organized under chapter 437 of the Acts of 1903 for 
the purposes set forth in your inquiry. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



74 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Hours of Labor — Dumping Inspectors — Civil Engineer. 

Dumping inspectors employed by the Board of Harbor and Land Com- 
missioners, whose duty it is " to see that all material which is to be 
dumped in tidewater is transported and dumped in its proper locality, 
none of it being deposited in any other place," are not " workmen, 
laborers or mechanics" within the meaning of St. 1911, c. 494, § 1, 
providing that " the service of all laborers, workmen and mechanics 
now or hereafter employed by the commonwealth ... is hereby 
restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day." 

The further provision of such section that " engineers shall be regarded 
as mechanics within the meaning of this act " does not extend to or 
include persons who follow the profession of civil engineering. 

June 24, 1911. 
Hon. Heman A. Harding, Board of Harbor and Land Commis- 
sioners. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion with reference 
to the standing of dumping inspectors under the provision of 
section 1 of chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1911, that "the 
service of all laborers, workmen and mechanics now or hereafter 
employed by the commonwealth ... is hereby restricted to 
eight hours in any one calendar day." 

You state that the duties of dumping inspectors, who are civil 
service appointees, are, " To see that all material which is to 
be dumped in tidewater is transported and dumped in its proper 
locality, none of it being deposited in any other place. The 
inspectors are quartered on the towboats towing the loaded scows 
to sea. They practically live on the boats. They are required 
to be on duty from the time the towboat starts with the tow 
until the material is dumped. They cannot leave the towboat 
at that time, and have to remain until she returns to her wharf 
or anchorage. They are not required to do any service on the 
return trip. As soon as the scows are dumped they may turn 
into their bunks and sleep until she returns to her dock or 
anchorage. They are fed on board the towboat." 

The duties of a dumping inspector, as defined by you, appear 
to require special knowledge and powers of supervision, and do 
not appear to involve any manual labor, which has generally been 
regarded as an important element in the words " laborers, work- 
men and mechanics." Meands v. Park, 95 Me. 527; Bloom v. 
Richards, 2 Oh. St., 387, 401; Savannah & C. R. Co. v. Cal- 
lahan, 49 Ga. 506, 511; Adams v. Goodrich, 55 Ga. 233, 234. 
I am, therefore, of the opinion that a dumping inspector is not 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 75 

a laborer, workman or mechanic within the meaning of the 
statute. 

You further inquire whether the statute, by virtue of the 
provision that " engineers shall be regarded as mechanics within 
the meaning of this act/' extends to and includes the chief en- 
gineer and several assistant engineers, draftsmen and helpers 
who do such civil engineering work as the commission may re- 
quire. I am of opinion that the word " engineers," as used in 
St. 1911, c. 494, § 1, is not to be construed to include persons 
who follow the profession of civil engineering. Whether or not 
those who assist them in the performance of such duties are to 
be regarded as laborers, workmen or mechanics must- depend 
upon the nature of the services which they perform. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Towns — Water Supply — Indebtedness — Vote — Two-thirds 

Majority. 

A town which accepts by a majority vote an act authorizing it to supply 
itself and its inhabitants with water, in incurring debt therefor 
must comply with the provisions of E. L., c. 27, § 8, requiring a 
two-thirds vote in order that it may incur debt for such purpose. 

July 7, 1911. 
Charles F. Gettemy, Esq., Director, Bureau of Statistics. 

Dear Sir : — You request my opinion as to " whether a town 
which accepts, by a majority vote, an act authorizing it to supply 
itself and inhabitants with water may incur debt therefor with- 
out being required to comply with the provisions of section 8 
of chapter 27 of the Revised Laws, which makes necessary a 
two-thirds vote in order that it may incur debt for such a pur- 
pose." I infer that your inquiry is made with especial reference 
to the town of West Brookfield, which town, by chapter 373 of 
the acts of this year, is authorized to supply itself and its in- 
habitants with water. Section 5 of this act is as follows : — 

Said town, for the purpose of paying the necessary expenses and 
liabilities incurred under the provisions of this act, may issue from 
time to time bonds, notes or scrip to an amount not exceeding 
thirty thousand dollars. Such bonds, notes or scrip shall bear on 
their face the words. Town of West Brookfield Water Loan, Act 
of 1911; shall be payable at the expiration of periods not exceed- 
ing thirty years from the dates of issue; shall bear interest, pay- 



76 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

able semi-annually, at a rate not exceeding four and one half per 
cent per annum; and shall be signed by the treasurer of the town 
and countersigned by the water commissioners hereinafter provided 
for. Said town may sell such securities at public or private sale, 
upon such terms and conditions as it may deem proper: provided, 
that the securities shall not be sold for less than their par value. 

Section 10 is as follows : — 

This act shall take effect upon its acceptance by a majority vote 
of the legal voters of the town of West Brookfield present and 
voting thereon at a legal meeting called for the purpose within 
three years after its passage; but it shall become void unless the 
town of West Brookfield shall begin to distribute water to consumers 
in said town within three years after the date of the acceptance of 
this act as aforesaid. For the purpose of being submitted to the 
voters as aforesaid this act shall take effect upon its passage. 

As appears from the section last quoted, the general provi- 
sions of the act do not take effect until " its acceptance by a 
majority vote of the legal voters of the town of West Brookfield 
present and voting thereon at a legal meeting called for the pur- 
pose within three years after its passage." If the act is so 
accepted, the town is authorized to issue " bonds, notes or scrip 
to an amount not exceeding thirty thousand dollars." Such 
bonds, notes or scrip, however, if issued, must be issued in ac- 
cordance with a vote of the town. There is nothing in the act 
from which it is to be implied that the vote by which the act 
is accepted is also a vote to issue bonds, notes or scrip. In 
voting to issue bonds, notes or scrip the town must, of course, 
follow the statutory requirements. So far as the special act 
prescribes the details of such issue it is to be followed; in other 
respects the general law controls. Cf. I Op. Atty.-Gen., 263. 
The special act does not state whether the vote to issue bonds, 
notes or scrip shall be a majority or a two-thirds vote. The 
general law (R. L., c. 27, § 8) requires, in the case of a town, 
" a vote of two thirds of the voters present and voting at a town 
meeting/' and, in the case of a city, " of two thirds of all the 
members of each branch of the city council." It follows that 
" a vote of two thirds of the voters present and voting " is re- 
quired to authorize the issue of bonds, notes or scrip under 
authority of the act here in question. The correctness of this 
view appears from the fact that it is expressly provided by gen- 
eral law (E. L., c. 27, § 21) that where a city accepts by a vote 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 77 

of two-thirds of the legal voters an act to supply it with water, 
" a vote of the majority of the members of each branch of the 
city council " is sufficient to authorize the issue of bonds. By 
this statute it is recognized that in cases not within this excep- 
tion a vote " of two thirds of all the members of each branch of 
the city council " or " of two thirds of the voters present and 
voting at a town meeting ", as the case may be, is necessary. 
Cf. St. 1876, c. 19. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Attorney-General — Duties — Limit of Time — Constitutional 
Law — Referendum — Matter of Local Self-government. 

The Senate has no authority to fix a limit of time within which the 
Attorney-General is to perform his duties or any of them. 

A provision in a proposed bill that " this act shall be submitted to the 
qualified voters of the Commonwealth at the next State election, 
in answer to the question, ' Shall a law enacted by the General Court 
of the year 1911 relative to the development of the Port of Boston 
and authorizing the expenditure of $9,000,000 for that purpose, be 
accepted ' . . . " does not fall within the exception permitting a 
referendum in matters of local self-government, and would, there- 
fore, be unconstitutional. 

July 13, 1911. 
Henry D. Coolidge, Esq., Clerk of the Senate. 

Sir : — I have the honor to transmit herewith my opinion in 
response to the following order to the Honorable Senate, dated 
July 12, 1911 : — 

Ordered, That the Attorney-General be requested to furnish to 
the Senate forthwith his opinion on the following question : Whether 
the following pending amendment of the Senate Bill relative to the 
development of the port of Boston (printed as Senate, No. 570), 
referring the measure by referendum to the voters of the Common- 
wealth, is constitutional, to wit : striking out section 19 and insert- 
ing in place thereof the following new section : — " Section 19. 
This act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the common- 
wealth at the next state election in answer to the question ' Shall 
a law enacted by the general court of the year nineteen hundred 
and eleven relative to the development of the port of 
Boston and authorizing the expenditure of nine million 
dollars for that purpose be accepted?' If a majority of 



NO. 



the voters voting thereon vote in the affirmative, this act shall there- 
upon take effect ; otherwise it shall be null and void." 



78 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The form of the order compels me to respectfully remind the 
Honorable Senate that it has no authority to fix the limit of 
time within which the Attorney-General shall perform his duties 
or any of them. Therefore, so much of the order as requires 
my opinion forthwith I respectfully disregard. My desire, how- 
ever, to assist the Honorable Senate in the performance of its 
duties, as well as the deference I owe that honorable body, has 
caused me to give attention to the question submitted as early 
as I could consistently with the other duties of my office. 

In my opinion the proposed referendum as set forth in said 
order is unconstitutional within the principles now well estab- 
lished in this Commonwealth, as stated in the Opinion of 
the Justices, 160 Mass. 586, and in the decisions and discussions 
in the following cases : Brodbine v. Revere, 182 Mass. 598 ; 
Graham v. Roberts, 200 Mass. 152; and Wyeth v. Cambridge 
Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474; and in the opinion of my 
learned predecessor, Attorney-General Malone, to the committee 
on the judiciary, under date of April 3, 1907 (Attorney- Gen- 
eral's Report, 1907, p. 14). While the proposed legislation in 
some respects may be said to be a statute of local concern, it 
appears that the expenses are to be borne by the State at large, 
and the referendum is directed to the voters of the State at large. 
Said referendum, therefore, does not come within the exception 
permitting a referendum in matters of local self-government, 
within the meaning of said decisions. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



'Attorney-General — Opinion — Statement of Facts — Monopo- 
lies — Public Policy — Legislature. 

The Attorney-General is not required to express an opinion upon any 
case or to take any other action relative thereto upon the request 
of a State officer, board or commission unless sufficient facts are 
stated to enable him to come to a definite conclusion in the premises. 

The determination of the attitude of the Commonwealth toward monop- 
olies is primarily a function of the Legislature, and does not fall 
within the scope of the duties of the Attorney-General. 

July 14, 1911. 
His Excellency Eugene N. Foss, Governor. 

Sir: — To your letter of July 3, 1911, I have been giving as 
careful and earnest consideration as the contents thereof permit. 
In it you make the following statements : — 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 79 

Complaints are current that the prosperity of the shoe industry 
in this Commonwealth has been seriously impaired and is further 
threatened by the existence of a monopoly in shoe machinery. . . . 

It is represented that practically all the shoe machinery in use 
in Massachusetts is owned by a single corporation which, though 
organized under the laws of another State, has its principal office 
here. It is practically impossible for any shoe manufacturer to 
buy his machinery or any part of it, He can secure it only upon 
lease and upon terms arbitrarily fixed by this corporation, which 
is said to be without competition in the manufacture of shoe 
machinery. The company has since the date of its organization, 
by various methods, acquired or destroyed the business of every 
competitor. It accordingly now has a complete and absolute monop- 
oly of the entire field. . . . 

Complaints are rife that the corporation has used its power to 
the disadvantage of our local industry. It has enforced oppressive 
terms and has discriminated against localities, and in a measure 
has discriminated against manufacturers here in favor of those 
located in other States. There is a well-founded current belief that 
the arbitrary restrictions imposed by this monopoly are responsible 
for the depression of the industry of which our manufacturers are 
beginning seriously to complain. 

I call your attention to the fact that within the year last past, 
when its monopoly was threatened by competition, this corporation 
acquired the machines, the manufacturing plants and the patents 
of a prominent, independent shoe machinery manufacturer. If this 
transaction could have been prevented it would have afforded dis- 
tinct relief and protection against the present situation of absolute 
monopoly and autocratic control. It is of importance now to 
determine whether the current belief as to its invalidity is justified, 
and if so, what remedy may be applied. 

You then proceed as follows : — 

Assuming the facts to be as outlined above, I respectfully request 
your opinion upon the following points : — 

1. Is the existing law sufficient to enable you, as the chief law 
officer of the Commonwealth, successfully to accomplish the destruc- 
tion of this monopoly, or the relief in any measure of the shoe in- 
dustry of the Commonwealth from the power of this corporation 
absolutely to control and dominate our shoe manufacturers'? 

2. Was the acquisition by this corporation of the shoe machinery, 
the manufacturing plants and the letters patent of an independent 
manufacturer in September, 1910, in violation of any existing law 
of the Commonwealth? 

3. If, in your opinion, the existing law is insufficient to give re- 
lief, what other or further legislation is in your opinion necessary 
or expedient to curb or break the power of this alleged monopoly? 



80 ATTORXEY-GEXERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

From a legal standpoint, and as a basis for an opinion that 
will be of any value whatever, I am nnable to find in your letter 
anything that permits or enables me to come to any conclusion. 
It contains no statement of facts or evidence such as is necessary 
as a basis for legal consideration or action. 

However, the deference that I owe to the office of the Chief 
Executive of this Commonwealth has led me to consider said 
letter in a broad and general way as a request from you for 
(1) a statement as to existing law, and (2) a statement as to 
the necessity or expediency of further legislation concerning the 
subject of manufacturing monopoly in this Commonwealth. So 
far as I am able I advise you, therefore, along the lines of these 
inquiries. 

As to Existing Law. — There are now upon the books three 
statutes which bear upon the subject of monopolies. 1 These are 
R. L., c. 56, § 1 ; St. 1907, c. 469 ; and St. 1908, c. 454. There 
are also important common law principles, a consideration of 
which would be essential to any complete statement of the law 
of monopolies. Unless, however, it appears that no relief can 
be obtained under the statutes cited, it is unnecessary to con- 
sider whether relief could be obtained apart from these statutes. 

R. L., c. 5Q, § 1, prohibits making " it a condition of the sale 
of goods, wares or merchandise that the purchaser shall not sell 
or deal in the goods, wares or merchandise of any other person, 
firm, corporation or association," and imposes a penalty for the 
violation of the provisions of the section. There is no sug- 
gestion in your letter that these provisions have been violated 
by the corporation to which you refer. 

St. 1907, c. 469, prohibits inserting in or making " it a con- 
dition or provision of any sale or lease of any tool, implement, 
appliance or machinery that the purchaser or lessee thereof shall 
not buy, lease or use machinery, tools, implements or appliances 
or material or merchandise of any person, firm, corporation or 
association other than such vendor, or lessor," and imposes a 
penalty for the violation of the provisions of the act. 

If Your Excellency has any evidence or sources from which 
such evidence might be obtained of the violation of either of 
the foregoing statutes, I have to advise you that the same should 
be submitted to the district attorney for the district in which 
such violation was committed, since he has charge of the adminis- 
tration of the criminal law in that regard. 

i The effect of St. 1911, c. 503, is limited to procedure. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 81 

St. 1908, c. 454, is entitled " An Act relative to monopolies 
and discriminations in the sale of articles or commodities in 
common use." Its first and second sections are as follows : — 

Section 1. Every contract, agreement, arrangement or combina- 
tion in violation of the common law in that thereby a monopoly in 
the manufacture, production or sale in this commonwealth of any 
article or commodity in common use is or may be created, estab- 
lished or maintained, or in that thereby competition in this state 
in the supply or price of any such article or commodity is or may 
be restrained or prevented, or in that thereby, for the purpose of 
creating, establishing or maintaining a monopoly within this state 
of the manufacture, production or sale of any such article or 
commodity, the free pursuit in this state of any lawful business, 
trade or occupation is or may be restrained or prevented, is hereby 
declared to be against public policy, illegal and void. 

Section 2. The attorney-general, or, by his direction, a district 
attorney, may bring an action in the name of the commonwealth 
against any person, trustee, director, manager, or other officer or 
agent of a corporation, or against a corporation, to restrain the 
doing in this commonwealth of any act herein forbidden or declared 
to be illegal, or any act in, toward or for the making or consum- 
mation of any contract, agreement, arrangement or combination 
herein prohibited, wherever the same may have been made. The 
superior court shall have jurisdiction to restrain and enjoin any act 
herein forbidden or declared to be illegal. 

Obviously, this statute is of broad application. It is impossi- 
ble for me, however, to advise you either as to the probable 
outcome of a proceeding brought thereunder against the cor- 
poration to which you refer, or as to the legality of the contract 
in question, without having a complete knowledge of the facts 
involved. I therefore respectfully suggest that you submit to 
me the facts and evidence upon which your conclusions are based, 
that I may institute proceedings under this statute if the facts 
appear to justify such action. It is impossible for me to predi- 
cate any opinion or official action upon manifest hearsay or 
assumptions. 

As to the Necessity or Expediency of Further Legislation. — 
For the purpose of advising you as to the necessity or expediency 
of further legislation I have the same need of detailed informa- 
tion as to the facts as for the purpose of advising you as to the 
application of existing law. Furthermore, the determination 
of the Commonwealth's attitude toward monopoly is primarily 



82 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

a legislative function, and does not fall within the scope of the 
duties of the Attorne} T - General. 

It is as much my earnest desire as it is that of Your Excel- 
lency that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be strictly en- 
forced, and that such corrections or amendments shall be pro- 
vided as may appear necessary in any proper case. Manifestly, 
however, action or legislation based upon insufficient informa- 
tion and evidence would result in disaster and confusion, a 
result which Your Excellency, I assume, as well as I myself, 
would greatly deplore. 

Very respectfully yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Charles River Basin — Metropolitan Parle Commission — Lech- 
mere Canal — Authority to iciden and deepen. 

The Metropolitan Park Commission, under the provisions of St. 1903, 
c. 465, which in section 4 required the Charles River Basin Commis- 
sion to " dredge navigable channels in the basin " and to " dredge 
Lechmere canal to such depths as will afford to and at the wharves 
thereon not less than seventeen feet of water up to and including 
Sawyer's lumber wharf, and not less than thirteen feet of water 
from said wharf to the head of the canal at Bent street," and of 
St. 1909, c. 524, § 1, by which such commission succeeded to " all 
the powers, rights, duties and liabilities " of the Charles River Basin 
Commission, has authority to widen a part of Lechmere Canal, to 
reinforce the adjoining land by piling and to dredge the part of the 
canal so widened to the depth prescribed in said chapter 465. 

Aug. 1, 1911. 

George Lyman Rogers, Esq., Secretary, Metropolitan Park Com- 
mission. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion in behalf of the 
Metropolitan Park Commission as to whether it has authority 
under St. 1903, c. 465, and St. 1909, c. 524, to widen a part of 
Lechmere Canal, to reinforce the adjoining land by piling and 
to dredge the part of the canal thus widened to the depth pre- 
scribed in said chapter 465. 

By St. 1909, c. 524, § 1, the Metropolitan Park Commission 
succeeds to " all the powers, rights, duties and liabilities " of 
the Charles Eiver Basin Commission. By St. 1903, c. 465, § 4, 
the Charles Eiver Basin Commission was required to " dredge 
navigable channels in the basin," and to " dredge Lechmere canal 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 83 

to such depths as will afford to and at the wharves thereon not 
less than seventeen feet of water up to and including Sawyer's 
lumber wharf, and not less than thirteen feet of water from said 
wharf up to the head of the canal at Bent street." The section 
further provided as follows : — 

The commission shall do all such dredging and all strengthening 
of the walls of the canals and of the basin where dredging is done 
by the driving of prime oak piles two feet on centres along the 
front of said wharves or walls, and all removing and relocating of 
pipes and conduits made necessary by such dredging, so that vessels 
requiring a depth of water not exceeding the respective depths 
above prescribed can lie alongside of, and in contact with, the 
wharves; and this work shall be done in such manner as to cause 
the least possible inconvenience to abutters, and shall be finished 
on or before the completion of the dam; and after the walls or 
wharves have been so strengthened, all repairs on or rebuilding of 
the walls and wharves shall be done by the abutters. 

The commission shall do such dredging in the basin outside of the 
channels aforesaid as may be necessary for the removal of sewage, 
sludge or any offensive deposit; shall do such other dredging as 
it shall deem proper, and shall take all proper measures for the 
destruction of malarial mosquitoes in the basin and its vicinity. 

The part of the canal in question is northwest of Commercial 
Avenue and runs from Commercial Avenue to the point where 
the canal turns toward the south. The canal is here 100 feet 
wide and is bounded on the southwest by land of the heirs of 
John T. Scully. The southwest side of this part of the canal is 
an " open shore." It is proposed that the heirs of John T. Scully 
allow a part of their land to become a part of the canal, and that 
the commission reinforce the adjoining land by piling and 
dredge the canal to a width of 115 feet. Your inquiry is as to 
whether this proposed scheme may legally be carried out. 

So far as the widening of the canal is concerned I am of 
opinion that there can be no legal objection to permitting the 
abutting owners to allow their land to become a part of the canal 
to the extent proposed. So far as the dredging of the canal is 
concerned the only express requirement here material is that 
it be dredged " to such depths as will afford to and at the wharves 
thereon not less than seventeen feet of water . . . ." If as a 
matter of fact the proposed dredging is reasonably incidental 
to the fulfilling of this requirement, such dredging is authorized. 
So far as the driving of piles is concerned, the statute makes cer- 



84 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

tain specific requirements. Even if these express requirements 
do not apply in front of open shores, the commission is author- 
ized to " take such measures as are necessary to protect the 
channel of the canals." I advise you, therefore, as my predeces- 
sor advised the Charles River Basin Commission in reply to a 
similar inquiry, that " if ... in your opinion, as a matter of 
fact, the driving of the piles in question is a reasonable method 
of protecting a channel dredged under the statutory requirement 
that Lechmere canal be dredged, you have . . . authority to do 
such driving of piles." 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Taxation — Bonds of Domestic Electric Light Corporation 
secured by Mortgage on Real Estate and Personal Property 
— Exemption. 

The bonds of a domestic electric light corporation secured by a mortgage 
of real estate within the Commonwealth and of personal property 
are not exempt from taxation under the provisions of St. 1909, 
c. 490, Part I., § 4, cl. 2, that personal estate, for the purpose of 
taxation, shall not include " any loan on mortgage of real estate, 
taxable as real estate, except the excess of such loan above the 
assessed value of the mortgaged real estate." 

Aug. 11, 1911. 
Hon. W. D. T. Trefry, Tax Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion as to whether 
the mortgage bonds of the Boston Electric Light Company, a 
domestic corporation, are exempt from taxation. The bonds in 
question are secured by a mortgage of real estate within the 
Commonwealth and of personal property. The amount of the 
issue of bonds is less than the assessed valuation of the mortgaged 
real estate. 

The bonds are taxable under St. 1909, c. 490, Part I., § 4, cl. 2, 
which provides that personal estate for the purpose of taxation 
shall include " money at interest, and other debts due the person 
to be taxed more than he is indebted or pays interest for; but 
not including in such debts due him or indebtedness from him 
any loan on mortgage of real estate, taxable as real estate, except 
the excess of such loan above the assessed value of the mortgaged 
real estate," unless such bonds constitute a "loan on mortgage 
of real estate, taxable as real estate," within the meaning of the 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 85 

statute. In Brooks v. West Springfield, 193 Mass. 190, it was 
held that bonds secured by mortgage of real estate in this Com- 
monwealth, real estate in other States and personal property- 
were not exempt from taxation under this statute, then E. L., 
c. 12, § 4. The principles therein laid down are applicable to 
bonds secured by mortgage of real estate in this Commonwealth 
and personal property. They are, in my opinion, applicable 
though the amount of the issue of bonds is less than the assessed 
valuation of the mortgaged real estate, as in the case of the 
bonds in question. I advise you, therefore, that the mortgage 
bonds of the Boston Electric Light Company are taxable. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Extradition — Governor — Duty of Executive — Discretion. 

Where the papers accompanying the demand of the Executive of another 
State for the arrest and extradition of an alleged fugitive from the 
justice of that State appear to be legal and in proper form, and 
no question is raised as to the identity of the person demanded, or 
testimony offered to contradict the sworn evidence in the affidavits 
accompanying such demand that on or about the date of the alleged 
crime such person was in the demanding State and thereafter left 
it and has been found within the Commonwealth, it is the duty of 
the Governor to honor such demand, and he has no legal discretion 
to refuse to honor it, even if upon full hearing he should be of 
opinion that under all the circumstances the interests of justice 
would be served by such refusal. 

Sept. 11, 1911. 
His Excellency Eugene N. Foss, Governor. 

Sir : — In the matter of the demand of the Executive of Con- 
necticut for the extradition of Nathan Berman and Louis 
Brooks, Your Excellency has requested my opinion as to 
"whether, in view of the fact that the requisition papers have 
been found by me to be in proper form, and of other admitted 
facts/' Your Excellency would have " any legal discretion to deny 
the requisition of the Governor of Connecticut even if upon full 
hearing " Your Excellency " should be of opinion that under all 
the circumstances the interests of justice would be served by 
denying the requisition." 

In reply I have the honor to advise Your Excellency that the 
duties of the Governor of this Commonwealth with reference to 
the demand upon him from the Executive of another State for 



86 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

the extradition of an alleged fugitive from justice, who has been 
charged with crime in the demanding State and has been found 
within this Commonwealth, are prescribed in clear and un- 
equivocal terms in the Constitution of the United States and in 
the Revised Statutes of the United States. 

The Constitution of the United States provides, in Article IV., 
section 2, as follows : — 

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other 
crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, 
shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which 
he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having juris- 
diction of the crime. 

In discussing this provision of the Constitution, the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 
(U. S.) 66, said: — 

Looking, therefore, to the words of the Constitution — to the 
obvious policy and necessity of this provision to preserve harmony 
between States, and order and law within their respective borders, 
and to its early adoption by the colonies, and then by the Confeder- 
ated States, whose mutual interest it was to give each other aid 
and support whenever it was needed — the conclusion is irresistible, 
that this compact engrafted in the Constitution included, and was 
intended to include, every offence made punishable by the law of 
the State in which it was committed, and that it gives the right 
to the Executive authority of the State to demand the fugitive from 
the Executive authority of the State in which he is found; that 
the right given to " demand " implies that it is an absolute right ; 
and it follows that there must be a correlative obligation to deliver, 
without any reference to the character of the crime charged, or to 
the policy or laws of the State to which the fugitive has fled. 

The duty of providing by law the means of carrying this pro- 
vision of the Constitution into execution, from the nature of the 
duty and the object in view, devolved upon Congress, and, Con- 
gress, therefore, passed the act of 1793, February 12, which, as 
codified in the Revised Laws of the United States, section 5278, 
provides as follows : — 

Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory de- 
mand any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive au- 
thority of any State or Territory to which such person has fled, 
and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 87 

before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person 
demanded with having committed treason, felony or other crime, 
certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the 
State or Territory from which the person so charged has fled, 
it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the State or Terri- 
tory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and 
secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the execu- 
tive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority 
appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be de- 
livered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears 
within six months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be 
discharged. All costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, 
securing and transmitting such fugitive to the State or Territory 
making such demand shall be paid by such State or Territory. 

In discussing the provision of the act of 1793, in the same case 
{Kentucky v. Dennison), the Supreme Court of the United 
States said: — 

The demand being thus made, the act of Congress declares that 
" it shall be the duty of the Executive authority of the State " to 
cause the fugitive to be arrested and secured, and delivered to the 
agent of the demanding State. The words " it shall be the duty," 
in ordinary legislation, imply the assertion of the power to command 
and to coerce obedience. But looking to the subject-matter of this 
law, and the relations which the United States and the several States 
bear to each other, the court is of opinion the words " it shall be the 
duty " were not used as mandatory and compulsory, but as declara- 
tory of the moral duty which this compact created when Congress 
had provided the mode of carrying it into execution. The act does 
not provide any means to compel the execution of this duty, nor in- 
flict any punishment for neglect or refusal on the part of the 
Executive of the State; nor is there any clause or provision in the 
Constitution which arms the government of the United States with 
this power. 

And, further, the court said : — 

It does not purport to give authority to the State Executive to 
arrest and deliver the fugitive, but requires it to be done, and the 
language of the law implies an absolute obligation which the State 
authority is bound to perform. And when it speaks of the duty of 
the Governor, it evidently points to the duty imposed by the Con- 
stitution in the clause we are now considering. The performance 
of this duty, however, is left to depend on the fidelity of the State 
Executive to the compact entered into with the other States when it 



88 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

adopted the Constitution of the United States, and became a member 
of the Union. It was so left by the Constitution, and necessarily 
so left by the act of 1793." 

See also McNichols v. Pease, 207 U. S. 100, and cases there 
cited. 

The provisions of the Constitution of the United States and 
of the Revised Statutes of the United States above quoted are 
the supreme law of the land with reference to extradition, and 
no statute of this Commonwealth can impose restrictions or 
limitations upon the operation of this law of the United States. 
No statute of this Commonwealth, therefore, can alter the duty 
imposed upon the Executive of this Commonwealth by the Con- 
stitution and laws of the United States. For this reason the 
provision of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts, chapter 217, 
section 12, that the Governor may consider the question of the 
expediency of complying with an application for extradition, is 
to be construed as giving Your Excellency the right to consider 
questions of expediency or discretion only upon applications by 
this Commonwealth upon other States, or upon demands for 
persons held here in custody to answer for crimes against this 
Commonwealth or the United States, or by force of any civil 
process. 

This ruling is in harmony with the settled practice in this 
Commonwealth and with the opinion of one of my predecessors 
in this office, given on Aug. 21, 1902, in which the Governor of 
this Commonwealth was advised as follows, in response to a 
request for an opinion not only as to the law of the case but also 
as to the expediency of the Governor's favorable action upon the 
demand of the Executive of North Carolina for the extradition 
of a negro who contended that mob violence would prevent him 
from having a fair trial in a southern State : — 

I am of opinion, however, that my investigation must be confined 
to the legal aspects of the case, and that Your Excellency's action 
must be controlled by the requirements of the Constitution and 
statutes of the United States, and that the Massachusetts statutes 
cannot be operative except in so far as is consistent with the federal 
law. Upon this view, the right of Your Excellency to consider ques- 
tions of expediency or discretion exists only upon applications for 
requisition going from this Commonwealth, or upon demands for 
persons held here in custody to answer for crimes against this Com- 
monwealth, or the United States, or by force of any civil process. 
(II Op. Atty.-Gen. 368.) 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 89 

The case now before Your Excellency is not a case which falls 
within the class in which the law may be said to authorize the 
exercise of discretion, and the scope of proper inquiry by Your 
Excellency as a guide to action is, therefore, narrowly limited 
by law. Certain questions of law and of fact are, however, open 
to Your Excellency's inquiry. The duty to surrender to the 
demanding State the alleged fugitives does not arise unless the 
demand is in proper form. Your Excellency, therefore, is jus- 
tified in inquiring into the technical sufficiency of the application 
for extradition and the accompanying documents. 

In accordance with the long-established practice, upon receipt 
of the extradition papers by Your Excellency from the Executive 
of Connecticut, they were referred to the Attorney-General for 
an opinion as to whether, as matter of law, the papers were in 
proper form and the requisition might lawfully be complied 
with. 

In accordance with Your Excellency's request, I examined 
the papers in these cases with reference to their technical suffi- 
ciency. The law requires that the person demanded shall be 
charged with the commission of an offence against the laws of the 
demanding State, in these cases Connecticut. It is immaterial 
under the law whether the offence charged is a crime under the 
laws of this Commonwealth. If a crime is substantially charged 
in the papers, that is sufficient, and it is immaterial that the 
complaint or indictment is inartificially drawn or is imperfect 
as a matter of pleading, if it substantially charges a crime. 
Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, and cases cited. In my opinion 
the papers in these cases satisfied that requirement of the law. 

Your Excellency is also justified in satisfying yourself that the 
persons demanded are fugitives from justice. The term " fugi- 
tive from justice " is frequently misunderstood, for the reason 
that it is popularly supposed that to be a fugitive from justice 
one must have fled to escape detection or avoid prosecution. 
That, however, is not the legal meaning of the term as defined by 
the United States Supreme Court. In Roberts v. Eeilly, 116 
U. S. 80, at page 97, the court said: — 

To be a fugitive from justice, in the sense of the act of Congress 
regulating the subject under consideration, it is not necessary that 
the party charged should have left the State in which the crime is 
alleged to have been committed, after an indictment found, or for 
the purpose of avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but 
simply that having within a State committed that which by its laws 



90 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

constitutes a crime, when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal 
process to answer for his offence he has left its jurisdiction and is 
found within the territory of another. 

The motive with which the demanded person left the demand- 
ing State is, therefore, not material to the decision of the ques- 
tions presented for Your Excellency's determination in this 
Commonwealth. It appeared by sworn evidence in the papers 
accompanying the demand of the Governor of Connecticut that 
the persons demanded were in Connecticut at the time when the 
crime is alleged to have been committed, and that they subse- 
quently left the State and have been found within this Common- 
wealth. Nothing appeared to contradict that statement, and 
Your Excellency is, in my opinion, justified in finding that re- 
quirement of the law satisfied. See Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 
203 U. S. 222. 

Your Excellency may also satisfy yourself that the persons 
demanded are in fact the persons now held in this Commonwealth 
under the fugitive warrant. No question was raised as to the 
matter of identity; and it appeared by sworn evidence in the 
papers that the persons now held under the fugitive warrant in 
this Commonwealth are the persons demanded by the Executive 
of Connecticut. 

The affidavits in the papers appear to have been taken before 
magistrates under the law of Connecticut. No question as to 
the good faith of the Executive of Connecticut was raised. The 
papers were certified as authentic by the Executive of Connecti- 
cut; that certification of the papers by that Executive in itself 
sufficiently authenticates the complaints or affidavits as being 
sworn to before a magistrate, and such certification, under the 
ruling of the United States Supreme Court, precludes Your Ex- 
cellency from going behind such certificate to the truth of the 
facts so stated. In the case of Kentucky v. Dennison, cited above, 
the court said : — 

It will be observed that the judicial acts which are necessary to 
authorize the demand are plainly specified in the act of Congress; 
and the certificate of the Executive authority is made conclusive as 
to their verity when presented to the Executive of the State where 
the fugitive is found. He has no right to look behind them, or to 
question them, or to look into the character of the crime specified 
in this judicial proceeding. The duty which he is to perform is, 
as we have already said, merely ministerial — that is, to cause the 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 91 

party to be arrested and delivered to the agent or authority of the 
State where the crime was committed. 

The constitution of the United States, in Article IV., section 1, 
provides that — 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public 
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And 
the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which 
such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect 
thereof. 

I have already quoted above the law enacted by Congress with 
respect to requisitions; and since the proof of these records and 
judicial proceedings of the State of Connecticut complies with 
the requirements of the statutes, that proof is to be accepted by 
Your Excellency as conclusive. 

After careful consideration of all these matters, I have re- 
ported to Your Excellency that the demand of the Executive of 
Connecticut was proper in form, and that the requisition might 
lawfully be complied with. 

Since, therefore, the demand of the Executive of Connecticut 
appears to be in proper form, and since the specified facts con- 
cerning which Your Excellency may lawfully inquire have been 
established in the manner prescribed by law, I must advise Your 
Excellency that, under the provisions of the Constitution and 
laws of the United States and of this Commonwealth, Your Ex- 
cellency has no legal discretion to deny the requisition of the 
Governor of Connecticut. 

In reply to the further inquiry of Your Excellency as to 
whether the petitioners have been afforded by me opportunity 
for a full hearing at which they could present all proper objec- 
tions to the granting of the application, I have the honor to reply 
that counsel for Mr. Brooks and Mr. Berman was, at his request, 
afforded an opportunity for a full hearing upon all points which 
I am authorized by law to investigate and consider in cases of 
demands by other States upon this Commonwealth, and that 
representatives of labor organizations interested were present, 
and that opportunity was given to every person present to speak 
upon the points in issue, or to ask for information. The ques- 
tions of the innocence or guilt of the persons involved, or of the 
justice or injustice of the prosecution of the charge were not 
inquired into, since those questions may be tried only in Con- 



92 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

necticut, the State having jurisdiction of the offence charged, 
and may not lawfully be inquired into by me. 

Counsel for both the complainant and Mr. Brooks and Mr. 
Berman were heard at length. Counsel for Mr. Brooks and Mr. 
Berman discussed thoroughly and forcibly the matter of the 
technical sufficiency of the papers, and attacked the validity of 
the papers on various points. The arguments were taken down 
by a stenographer, and all objections were carefully noted. After 
careful consideration of all contentions I reached the conclusion 
which I have already stated herein, and notified the offices of both 
counsel for the complainant and for Mr. Brooks and Mr. Berman 
of my decision. 

In reply to the further inquiry whether, if Your Excellency 
should honor the requisition of the Governor of Connecticut, 
"the petitioners will still have ample opportunity of applying 
to the courts of this Commonwealth for such protection as they 
may be legally entitled to under the laws of Massachusetts," I 
advise you that Revised Laws of Massachusetts, chapter 217, 
section 14, provides that — 

A person who is arrested upon such a warrant shall not be de- 
livered to such agent of a state or territory until he has been notified 
of the demand for his surrender and has had an opportunity to apply 
for a writ of habeas corpus, if he claims such right of the officer who 
makes the arrest. 

If, therefore, Your Excellency honors the requisition by issu- 
ing the executive warrant, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Berman, under 
this provision of the statutes, are entitled to be given the oppor- 
tunity to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, if they claim the 
right to so apply. In such a proceeding the lawfulness of the 
extradition would be passed upon by the court, but the warrant 
of Your Excellency would, according to the language of the Su- 
preme Court in Davis' Case, 122 Mass. 324, be held to be " prima 
facie evidence, at least, that all necessary legal prerequisites have 
been complied with, and, if the previous proceedings appear to 
be regular, is conclusive evidence of the right to remove him (the 
prisoner) to the state from which he fled." 
Very respectfully yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



1912.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 93 



Governor — Appropriations for State Commissions, Departments 
or Institutions — Employment of Persons to investigate 
Statements and Estimates — Contract — Compensation. 

Under the provisions of St. 1911, c. 82, that "the governor is hereby 
authorized to employ such persons as he may deem proper to make 
such investigation of any of the commissions, departments or insti- 
tutions of the commonwealth as he believes is necessary to enable 
him to carry out the provisions of chapter two hundred and twenty 
of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and ten," and that for such 
purpose he may "expend such sums out of the amount authorized 
by chapter five hundred and forty-nine of the acts of the year nine- 
teen hundred and eight as may be approved by the governor and 
council," the governor, acting independently of the council, has no 
power to determine, by contract or otherwise, the rate of compensa- 
tion to be paid to the persons employed by him to make the required 
investigations. 

Since the purpose of St. 1910, c. 220, providing in substance that state- 
ments or estimates for appropriations for State commissions, depart- 
ments or institutions shall annually be submitted to the Governor 
and Council, and transmitted by the Governor to the Legislature, 
with such recommendations as he may deem necessary, the Governor 
and Council may not legally allow persons employed under authority 
of St. 1911, c. 82, above cited, compensation for investigations or for 
reports thereon made since the prorogation of the General Court for 
the year in which they were employed, nor compensation for time 
spent in appearing before the joint committee on ways and means 
of the General Court to explain their reports or to be questioned in 
regard to them, or for time spent in explaining their charges for 
services to the council or to any committee thereof. 

Sept. 27, 1911. 
E. F. Hamlin, Esq., Executive Secretary. 

Dear Sir : — On behalf of the committee on finance, accounts 
and warrants of the Council you request my opinion upon the 
following questions : — 

1. Has the Governor, acting independently of the Council, the 
power to determine conclusively, by contract or otherwise, the rate 
of compensation to be paid to the persons employed by him under 
the provisions of chapter 82 of the Acts of the year 1911? 

2. Can the Governor and Council legally allow such persons com- 
pensation, to be paid from the treasury of the Commonwealth, 1st, 
for time spent in appearing before the joint committee on ways and 
means of the General Court to explain their reports or be questioned 
in regard to them; 2d, for time spent in explaining their charges for 
services to the Council or its committees; 3d, for any services per- 
formed since the prorogation of the General Court of the present 
year; and if so, for what services'? 



94 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

St. 1911, c. 82, is as follows: — 

The governor is hereby authorized to employ such persons as he 
may deem proper to make such investigation of any of the commis- 
sions, departments or institutions of the commonwealth as he believes 
is necessary to enable him to carry out the provisions of chapter two 
hundred and twenty of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and 
ten. Such persons shall report in writing to the governor, and copies 
of every report shall, at the same time, be sent by said persons to 
the governor's council and to the joint committee on ways and means 
of the general court. For this purpose the governor may expend 
such sums out of the amount authorized by chapter five hundred and 
forty-nine of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and eight as may 
be approved by the governor and council. 

In my opinion the first question must be answered in the nega- 
tive. The act provides specifically that "the governor may ex- 
pend such sums ... as may be approved by the governor and 
council." While the person may be designated and employed by 
the Governor, the compensation is to be fixed by the Governor 
and Council. 

The second question concerns the basis for the allowance of 
compensation. It requires consideration of the duties and powers 
provided by law, as set forth in St. 1910, c. 220, and St. 
1911, c. 82. 

The effect of St. 1910, c. 220, has been judicially determined 
by the Supreme Judicial Court in an Opinion of the Justices to 
the Senate, dated April 7, 1911, which in part is as follows: — 

The St. of 1910, e. 220, has made but a very small change in the 
law of the Commonwealth. . . . 

The only new provision in this particular is the requirement that 
it (estimates and statements) shall be submitted "to the governor 
and council for examination, and the governor shall transmit the 
same to the General Court, with such recommendations, if any, as 
he may deem proper." . . . Under this statute, after the document 
has been printed, it is to be formally submitted to the governor 
and council for examination, as well as distributed to the members 
of the General Court; while under the former statute the governor 
was left to obtain a copy as he might. Under the present statute 
he is to transmit it to the General Court, so that they may know 
that he has had an opportunity to examine it, and he may make 
recommendations or not, as he chooses. . . . The only material effect 
of this statute is to give a legislative invitation to the governor to 
examine the documents prepared by the auditor and to make recom- 
mendations upon the subjects contained in them if he chooses, and 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 95 

also to give him an implied assurance that his recommendations as 
to the amount of the appropriations will receive respectful considera- 
tion. 

The effect of both statutes was passed upon in an opinion of 
the Attorney-General to the Treasurer and Eeceiver General, 
dated May 11, 1911, which in part is as follows: — 

The duty and power of the Governor in the premises, therefore, 
"being confined to the transmission of the statements of estimates for 
appropriations submitted to the Auditor by the various State officers, 
boards and commissions and transmitted by the Auditor to the 
Governor, to be accompanied by a recommendation or not, as he 
sees fit, it follows that his power to investigate any officer, depart- 
ment or institution must be predicated upon the existence of a state- 
ment of proposed expenditures and of other matters required by 
St. 1910, c. 220, which may be transmitted by him to the Legislature. 
The employment of agents, investigators and " experts " is only such 
as the Governor believes is necessary to enable him to carry out the 
provisions of said St. 1910, c. 220. If there are no such estimates 
for the current year before him for transmission, and upon which 
before transmission he seeks further information, it follows that 
there is no authority or occasion for any investigation under said 
St. 1910, c. 220, or St. 1911, c. 82. 

Answering, first, the third subdivision of the second question 
submitted, the Governor and Council may not legally allow per- 
sons employed under authority of St. 1911, c. 82, compensation 
for any investigation or report thereon made since the proroga- 
tion of the General Court. 

As to the other subdivisions of the second question submitted, 
it is to be observed that the services for which payment may be 
made under St. 1911, c. 82, are the making of investigations and 
the making of reports in writing upon such investigations. There 
is no express provision for payment of compensation for the 
explanation of such reports to the ways and means committee, 
nor is there any implication that such reports shall require oral 
explanation. In my opinion it cannot fairly be implied that the 
persons employed under said statute were to have compensation 
for oral explanations of their written reports. The examination 
of such persons before the ways and means committee upon the 
subjects of their reports appears to be of the same kind as the 
examination of any persons appearing before such committee as 
witnesses. Their right to compensation would be the right which 



96 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

witnesses ordinarily have to compensation for appearance before 
such committees. See R. L., c. 6, § 51; R. L., c. 204, § 21. 

As to the second subdivision of the second question submitted, 
I am of opinion that the explanation to the Council of charges for 
services is not a service performed for the Commonwealth but by 
the persons interested, in their own behalf, for which they are 
not entitled to extra compensation. So far as appears in your 
communication they appeared voluntarily before the Council. 
If, however, they do not so appear, but are summoned, their 
standing is only that of witnesses. In that case they would be 
entitled only to the witness fees provided by law. See R. L., 
c. 175, § 7; R. L., c. 204, § 2. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Constitutional Law — Public Office — Truant Officer — Woman. 

Under existing statutes a woman may not be appointed to or exercise 
the duties of the office of truant officer, as established by E. L., 
c. 46, § 12, although there appears to be no constitutional objection 
thereto. 

Sept. 28, 1911. 

Warren P. Dudley, Esq., Secretary, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : — The Civil Service Commission desires my opin- 
ion upon the question whether or not a woman may be appointed 
to the position of truant officer, an office which is included within 
the classified civil service by Civil Service Rule 7, clause 19. 

Truant officers, under the provisions of section 12 of chapter 46 
of the Revised Laws, are appointed by the school committees of 
the several cities and towns, and the duties to be performed by 
such officers are to be found in section 13 of the same chapter, 
which is as follows : — 

Truant officers shall inquire into all cases arising under the pro- 
visions of sections one and six of chapter forty-four and sections 
three, four and five of this chapter", and may make complaints and 
serve legal processes issued under the provisions of this chapter. 
They shall have the oversight of children placed on probation under 
the provisions of section seven. A truant officer may apprehend 
and take to school, without a warrant, any truant or absentee found 
wandering about in the streets or public places thereof. (See also 
R. L., c. 44, § 1, and St. 1909, c. 514, §§ 62-65.) 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 97 

From a consideration of the provisions of law above cited, and 
of the earlier statutes upon the same subject (see St. 1873, c. 262; 
St. 1874, c. 233, § 2; St. 1894, c. 498, § 20, and St. 1898, c. 496, 
§§ 33 and 36), it appears that a truant officer is authorized to 
serve legal process in all cases relating to truancy, to arrest 
truants under certain circumstances without a warrant, and to 
enter into factories, workshops or mercantile establishments for 
the purpose of obtaining information with relation to the em- 
ployment of minors. This, in my opinion, constitutes a truant 
officer a public officer within the definition laid down in Attor- 
ney-General v. Drolian, 169 Mass. 534, which is as follows: — 

Without attempting an exhaustive definition of what constitutes 
a public office, we think that it is one whose duties are in their nature 
public, that is, involving in their performance the exercise of some 
portion of the sovereign power, whether great or small, and in whose 
proper performance all citizens, irrespective of party, are interested, 
either as members of the entire body politic, or of some duly estab- 
lished division of it. 

At common law a woman could not perform the duties of a 
public officer. Thus, in Robinsons Case, 131 Mass. 376, at page 
378, the court, after discussing several offices, concludes: — 

And we are not aware of any public office, the duties of which must 
be discharged by the incumbent in person, that a woman was ad- 
judged to be competent to hold, without express authority of statute, 
except that of overseer of the poor, a local office of an administrative 
character, in no way connected with judicial proceedings. (Page 
379.) 

In that case it was held that a woman could not, without statu- 
tory authority, be examined for admission as an attorney and 
counsellor of the Supreme Judicial Court. 

There are numerous opinions of the justices relative to the 
incumbency by women of positions and offices in the public 
service. Thus, in 107 Mass. 604, the justices held that a woman 
could not constitutionally hold the office of justice of the peace. 
In 115 Mass. 602, the justices, in reply to the question, " Under 
the Constitution of this Commonwealth can a woman be a mem- 
ber of the school committee ? " limiting themselves to the effect 
of the Constitution upon the capacity of a woman to hold such 
office, and without interpreting existing statutes, held that the 
question should be answered in the affirmative. It is to be ob- 



98 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

served, however, that, as in the case of attorneys at law (see St. 
1882, c. 139), a special act was passed authorizing women to act 
as members of a school committee. See St. 1874, c. 389. In 150 
Mass., at pages 586, 591, the justices declared that — 

The clause of the Constitution which provides for the appointment 
of notaries public, interpreted with reference to the history and 
nature of the office and the long-continued and constant practice of 
the government here and the usage elsewhere, cannot be considered 
as authorizing the Governor, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Council, to appoint women to be notaries public. 

In 165 Mass. 599, the justices rendered an opinion that an act 
providing for the appointment of women to be notaries public 
would be unconstitutional. In an Opinion of the Justices in 
136 Mass. 578, it was held that under St. 1879, c. 291, § 2, 
authorizing the Governor, with the advice and consent of the 
Council, to appoint nine persons as a State Board of Health, 
Lunac}'' and Charity, he might appoint a woman as a member of 
such board, but this opinion was based upon what the justices 
declared to be the established policy of the Legislature, evidenced 
by numerous statutes, that women might serve upon such boards. 
See, St. 1868, c. 153, § 1 ; St. 1870, c. 370, § 10; St. 1873, c. 166; 
St. 1877, c. 195, § 1. 

The principle upon which these opinions are based constrains 
me to hold that in the present case, although the Constitution 
would not prevent a woman from holding the office of truant 
officer, such office is a public office requiring the exercise of gov- 
ernmental functions; and that unless expressly authorized by 
statute the incumbent should not be a woman. This view is con- 
firmed by a consideration of the following cases in which special 
legislation for that purpose was enacted : Overseers of the Poor, 
St. 1886, c. 150; Commissioners of Deeds and similar duties, 
St. 1883, c. 252; Assistant Probation Officers in the Municipal 
Court of the City of Boston, St. 1897, c. 266. See, further, St. 
1907, c. 261. 

The following provisions, among others, authorizing the ap- 
pointment of women to public offices, are found in the Revised 
Laws : — 

C. 165, § 4, which provides that the assistant clerk for the 
county of Hampden may be a woman. 

C. 25, § 62, which provides that an assistant town clerk may 
be a woman. 

C. 20, § 19, which provides that in counties in which there is 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 99 

no assistant clerk of courts the county commissioners may ap- 
point a clerk pro tempore, who may be a woman. 

C. 76, § 24, which provides that there shall be a board of regis- 
tration in dentistry, consisting of five persons, male or female. 

C. 222, § 1, which provides that there shall be a board of 
prison commissioners, consisting of five persons, two of whom 
shall be women. 

C. 22, § 8, which provides that registers of deeds may, subject 
to the approval of the Superior Court, appoint an assistant regis- 
ter of deeds, who may be a woman. 

C. 164, § 17, which provides that the assistant registers of 
probate in the counties of Bristol, Hampden and Hampshire may 
be women. 

C. 108, § 1, which provides that the inspection department of 
the district police shall consist of the chief of said force, thirty- 
three male and two female members. 

I am therefore of opinion that, under existing statutes, a 
woman may not be appointed to or exercise the duties of the 
office of truant officer. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Water Supply — Great Ponds — State Board of Health — Con- 
trol and Regulation — Public Rights — Cities and Towns. 

Under the provisions of R. L., c. 75, §§ 112 and 113, as amended by St. 
1907, c. 467, vesting in the State Board of Health the "oversight 
and care of all inland waters and of all streams and ponds used by 
any city, town or public institution ... as sources of water supply," 
and providing that it may regulate and control the exercise of the 
public rights of boating, fishing, skating or taking ice, and may 
delegate the power of granting or withholding permits to the local 
authorities, " and upon complaint of any person interested . . . 
shall investigate the granting or withholding of any such permit 
and make such orders relative thereto as it may deem necessary for 
the protection of the public health," a city or town may prohibit the 
public right of boating or fishing upon a great pond used as a source 
of water supply only in cases where such prohibition is necessarily 
involved in the use of such great pond as a source of water supply, 
and where complaint is made with respect to the granting or with- 
holding of a permit by the local authorities, if such board considers 
that the issuance of the permit so withheld would not endanger the 
purity of the source of water supply, it may make such order in the 
premises as it deems necessary for the protection of the public 
health, and may doubtless require the issuance of the permit. 



100 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Oct. 3, 1911. 
C. E. McGillicuddv, Esq., State Board of Health. 

Dear Sir : — In a letter dated September 30 you state that by 
vote of the State Board of Health you were authorized to submit 
certain questions for my determination. These questions are 
as follows : — 

Query 1. — Can any town or city absolutely prevent fishing and 
boating* upon a natural great pond, even though the town or city 
claims to own in fee the surrounding property of the great pond 
which has been taken for a water supply? 

Query 2. — Can the State Board of Health issue a permit to boat 
and fish on a great pond, when the properly delegated authorities 
of a town or city refuse to issue a permit to fish and boat to an 
individual on a great pond which has been taken for a water supply 
by a town or city? 

The facts upon which your questions arise appear to be as 
follows: in 1909, the town of Concord, acting under authority 
of St. 1884, c. 201, § 2, took the water from a certain pond, 
which I assume to be a great pond, for the purposes of water 
supply, and thereafter petitioned the State Board of Health to 
make rules and regulations to prevent the pollution and to secure 
the sanitary protection of the waters of such pond, under the 
provisions of R. L., c. 75, § 113, as amended by St. 1907, c. 467, 
§ 1, which provides that — 

Said board may cause examinations of such waters to be made to 
ascertain their purity or fitness for domestic use or their liability to 
impair the interests of the public or of persons lawfully using them 
or to imperil the public health. It may make rules and regulations 
to prevent the pollution and to secure the sanitary protection, of all 
such waters as are used as sources of water supply. Said board may 
delegate the granting and withholding of any permit required by 
such rules or regulations to state boards and commissions and to 
selectmen in towns and to boards of health, water boards and water 
commissioners in cities and towns, to be exercised by such selectmen, 
boards and commissions, subject to such recommendation and direc- 
tion as shall be given from time to time by the state board of health ; 
and upon complaint of any person interested said board shall in- 
vestigate the granting or withholding of any such permit and make 
such orders relative thereto as it may deem necessary for the pro- 
tection of the public health. 

On April 7, 1910, the State Board of Health duly made certain 
rules and regulations, containing, among others, the regulation 
that — 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 101 

No person shall bathe in, and no person shall, unless permitted by 
a written permit of the board of water and sewer commissioners of 
the town of Concord, fish in, or send, drive or put any animal into, 
Nagog Pond, so called. ... No person other than a member, officer, 
agent or employee of said board of water and sewer commissioners, 
or public officer whose duty may so require, shall, unless so permitted 
by a written permit of said board, enter or go, in any boat, skiff, 
raft or other contrivance, in or upon the water of said Nagog Pond, 
nor shall enter or go upon, or drive any animal upon, the ice of said 
pond. 

Acting under this authority the board of water and sewer 
commissioners of the town of Concord have refused to permit 
boating and fishing thereon, and one of the persons so refused 
has petitioned the board to act, under the provisions of E. L., 
c. 75, § 113, as amended by St. 1907, c. 467, § 1, providing that 
upon complaint of any person interested the State Board of 
Health "shall investigate the granting or withholding of any 
such permit and make such orders relative thereto as it may 
deem necessary for the protection of the public health." 

The questions which you submit are not in terms limited to 
the specific facts above stated, which appear from the papers 
accompanying your communication, but I assume that they were 
framed with those facts in view, to determine the duty of your 
board in the premises. 

It is well established that the appropriation of the waters, 
or any part thereof, of a great pond by a town for purposes of 
water supply under legislative authority, does not take away the 
rights of the public in such pond " excepting so far as they are 
necessarily lost in the exercise of a right conferred upon the 
town to use the waters of the pond as a source of water supply." 
II Op. Atty.-Gen. 239, 240; Rocl-port v. Webster, 174 Mass. 385. 
It follows, therefore, that unless the public use of a great pond 
for boating or fishing is so far inconsistent with its use as a 
source of water supply as to be necessarily lost in the exercise 
of the right acquired by a town, such town would have no right 
to absolutely prohibit boating or fishing. 

Under the provisions of E. L., c. 75, § 113, as amended by St. 
1907, c. 467, § 1, it is to be observed that the State Board of 
Health is vested with authority to make rules and regulations 
" to prevent the pollution and to secure the sanitary protection " 
of all waters which are used as sources of water supply, and, 
acting under this provision, may require that persons who desire 



102 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

to exercise the public right of boating or fishing shall secure 
permits either from the Board itself or from the local board to 
whom the authority to issue such permits has been delegated, or 
may forbid the exercise of such public rights altogether. See 
Sprague v. Minon, 195 Mass. 581. 

Replying specifically to your first inquiry, therefore, I am of 
opinion that a city or town is authorized to prohibit the public 
right of fishing or boating upon a great pond used as a source 
of water supply only in cases where such prohibition is necessarily 
involved in the use of such great pond as a source of water 
supply. 

Your second inquiry calls for my opinion upon the powers of 
the State Board of Health acting under the provisions of R. L., 
c. 75, § 113, as amended by St. 1907, c. 467, § 1, already cited. 

Under these provisions of law the Board may make rules and 
regulations to protect sources of water supply, and may prohibit 
the exercise of the public rights of boating and fishing in or 
upon such sources of water supply, except to such persons as may 
receive a permit therefor. The authority to issue such permits 
may be delegated, among others, to selectmen in towns and to 
boards of health, water boards or water commissioners in cities 
and towns, to be exercised under the direction of the State Board 
of Health. Where complaint is made in any case with respect 
to the granting or withholding of such permit by the Board to 
whom the issuance thereof has been delegated, the Board shall 
investigate the matter and make such orders relative thereto as 
may be deemed necessary for the protection of the public health. 
If, upon due investigation, the Board in any case determines that 
a permit withheld by the local authorities may be issued without 
endangering the purity of the sources of water supply, they may 
make such order in the premises as they deem necessary for the 
protection of the public health, and such order may doubtless 
require the issuance of the permit. In such a case, therefore, 
the State Board of Health may issue or cause to be issued a 
permit to boat and fish, notwithstanding that the properly dele- 
gated authorities of a city or town have previously refused to do 
so, provided that such issuance is not inconsistent with the proper 
protection of the public health. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 103 



Lyman and Industrial Schools — Trustees — Lyman Fund — 
Income — Purchase of Land — Title. 

Under the provisions of St. 1911, c. 566, § 3, that the Trustees of the 
Massachusetts Training Schools " succeed to the trusts, right, powers 
and duties " of the trustees of the Lyman and Industrial Schools, 
and of E. L., c. 86, § 1, that the board of trustees of the Lyman and 
Industrial Schools should be " a corporation for the purpose of tak- 
ing, holding and investing in trust for the commonwealth any grant, 
devise, gift or bequest made for the use of any institution of which 
they are trustees," the trustees of the Massachusetts Training Schools 
may purchase, from the accumulated income from the Lyman Fund 
and Lyman Trust Fund, so called, land for the use of the Lyman 
School. 

The title to the land so purchased should be taken in the name of the 
trustees, in trust for the Commonwealth. 

Without express or implied authority from the Legislature, title to land 
cannot be taken in the name of the Commonwealth by any public 
officer or board. 

Oct. 18, 1911. 

Charles M. Davenport, Esq., Trustee of the Massachusetts Training 

Schools. 

Dear Sir : — In behalf of the trustees of the Massachusetts 
Training Schools you have requested my opinion upon certain 
questions hereinafter quoted. 

Your first question is as follows : — 

Have the trustees of the Massachusetts Training Schools (see Acts 
1911, c. 566), the successors to the trustees of the Lyman School (as 
provided in R. L., c. 86), the right to purchase land for the use of 
the Lyman School from the accumulated income from the Lyman 
Fund and Lyman Trust Fund, so called? 

In replying to this inquiry I assume that the language of the 
gift of the Lyman Fund and the Lyman Trust Fund, so called, 
is broad enough to authorize the proposed expenditure of accu- 
mulated income, and that the only point upon which you desire 
my advice is as to the statutory authority of the trustees. As 
to the statutory authority of the trustees, my opinion is that they 
have the right to purchase land for the use of the Lyman School 
from the accumulated income of these funds. I base this opinion 
upon the statutory provision (St. 1911, c. 566, § 3) that the 
trustees of the Massachusetts Training Schools " succeed to the 
trusts, rights, powers and duties " of the trustees of the Lyman 



104 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

and Industrial Schools; and upon the statutory provision (R. L., 
c. 8Q, § 1) that the board of trustees of the Lyman and Indus- 
trial Schools was " a corporation for the purpose of taking, hold- 
ing and investing in trust for the commonwealth any grant, 
devise, gift or bequest made for the use of any institution of 
which they are trustees." If the trustees of the Massachusetts 
Training Schools have the right to expend the accumulated in- 
come in question for the use of the Lyman School, and if they 
have the right to receive grants of land, it follows that they may 
expend such accumulated income in the purchase of land. 
Your second question is as follows : — 

If they have this right, how should the title be taken, whether in 
the name of the trustees, or directly in the name of the Common- 
wealth? 

In my opinion title should be taken in the name of the trus- 
tees, in trust for the Commonwealth. 
Your third question is as follows : — 

Can the Commonwealth take title without legislative sanction, it 
being in the nature of a gift to the Commonwealth, if purchased by 
income from accumulated funds, and without appropriation therefor? 

Title to land cannot be taken in the name of the Common- 
wealth by any board or officer who has not express or implied 
authority from the Legislature to do so. As I have advised you 
in answer to your first inquiry, I am of opinion that there is 
statutory authority for the trustees of the Massachusetts Train- 
ing Schools to take title in the name of the trustees, in trust 
for the Commonwealth, to land purchased with accumulated 
income of trust funds. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Trust Company — Savings Department — Board of Investment 
— Member as Endorser on Note for Money Loaned by Cor- 
poration. 

Under the provisions of St. 1908, c. 520, § 2, that all loans or investments 
of deposits in the savings department of a trust company " shall be 
made in accordance with statutes governing the investment of de- 
posits in savings banks," and of St. 1908, c. 590, § 44, that no mem- 
ber of a board of investment of a savings bank shall borrow or use 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 105 

any portion of the funds of such bank or " be surety for loans to 
others or, directly or indirectly ... be an obligor for money bor- 
rowed of the corporation," a member of the board of investment 
of a trust company cannot legally be an endorser upon a personal 
note for money loaned by such company to any person. 

Nov. 3, 1911. 
Hon. Arthur B. Chapin, Bank Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion " as to whether 
a member of the board of investment of a trust company can be 
an endorser on a personal note for money loaned by said trust 
company to a borrower without violating the provisions of sec- 
tion 2 of chapter 520, Acts of 1908, as restricted by section 44 
of chapter 590, Acts of 1908." 

Section 1 of chapter 520 of Statutes of 1908 is as follows : — 

Every trust company soliciting or receiving deposits (a) which 
may be withdrawn only on presentation of the pass-book or other 
similar form of receipt which permits successive deposits or with- 
drawals to be entered thereon; or (b) which at the option of the 
trust company may be withdrawn only at the expiration of a stated 
period after notice of intention to withdraw has been given; or (c) 
in any other way which might lead the public to believe that such 
deposits are received or invested under the same conditions or in 
the same manner as deposits in savings banks; shall have a savings 
department in which all business relating to such deposits shall be 
transacted. 

Section 2 provi des that — 

All such deposits shall be special deposits and shall be placed in 
said savings department, and all loans or investments thereof shall 
be made in accordance with the statutes governing the investment 
of deposits in savings banks. The duties of the board of investment 
relative to the investment of such deposits shall be performed by a 
board or committee appointed by the board of directors of such cor- 
poration. 

Section 44 of chapter 590 of Statutes of 1908 provides that — 

No president, treasurer, member of a board of investment or officer 
of such corporation charged with the duty of investing its funds 
shall borrow or use any portion thereof, be surety for loans to others 
or, directly or indirectly, whether acting individually or as trustee 
holding property in trust for another person, be an obligor for money 
borrowed of the corporation; . . . 



106 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

It was the obvious purpose of the Legislature, in St. 1908, 
c. 520, § 2, to make the investment or loan of deposits in the 
savings department of a trust company subject to the same regu- 
lations and restrictions that are applicable to the investment or 
loan of deposits in savings banks, and one of these restrictions 
is that no member of a board of investment or investment com- 
mittee shall borrow or use any of such deposits, or be surety 
for loans made to others than himself. It follows, therefore, in 
my opinion, that a member of a board of investment of a trust 
company cannot legally be an endorser on a personal note for 
money loaned by such company to any person. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Labor Laws — Mercantile or Manufacturing Establishment — 
Restaurant — Establishment maintaining Lunch Room and 
Food Salesroom. 

An establishment which maintains a lunch room, and also a food sales- 
room from which supplies are sent to other lunch rooms maintained 
by the same establishment at other places and lunches are sent to be 
served at certain high, Latin and normal schools, the receipts of 
such food salesroom being a little over one-eighth of the total re- 
ceipts, is not, by reason of the maintenance of such food salesroom, 
excluded from the definition of " mercantile establishment " in St. 
1909, c. 514, § 17, that such establishment " shall mean any premises 
used for the purposes of trade in the purchase or sale of any goods 
or merchandise, and any premises used for the purposes of a res- 
taurant or for publicly providing and serving meals," and is not, 
therefore, a " manufacturing establishment," defined by the same 
section as " any premises, room or place used for the purpose of 
making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing or adapting for 
sale any article or part of an article." 

Nov. 6, 1911. 
Gen. J. H. Whitney, Chief, Massachusetts District Police. 

Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion as to whether 
the New England Kitchen, so called, maintained by the Women's 
Educational and Industrial Union of Boston, is a manufacturing 
or a mercantile establishment within the meaning of those terms 
as used in the laws relating to labor. The facts, I understand, 
are these : At the New England Kitchen, which is situated on 
Charles Street, there is a lunch room and a food salesroom. 
From this place is sent the food which the Union serves for 
lunches at the high, Latin and normal schools. From it also are 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 107 

sent supplies to the place of business of the Union on Boylston 
Street, where are maintained three lunch rooms, with a common 
kitchen, and a food salesroom. Eeceipts from sales of food at 
the food salesroom of the New England Kitchen constitute 
about one-ninth of the total receipts of the New England Kitchen, 
and a little over one-eighth of such total receipts exclusive of 
supplies sent to Boylston Street. You state that " it is to be 
noted that the establishment in question [by which I infer that 
you refer to the New England Kitchen and not to the 
Union's place of business on Boylston Street] may be considered 
principally as a restaurant; also that it is a general custom in 
restaurants to sell such foods as are served therein to persons 
desiring to use the same off the premises." St. 1909, c. 514, 
§ 17, contains the following definitions of " manufacturing 
establishments " and " mercantile establishments " as those terms 
are used in the laws relative to the employment of labor : — 

" Manufacturing establishments " shall mean any premises, room 
or place used for the purpose of making, altering, repairing, orna- 
menting, finishing or adapting for sale any article or part of an 
article. 

" Mercantile establishments " shall mean any premises used for 
the purposes of trade in the purchase or sale of any goods or mer- 
chandise, and any premises used for the purposes of a restaurant 
or for publicly providing and serving meals. 

The labor laws contain distinct provisions applicable to " man- 
ufacturing establishments " and to " mercantile establishments." 
See, for example, St. 1909, c. 514, § 47, and § 48, as amended 
by St. 1911, c. 484, § 1. The definitions must therefore be re- 
garded as mutually exclusive. If an establishment is within one 
of the definitions it is not within the other. The New England 
Kitchen is, on your statement, to be " considered principally 
as a restaurant." A restaurant is in express terms within the 
definition of " mercantile establishments. It is, therefore, imma- 
terial that but for such express inclusion it might be considered 
as within the definition of "manufacturing establishments." I 
infer that your inquiry is as to whether the fact that the New 
England Kitchen maintains a food salesroom excludes it from 
the definition. As you have stated, the sale at a restaurant of 
food to be used off the premises is a usual practice, and one which 
must be taken to have been in the mind of the Legislature when 
it defined " mercantile establishments " as including restaurants. 



108 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

The receipts from sales at the food salesroom of the New Eng- 
land Kitchen are a comparatively small part of the total receipts 
of the establishment; in other words, the food salesroom is inci- 
dental to the lnnch room, or restaurant. Without attempting to 
state precisely where the line is to be drawn, I advise yon that 
in my opinion, from the facts stated, the New England Kitchen 
is not by reason of its maintaining a food salesroom excluded 
from the definition of " mercantile establishments." It is a 
mercantile rather than a manufacturing establishment. 
Yery truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Election — Death of Candidate on Morning of Election Day — 
Failure to elect — Special Election — Governor. 

Where a candidate for the office of clerk of the courts died on the morn- 
ing of the day of the election, but as the fact of his death was not 
generally known and his name was upon the official ballot the 
highest number of votes was cast for him, there was a failure to 
elect, and the Governor should cause a precept to be issued for the 
election of such officer in accordance with the provisions ,of St. 
1907, c. 560, § 306. 

Nov. 27, 1911. 
His Excellency Eugene N. Foss, Governor. 

Sir : — You have requested my opinion as to whether William 
C. Nevin was elected clerk of the courts for the county of Dukes 
County at the last State election and as to whether a new elec- 
tion will be necessary. 

It appears that the name of Samuel Keniston was upon the 
official ballot as a candidate for such office and that the highest 
number of votes was cast for him. It further appears that said 
Keniston died on the morning of election day before the open- 
ing of the polls. It does not appear to what extent the fact of 
the death of said Keniston was known to the voters of the 
county, but it is not claimed by the said Nevin that such fact 
was generally known. 

Upon these facts I am of opinion that said Xevin was not 
elected clerk of the courts for said county, but that there was a 
failure to elect. This view is supported by authority. Hoives v. 
Perry, 92 Ky. 260; State v. Walsh, 7 Mo. App. 142; State v. 
Speidel, 62 Ohio St. 156. It is an application of the principle 
that where the person receiving the highest number of votes is 
ineligible there is a failure to elect, and the person receiving the 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 109 

next highest number is not elected. This rule seems to be com- 
mon to England and America. In England, however, and in 
one or more States of the United States it seems that this rule 
does not apply where the voters at the time of the election have 
notice of the ineligibility. The weight of authority in America 
seems to be, however, that the fact of notice is immaterial. 
Bowker et al., Petitioners ; Loring and Eussell, Election Cases, 
282, and note; Cooley, Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 931, 932; Dillon, 
Municipal Corporations (5th ed.), § 373, and note. I am 
aware of no authority which, in the absence of evidence that 
the fact of the death of said Keniston was generally known to 
the voters of Dukes County at the time of the election, would 
hold said Nevin to have been elected clerk of the courts. Ac- 
cording to the weight of authority in this country he would not 
have been elected even if it appeared that the fact of the death 
of said Keniston was generally known. 

Since there has been a failure to choose a clerk of the courts, 
St. 1907, c. 560, § 306, becomes applicable. This section pro- 
vides that the Governor shall cause a precept to be issued for 
the election of such officer. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



City or Town — Tuberculosis Hospital — Maintenance of Ward 
or Beds in Private Hospital or General City or Town Hos- 
pital — Subsidy from Commonwealth. 

The maintenance by a city or town of a tuberculosis ward or bed or beds 
in a private tuberculosis hospital or in a general city or town hospital 
does not fulfil the requirements of St. 1911, c. 597, § 1, which pro- 
vides that " every city or town which establishes and maintains 
a tuberculosis hospital shall be entitled to receive from the com- 
monwealth a subsidy of five dollars per week for each patient who 
is unable to pay for his support, or whose kindred bound by law to 
maintain him are unable to pay for the same." 

Dec. 4, 1911. 

Arthur Drixkwater, Esq., Trustee of Hospitals for Consumptives. 
Dear Sir : — You have submitted to me three inquiries rela- 
tive to the construction of St. 1911, c. 597, entitled " An Act to 
encourage and promote the building and use of tuberculosis hos- 
pitals in cities and towns." This statute, in section 1, provides 
that — 

Every city and town which establishes and maintains a tuberculosis 
hospital shall be entitled to receive from the commonwealth a sub- 



110 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

sidy of five dollars per week for each patient who is unable to pay 
for his support, or whose kindred bound by law to maintain him 
are unable to pay for the same, but the city or town shall not be- 
come entitled to this subsidy unless, upon examination authorized 
by the trustees of hospitals for consumptives, the sputum of such 
patients be found to contain bacilli of tuberculosis, and unless the 
hospital be subject to the inspection of, and be approved by, said 
trustees. 

Your inquiries are substantially whether or not a city or town 
is entitled to the subsidy above provided for (1) if it maintains 
in a private tuberculosis hospital a tuberculosis ward or bed or 
beds; (2) if it maintains a tuberculosis ward in a general city or 
town hospital, or a bed or beds for tuberculous patients in such 
hospitals ; and (3) if it maintains a tuberculosis ward in a private 
general hospital or a bed or beds for tuberculous patients in such 
hospital. 

I am of opinion that all three of these inquiries should be 
answered in the negative. The purpose of the statute is obviously 
as stated in the title, " to encourage and promote the building 
and use of tuberculosis hospitals ; " or, in other words, to furnish 
an inducement to cities and towns to erect and maintain hos- 
pitals for persons afflicted with tuberculosis where such patients 
may be cared for and treated. It follows, therefore, that cities 
and towns which maintain wards or beds in private hospitals or 
in general city hospitals are not entitled to the subsidy provided 
for in the section above quoted. 

Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Commonwealth — Employees — Retirement — Massachusetts 
Agricultural College — Teachers and Employees. 

The Massachusetts Agricultural College is a public charitable corporation 
organized for educational purposes, and is not, strictly speaking, a 
State institution and its teachers and employees are not eligible to 
participate in the retirement system established by St. 1911, c. 532, 
for employees of the Commonwealth. 

Dec. 4, 1911. 

F. Spencer Baldwin, Esq., Department of the Treasurer and 
Receiver-General. 
Dear Sir : — You have requested my opinion as to whether 
teachers and employees of the Massachusetts Agricultural Col- 
lege are eligible for participation in the retirement system for the 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. Ill 

employees of the Commonwealth, established by chapter 532 of 
the acts of the present year. Only employees of the Common- 
wealth are eligible for such participation. By the terms of the 
statute " the word ' employee ' means any person on the pay roll 
of the commonwealth, whether employed in the direct service of 
the commonwealth or in the metropolitan district service, who 
regularly gives his whole time to that service " (section 1). The 
teachers and employees of the Massachusetts Agricultural Col- 
lege are not, in my opinion, employees of the Commonwealth, 
within this definition. Under date of June 13, 1910, my prede- 
cessor advised the House of Representatives that the Massachu- 
setts Agricultural College was " a public charitable corporation 
organized for educational purposes," and that it was not " in the 
strict sense of the words ... a State institution." Attorney- 
GeneraFs Report, 1910, pp. 45, 48, 49. Since that time the Mass- 
achusetts Agricultural College has transferred its property to the 
Commonwealth under authority of St. 1911, c. 311. That statute 
did not, however, change the nature of the institution. Its teach- 
ers and employees are, therefore, employees of a public charitable 
corporation and not of the Commonwealth, even though con- 
siderable sums of money are appropriated by the Commonwealth 
for the support of the corporation. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Civil Service — Vendor of Intoxicating Liquors — Druggist — 
Sixth-class License. 

A druggist who holds a sixth-class license to sell intoxicating liquors is a 
" vendor of intoxicating liquors " within the meaning of E. L., c. 19, 
§ 16, providing that " no . . . vendor of intoxicating liquors shall 
be appointed to or retained in any office, appointment or employment 
to which the provision of this chapter shall apply." 

Dec. 11, 1911. 
Warren P. Dudley, Esq., Secretary, Civil Service Commission. 

Dear Sir : — In behalf of the Civil Service Commission you 
have requested my opinion as to whether a druggist who holds a 
sixth-class license to sell intoxicating liquors is a " vendor of 
intoxicating liquors " within the meaning of section 16 of chapter 
19 of the Eevised Laws. 

Chapter 19 of the Eevised Laws deals with the civil service. 
Section 16 of this chapter is as follows: — 



112 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

No person habitually using intoxicating liquors to excess and no 
vendor of intoxicating liquors shall be appointed to or retained in 
any office, appointment or employment to which the provisions of 
this chapter apply. 

Licenses of the sixth class are " licenses to retail druggists and 
apothecaries to sell liquors of any kind for medicinal, mechanical 
or chemical purposes only, and to such persons only as may cer- 
tify in writing for what use they want them." R. L., c. 100, § 18. 

I am of opinion that a druggist who holds a sixth-class license, 
and by virtue thereof sells intoxicating liquors, is a " vendor of 
intoxicating liquors " within the meaning of the civil service 
statute quoted. It may be that the reasons which in the mind 
of the Legislature make the holder of a license of one of the first 
five classes an improper person for appointment under the civil 
service law do not apply to the holder of a sixth-class license. A 
holder of a sixth-class license who sells intoxicating liquors there- 
under is, however, clearly within the ordinary meaning of the 
words " vendor of intoxicating liquors." In my judgment, the 
intention of the Legislature to exclude the holder of such a 
license from the statutory prohibition is not clear enough to 
justify a. departure from the ordinary construction of the phrase. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



Savings Banks — Legal Investment — Bonds of Terminal Cor- 
porations — Railroad. 

By providing in St. 1908, e. 590, § 68. el. 3, subdivision a, that deposits 
in savings banks and the income derived therefrom may be invested 
" in the bonds or notes, issued in accordance with the laws of this 
commonwealth, of a railroad corporation incorporated therein, . . . 
or in the first mortgage bonds of a terminal corporation incorporated 
in this commonwealth, , ' and in subdivision c of cl. 3 of said § 68, 
as amended by St. 1909, c. 491, § 8, that such deposits and the income 
derived therefrom may be invested " in the first mortgage bonds of a 
railroad corporation incorporated in any of the New England states, 
the railroad of which is located wholly or in part therein," the 
Legislature intended to restrict the investment of such deposits and 
income to the first mortgage bonds of terminal companies incor- 
porated within the Commonwealth. 

The Portland Terminal Company, a corporation organized under the laws 
of the State of Maine for the purpose of establishing, maintaining, 
operating and developing a terminal in the city of Portland, and 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 113 

authorized to acquire and hold any or all of the franchises, rights 
or properties of certain railroad corporations within the territory 
designated as such terminal, which within such territory operates 
trains, issues time-tables, sells tickets therefor, and generally en- 
gages in the business of a common carrier of passengers, baggage 
and express, may, however, be construed to be a " railroad corpora- 
tion " within the meaning of St. 1908, c. 590, § 68, el. 3, subdivision 
c, as amended by St. 1909, c. 491, % 8, above quoted. 

Dec. 21, 1911. 
Hon. Arthur B. Chapin, Bank Commissioner. 

Dear Sir : — You have submitted for my opinion the follow- 
ing request: "Will you kindly give me your opinion as to 
whether the bonds of the Portland Terminal Company will be 
legal investments for Massachusetts savings banks, if in proper 
form." 

While your question is a broad one, from the correspondence 
and memoranda accompanying your letter I assume that the 
specific point of inquiry is whether or not the bonds of the Port- 
land Terminal Company would be legal investments for Massa- 
chusetts savings banks, or, in other words, whether the Portland 
Terminal Company is to be considered as a railroad, under the 
provisions of St. 1908, c. 590, § 6S, cl. 3, subdivision c, as 
amended by St. 1909, c. 491, § 8, which, in substance, provides 
that deposits in savings banks, and the income derived there- 
from, shall be invested only as follows : — 

c. In the first mortgage bonds or assumed first mortgage bonds 
or in the bonds secured by a refunding mortgage as described in para- 
graphs (3) or (4) of subdivision g, of a railroad corporation incor- 
porated in any of the New England states, the railroad of which is 
located wholly or in part therein, which have been guaranteed as to 
principal and interest by a railroad corporation described in sub- 
divisions a or b which is in possession of and is operating its own 
road. 

Said company was incorporated under the laws of Maine, by 
chapter 96 of the Acts of 1887, entitled " An Act providing for 
a Union Railway Station at Portland." Section 1 of that act 
named the incorporators and provided that the corporation 
should be authorized " to erect, maintain, manage and govern 
a union railway station in Portland, for passengers, with con- 
venient approaches, tracks, round houses, car sheds, signal 
towers and all other convenient and usual appurtenances of 



114 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

union railway stations; and for those purposes (was) authorized 
to purchase, lease or otherwise obtain the right to occupy so 
much as may be convenient therefor, of the tracks and road-bed 
of any railroad company, with the consent of the company own- 
ing or controlling such tracks or road-bed, and also to acquire, 
hold and dispose of all such lands and buildings and other prop- 
erty, real or personal, as may be convenient for the purposes 
aforesaid." By section 2 a provision was made for such rules and 
regulations for the government of such union station and its 
grounds and approaches as might be consistent with the laws of 
the State of Maine and the ordinances of the city of Portland. 
This section also contained a provision that any railroad entering 
Portland might have the common use of the station. In sec- 
tion 4 it was provided that any railroad company whose tracks 
had entered or might thereafter enter the city of Portland 
should have the lawful right to purchase, hold and dispose of 
shares in the capital stock or bonds, scrip or other negotiable 
promises issued by the Union Railway Station Company, " or 
guaranty to other purchasers or holders thereof, the payment of 
said bonds, scrip, or other promises or any part thereof." 

This chapter was amended during the present year by chap- 
ter 189 of the laws of the State of Maine for 1911, by which the 
name of the corporation was changed to the Portland Terminal 
Company. By section 2 it was provided that the railroad ter- 
minal created by the act should include within its limits any or 
all the properties of the Union Railway Station Company, the 
Boston & Maine Railroad, the Maine Central Railroad Company, 
the leasehold interests of the Maine Central Railroad as lessee 
of the Portland & Ogdensburg and of the Portland & Rumford 
Falls Railroad, situated in the cities of Portland, South Port- 
land or Westbrook; and any or all the properties in such cities 
of any other railroad company using the terminal facilities 
under agreement with the terminal corporation. Section 3 was 
as follows : — 

For the establishment, maintenance, operation and development 
of such railroad terminal, and for the regulation of railroad business, 
passenger, freight and express, within its limits, the Portland Ter- 
minal Company may acquire by contract, purchase or lease from the 
Boston & Maine Railroad and the Maine Central Railroad Company, 
or from any other railroad company using or desiring to use said 
terminal, all or any part of the railroad franchises, rights or proper- 
ties within the limits of said terminal, including lands, rights of way, 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 115 

tracks, road-beds, bridges, wharves, water rights, round-houses, rail- 
road repair shops, stations, or other buildings; and all title to the 
same or any interests therein, or any right of exercise or operation 
thereof or to manage the same, within the limits aforesaid; nothing 
herein contained, however, shall authorize the Portland Terminal 
Company to acquire or to renew the use of the abandoned railroad 
location from Woodfords to the junction with the belt line, so called, 
running from the foot of Preble street to the Union station in Port- 
land. The tracks on said abandoned location and Pitt street bridge, 
so called, over the same to be removed by the Boston & Maine Rail- 
road at its own expense within three months after this act takes effect. 

Within the limits of said terminal for the purpose of making 
changes and improvements therein and for all the purposes of its 
charter, the terminal company shall have the same powers of eminent 
domain as said railroad companies have by law; damages for real 
estate taken by condemnation to be estimated and paid in the same 
manner as provided by law in cases of lands taken for railroad uses. 

Any corporation owning, operating, or controlling the same is 
hereby authorized to make sale, lease or conveyance to the said ter- 
minal company of property which the company is hereby authorized 
to acquire. 

The Portland Terminal Company is hereby authorized to purchase 
or build railway repair shops within its limits and to operate the 
same under its own management. 

Within the railroad locations included in the terminal the terminal 
company may locate according to law and build, maintain and 
operate electric railroads; and may purchase or lease, maintain and 
operate electric street railroads within the limits of said terminal. 

Section 6 provided as follows : — 

The Boston & Maine Railroad and the Maine Central Railroad 
Company, and any other railroad company using the terminal 
facilities by agreement with the terminal company, are each hereby 
authorized to guarantee the payment of the bonds issued by the 
Portland Terminal Company under this act, and to lease or convey 
to said Portland Terminal Company any or all property within the 
limits of said terminal. 



Under these provisions said Portland Terminal Company is 
authorized, within the limits of the railroad terminal established 
for the purpose, to operate railroads, both steam and electric, 
and the amount of trackage comprised within the cities men- 
tioned in the act is of considerable extent. It is, therefore, in a 
broad sense a " railroad " company, as held in Coughlan v. 



116 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Cambridge, 166 Mass. 268, and in Wall v. Piatt, 169 Mass. 398; 
and see Attorney-General' s Report, 1906, p. 39. When this last 
opinion was given, however, the statutes relating to investments 
for savings banks contained no mention of a terminal company, 
as such. This first appears in St. 1908, c. 590, § 68, cl. 3, sub- 
division a, in which it is provided that investments may be made 
as follows : — 

In the bonds or notes, issued in accordance with the laws of this 
commonwealth, of a railroad corporation incorporated therein the 
railroad of which is located wholly or in part therein, which has paid 
in dividends in cash an amount equal to not less than four per cent 
per annum on all its outstanding issues of capital stock in each fiscal 
year for the five years next preceding such investment, or in the first 
mortgage bonds of a terminal corporation incorporated in this com- 
monwealth and whose property is located therein, which is owned and 
operated, or the bonds of which are guaranteed as to principal and 
interest, or assumed, by such railroad corporation. 

The evident intention of the Legislature to distinguish be- 
tween terminal companies within Massachusetts and those out- 
side of this Commonwealth is significant, and leads me to the 
conclusion that it was not intended to permit investment by sav- 
ings banks in the bonds of a terminal corporation, as such, 
organized and actually situated in some other New England 
State. 

In the present case, while the matter is not entirely free from 
difficulty, I am of opinion that the bonds of the Portland Ter- 
minal Company may be considered bonds of a railroad corpora- 
tion, and therefore legal investments for savings banks so far as 
this specific inquiry is concerned. 

I have been informed, and assume to be facts, that the Port- 
land Terminal Company has exercised its authority to take over 
the property of the Boston & Maine Railroad and the Maine 
Central Railroad within the terminal limits established by the 
act ; that it runs regular passenger trains from Union Station in 
Portland to Portland Junction on the Grand Trunk Railroad; 
that it owns fifteen locomotives, rents six, and owns its own 
equipment of flat cars, derrick cars, and other rolling stock, 
and operates passenger cars ; that it issues time-tables and adver- 
tises the arrival and departure of its trains; that it sells its own 
passenger tickets and receives the compensation therefor; and 
that it employs a large number of people, including engineers, 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 117 

firemen, brakemen, conductors, baggage-masters, freight agents, 
ticket agents, ticket sellers and lost-article agents. Within its 
limits, therefore, it seems to be doing the business of a common 
carrier of passengers, baggage and express. It therefore appears 
that said corporation, in addition to being a terminal company, 
is a railroad company within the meaning of the provisions of 
law hereinbefore cited. 

The foregoing conclusion is upon the assumption that said 
bonds, when issued, will be in all other respects in accordance 
with the requirements of our statute. It appears, however, that 
a part of the property to be covered by the mortgage securing 
said bonds is subject to a prior consolidated mortgage of the 
Maine Central Railroad maturing April 1, 1912. This, in my 
opinion, will prevent said bonds from becoming legal invest- 
ments for Massachusetts savings banks until after the expira- 
tion of said mortgage on April 1, 1912. 
Very truly yours, 

James M. Swift, Attorney-General. 



118 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



INDEX TO OPINIONS. 



PAGE 

Amendment of Constitution, submission to people, .... 26 

Appropriations, annual, verification of estimates by Governor and Council, 3 
Armories, construction of, . . . . . . . . .14 

Use of, for public purposes, ........ 1 

Attorney-General, limit of time for performance of duties, ... 77 

Statement of fact necessary as basis for opinion, .... 78 

Back Bay Fens, erection of schoolhouse in; constitutional law, . . 60 

Bank, co-operative, way or manner of transacting business, ... 28 
Banks, national, tax on deposits in; constitutional law, ... 63 

Boating and fishing, regulation of, on artificial reservoir used as water 

supply, .......... 20 

Bonds of domestic electric light company, taxation of, when secured by 

mortgage of real and personal property, ..... 84 

Boston, appointees to office in, investigation by Civil Service Commission, 8 
Boston Elevated Railway Company, fixing rates of fare on; impairment 

of obligation of contract, . . . . . . .51 

Law requiring free transfers on: constitutional law, . . .54 

Charles River basin, widening Lechmere Canal, ..... 82 

Cities and towns, control and regulation of great ponds used as sources of 

water supply, ......... 99 

Citizens, formation of credit union by, ...... 65 

Civil service, holder of sixth-class license as vendor of intoxicating liquors, 111 
Veterinary inspector, veterinary medical inspector and veterinarian, 24 
Civil Service Commission, investigation of appointees to office in city of 
Boston, ......... 

Clerks of the courts, readjustment of salaries of, . 

Constitutional law, appropriation of money raised by taxation for Museum 
of Fine Arts; public purpose, ..... 

Change of use of public park by erection of schoolhouse, . 
Fixing rates of fare on street and elevated railway companies, . 
Free transportation of letter carriers in uniform on street railways, 
Law requiring free transfers on Boston Elevated Railway Company 
impairment of obligation of contract, .... 

Period for action by Governor on bills and resolves, 

Referendum on matter of local self-government, 

Right of woman to hold public office, ..... 

Submission of amendment of Constitution to people, 

Tax on deposits in national banks, ..... 

Taxation of land acquired by charitable institution for care of insane 
exemption, ........ 

Use of public highways; erection of structures over, 
Use of public highways for commercial or advertising purposes, 
Co-operative bank, way or manner of transacting business, 
Corporation, domestic electric light, taxation of bonds secured by mortgage 
of real and personal property, ..... 

May be legally organized under general laws to acquire stock of do- 
mestic street railway, gas and electric light companies, 
Terminal bonds of, as legal investment for savings banks, 



17 

35 
60 
51 
43 

54 
68 
77 
96 
26 
63 

40 
30 
38 

28 

84 

70 
112 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 119 

PAGE 

County commissioners, readjustment of salaries of, . . . .17 

County treasurers, readjustment of salaries of, . . . . .17 

Druggist holding sixth-class license, vendor of intoxicating liquors under 

civil service law, . . . . . . . . .111 

Election, death of candidate on election day, special election, . . 108 

Extradition, exercise of discretion by Governor, ..... 85 

Gas and electric light companies, domestic, corporation may be organized 

under general laws to hold stock of, ..... 70 

Governor, authority to employ agents or experts to investigate State 
departments or institutions in connection with estimates of pro- 
posed expenditures, ........ 57 

Employment of persons to investigate estimates of annual appropri- 
ations; compensation, ........ 93 

Exercise of discretion by, in matters of extradition, ... 85 

Period of five days for action on bills and resolves by, how computed, 68 
Verification of statements and estimates of annual appropriations, 

powers to examine and audit books, ..... 3 

Great ponds used as water supply, control and regulation of, by cities and 

towns; public rights, ........ 99 

Health, State Board of, regulation of great ponds used for water supply, 99 

Right to regulate boating and fishing on artificial reservoir, . . 20 

Highways, erection of structures over, public use, .... 30 

Use of, for commercial or advertising purposes, . . . .38 

Inspector, under civil service rules includes veterinary inspector, veteri- 
nary medical inspector and veterinarian, of City of Boston, . 24 
Intoxicating liquors, holder of sixth-class license vendor of, under civil 

service laws, . . . . . . • • .111 

Licensed place; licensed premises, ...... 45 

Investigation of State departments or institutions in connection with 

statements of proposed expenditures, ..... 57 

Labor, hours of, dumping inspectors and civil engineers, . 74 

Labor laws, mercantile or manufacturing establishment; restaurant, . 106 

Lechmere Canal, in Charles River basin, widening of, . . . .82 

Legislature, determination of public policy toward monopolies for, . . 78 

License for sale of intoxicating liquors, licensed place; licensed premises, 45 

Keeper of hospital for feeble-minded and insane, . . . .15 

Of use of highways for commercial or advertising purposes, . . 38 

Sixth-class, holder of, vendor of intoxicating liquors under civil 

service laws, . . . . . . • • .111 

Lyman and Industrial Schools, use of income of trust fund for, to pur- 
chase land, .......-• 103 

Massachusetts Agricultural College, employees of, not employees of 

Commonwealth, . . . . . . • • .110 

Mercantile establishment, premises of; telegraph company, . 66 

Mercantile or manufacturing establishment under labor laws; restaurant, 106 
Metropolitan Park Commission, authority to widen Lechmere Canal, . 82 
Monopolies, determination of public policy toward, for Legislature, . 77 
Officers, administrative, bound by presumption of lawful passage of 

statute, 69 

Portland Terminal Company, bonds of, as legal investment for savings 

banks, . . . . . . . • • .112 

Public office, death of candidate for, on election day, special election, . 108 
Public park, erection of schoolhouse in; constitutional law, ... 60 
Public records, papers in custody of Civil Service Commission relating to 

appointees to office in Boston, ...... 8 



120 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1912. 



Public rights in great ponds used for water supply, regulation of, by 

cities and towns, ......... 99 

Rallies of political parties, use of armories for, as public purpose, . . 1 
Rates of fare on street and elevated railways, constitutionality of law fix- 
ing, 51 

Restaurant as mercantile or manufacturing establishment, under labor 

laws, 106 

Salaries of clerks of court, county commissioners and county treasurers, 

readjustment of, . . . . . . . . .17 

Savings banks, legal investments, bonds of terminal corporations as, . 112 
State departments or institutions, investigation of, by agents of Governor 

in connection with estimates of proposed expenditures, . . 57 
Statute, presumption of lawful passage binding upon administrative 

officer, .......... 69 

Street railways, constitutionality of law fixing rates of fare on, . . 51 
Constitutionality of law requiring free transportation of letter car- 
riers in uniform, ......... 43 

Domestic corporation may be organized under general laws to hold 

stock of, .......... 70 

Taxation, appropriation of money raised by, for Museum of Fine Arts, 35 
Bonds of domestic electric light company secured by mortgage on 

real and personal property, ....... 84 

Of land of charitable institution for care of insane, exemption, . . 40 

Tax on deposits in national banks, ...... 63 

Telegraph company, premises of, not a mercantile establishment, . . 66 
Terminal corporation may be in fact a railroad, . . . . .112 

Towns, vote for appropriation for water supply, ..... 75 

Truant officer, right of woman to hold office of, . . . . .96 

Trust company, member of board of investment as endorser on note for 

money loaned by corporation, ...... 104 

Water supply, appropriation for, by towns, majority, .... 75 

Great ponds as source of, regulation by cities and towns, . . 99 

Sources of, regulation of fishing and boating on artificial reservoir, . 20 

Woman, right to hold public office as truant officer, . . . .96 

Workmen, laborers and mechanics, hours of labor for; dumping inspectors; 

civil engineers, ......... 74 

Volunteer militia, construction of armories for, ..... 14 



LIST OF CASES 



IN WHICH THE 



ATTOENET-GENEKAL 



HAS APPEARED 



During the Year 1911. 



GRADE CROSSINGS. 



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

Berkshire County. 

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

Lanesborough, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of Valley Eoad and Glen Eoad crossings. Eailroad Com- 
missioners appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Auditor's first report filed. 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. McCiench 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 and Furnace Street crossings. 
Edmund K. Turner, David F. Slade and William G. 
McKechnie appointed commissioners. Commissioners' re- 
port filed. Pending. 

Pittsfield, Mayor and Aldermen of, and Directors of Boston & 
Albany Railroad Company, petitioners. Petition for the 



124 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

abolition of Hubbard and Gates avenues and Jason Street 
crossings in Pittsfield. Thomas W. Kennefick, William 
Sullivan and Charles M. Ludden appointed commissioners. 
Commissioners' report filed. Patrick J. Ashe appointed 
auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Disposed of. 

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. 

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 ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 

Stockbridge, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
South Street crossing. Railroad commissioners appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. A. W. DeGoosh 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Stockbridge. Berkshire Railroad, petitioner. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Glendale station crossing. Pending. 

West Stockbridge, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of grade crossing at Albany Street. Pending. 

Bristol County. 

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 
seventh report filed. Pending. 

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 commis- 
sioners. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 125 

New Bedford, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of certain grade crossings in New Bedford. George 
F. Eichardson, Horatio G. Herrick and Wm. Wheeler ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred 
E. Jones appointed auditor. Auditor's fifteenth report 
filed. Pending. 

Somerset. New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad Com- 
pany, petitioner. Petition for abolition of grade crossing at 
Wilbur Avenue. James D. Colt, Henry H. Baker and 
Louis Perry appointed commissioners. Commissioners' re- 
port filed. Pending. 

Swansea. New York, New Haven & Hartford Eailroad Com- 
pany, petitioner. Petition for abolition of grade crossing at 
Eiver Eoad. James D. Colt, Henry H. Baker and Louis 
Perry appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed. Pending. 

Taunton, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of grade crossings at Danforth and other streets in 
Taunton. Thomas M. Babson, George F. Swain and Edwin 
U. Curtis appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Essex County. 

Gloucester. Boston & Maine Eailroad, petitioner. Petition for 
abolition of crossings at Magnolia Avenue and Brays cross- 
ing. Arthur Lord, Moody Kimball and P. H. Cooney ap- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Gloucester. Directors of Boston & Maine Eailroad, petitioners. 
Petition for abolition of grade crossing between Washing- 
ton Street and tracks of Boston & Maine Eailroad. Pend- 
ing. 

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 
eleventh report filed. Pending. 

Ipswich, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
High Street and Locust Street crossings. Geo. W. Wiggin, 
Edmund K. Turner and William F. Dana appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Fred E. Jones ap- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. Pending. 



126 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Lawrence. Boston & Maine Railroad, petitioner. Petition for 
abolition of crossings at Chickering Street. Moody Kimball, 
James C. Poor and John M. Grosvenor, Jr., appointed 
commissioners. Pending. 

Lawrence, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of crossing at Merrimac and other streets in 
Lawrence. Pending. 

Lynn, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of Summer Street and other crossings on Saugus 
branch of Boston & Maine Railroad and Market Street and 
other crossings on main line. George W. Wiggin, Edgar R. 
Champlin and Edmnnd K. Turner appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Edward A. McLaugh- 
lin appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pend- 
ing. 

Lynn, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of grade crossings at Pleasant and Shepard streets, Gas 
Wharf Road and Commercial Street, on the Boston, Revere 
Beach & Lynn Railroad. Pending. 

Salem. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad, petitioners. Peti- 
tion for the abolition of grade crossings at Bridge, Wash- 
ington, Mill, North, Flint and Grove streets in Salem. 
Patrick H. Cooney, George F. Swain and William A. Dana 
appointed commissioners. 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 
" Upper Wisdom Road " crossing. Edmund K. Turner, Cal- 
vin Coolidge and Hugh P. Drysdale appointed commis- 
sioners. Commissioners' report filed. Lyman W. Griswold 
appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. Pending. 

Greenfield, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abolition 
of Allen and Russell 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. 

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



1912.J PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 127 



Hampden County. 

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

Eussell, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Mont- 
gomery Eoad crossing. Eailroad Commissioners appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. Thomas W. 
Kennefick appointed auditor. Auditor's second report filed. 
Pending. 

Westfield, Attorney-General, petitioner. Petition for abolition 
of grade crossings at Lane's and Lee's crossings in West- 
field. Patrick H. Cooney, Kichard W. Irwin and Franklin 
T. Hammond appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Hampshire County. 

Amherst, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
grade crossings at Whitne} 7 , High and Main streets. Eail- 
road commissioners appointed commissioners. Pending. 

Belchertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the aboli- 
tion of crossing of road from Belchertown to Three Eivers 
and road from Bondville to Ludlow. Edmund K. Turner, 
F. G. Wooden and George P. O'Donnell appointed com- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 

Easthampton, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition 
of grade crossing at Holyoke Eoad, Mt. Tom crossing. 
Pending. 

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

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. Pend- 
ing. 

Belmont, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
crossings at Waverley station. Thomas W. Proctor, Pat- 
rick H. Cooney and Desmond FitzGerald appointed com- 
missioners. Pending. 



128 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 abo- 
lition 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 Waushakum streets crossings. Pending. 

Framingham, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for the abo- 
lition of Claflin Street crossing. 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 or Plain Street, School, Walker and 
Lincoln streets crossings. Arthur Lord, David F. Slade and 
Henry A. "VVyman appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Pending. 

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

Lowell, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for abo- 
lition of crossing at Western Avenue and Fletcher Street. 
Pending. 

Maiden. Directors of Boston & Maine Railroad Company, peti- 
tioners. Petition for abolition of Medford Street and other 
crossings in Maiden. Geo. W. Wiggin, Robert 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. Commissioners' report filed. Win- 
field S. Slocum appointed auditor. Auditor's third report 
filed. 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. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 129 

Natick. Boston & Worcester Street Bailway 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. Dis- 
posed of. 

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 
sixteenth 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. Report 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. Commissioners' report filed. Patrick H. 
Cooney appointed auditor. Auditor's sixth report filed. 
Pending. 

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, Eiver 
Street, Pine Street, Newton Street and Calvary Street 
crossings in Waltham. Arthur Lord, Patrick H. Cooney 
and George F. Swain appointed commissioners. Pending. 



130 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Watertown, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
grade crossings at Cottage, Arlington, School, Irving and 
other streets in Watertown. Pending. 

Weston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Church Street, Pigeon Hall and Concord Eoad crossings. 
Railroad Commissioners appointed commissioners. Commis- 
sioners' report filed. Joseph W. Lund, Esq., appointed 
auditor. Pending. 

Weston, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
grade crossings at Central Avenue, Conant Road, Church 
and Viles streets. 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. 

Norfolk 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, River and Union streets in 
Braintree. John L. Bates, Winfleld 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. Hutchins 
and Wade Keyes appointed commissioners. Commissioners' 
report filed. Henry M. Hutchins appointed auditor. Au- 
ditor's first report filed. Pending. 

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. Com- 
missioners' 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. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 131 

Foxborough. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Eailroad 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. Commissioners' report 
filed. 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. Auditor's third report filed. Pending. 

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

Norfolk. Agreement approved by the Eailroad Commissioners 
for the abolition of crossing at Grove Street, near City 
Mills station. Pending. 

Quincy. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford Eail- 
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 Eail- 
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. Commissioners' report filed. 
Pending. 

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 fourth report filed. 
Pending. 

West wood. 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. Commissioners' report filed. Pending. 



132 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Suffolk County. 

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 tenth 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- 
pointed auditor. Auditor's thirty-first report filed. Dis- 
posed of. 

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 twelfth report filed. Disposed of. 

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. Auditor's tenth report filed. 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-seventh 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- 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 133 

ers' report filed. Fred E. Jones appointed auditor. Audi- 
tor's twenty-first 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- 
missioners. Commissioners' report filed. Winfield S. Slo- 
cum appointed auditor. Auditor's fourteenth report filed. 
Pending. 

Boston, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for aboli- 
tion of crossings at Saratoga, Maverick and Marginal 
streets in East Boston. Eailroad Commissioners appointed 
commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. . Pending. 

Eevere, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of Win- 
throp Avenue crossing in Revere of the Boston, Revere 
Beach & Lynn Railroad. Pending. 

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 fourth report filed. Disposed of. 



Worcester County. 

Blackstone. Directors of New York, New Haven & Hartford 
Railroad 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. Disposed of. 

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

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. 
James A. Stiles appointed auditor. Auditor's fourth report 
filed. Pending. 

Harvard. Boston & Maine Railroad, petitioner. Petition for 
abolition of a grade crossing near Harvard station. Pend- 
ing. 



134 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

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- 
pointed commissioners. Commissioners' report filed. H. 
L. Parker appointed auditor. Auditor's first report filed. 
Pending. 

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

Leominster, Selectmen of, petitioners. Petition for abolition of 
Water, Summer, Mechanic and Main streets crossings. 
George W. Wiggin, George F. Swain and Charles D. Barnes 
appointed commissioners. 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. 
Hultman appointed commissioners. Commissioners' report 
filed and recommitted. Pending. 

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

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

Worcester, Mayor and Aldermen of, petitioners. Petition for 
abolition of crossings at Exchange, Central and Thomas 
and other streets. Arthur Lord, George F. Swain and Fred 
Joy appointed commissioners. 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 forty-first report filed. 
Pending. 



1912.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 135 



CASES ARISING IN THE COURTS 



UNDER THE 



Acts relative to Inheritance and Succession Taxes. 



Petitions for Instructions. 
Bristol County. 
Stavers, John W., estate of. Caroline Stavers, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Essex County. 
Nichols, Mary C, estate of. Frank 0. Woods, executor. Pend- 
ing. 
Sheridan, Mary F., estate of. Daniel M. Crowley, administrator. 
Decree. 

Franklin County. 
Tilton, Chauncey B., estate of. Otis Hager et ah., trustees, 
petitioners. Disposed of. 

Hampshire County. 

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

Middlesex County. 

Bray, Mellen, estate of. ^lellen 1ST. Bray et al., executors. 
Decree. 

Elliott, Mary E., estate of. Henry C. Davis, executor. Petition 
for abatement of tax. Eeserved for full court. Eescript. 

Perry, Emery B., estate of . Thomas Weston, executor. Pending. 

Proudfoot, David, et al. v. Third Congregational Society in 
Cambridge et al. Pending. 

Eugg, George H., estate of. Phineas C. Kinney, executor. Ee- 
served for full court. Eescript. 

Scott, Julia A., estate of. Emma E. Doty, executrix. Pending. 

Whitney, Henry, estate of. William B. Durant, administrator. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 



136 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



Norfolk County. 

Fisher, Charles H., estate of. Lydia M. Fisher, executrix. 
Pending. 

Tobin, Ellen A., estate of. William Sullivan, executor. Pending. 

Tobin, Lawrence, absentee, estate of. Howard A. Wilson, re- 
ceiver, petitioner. Pending. 

Plymouth County. 
Blenkinsop, James S., estate of. John R. Mills, administrator. 
Petition for abatement of inheritance tax. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 

Baker, Charlotte A., estate of. Frank N". Nay et als., executors. 
Pending. 

Baxter, Helen F., estate of. Carlton W. Baxter, executor. Peti- 
tion for abatement of inheritance tax. Rescript. 

Belknap, Henry, estate of. Francis Peabody, Jr., et al., execu- 
tors. Pending. 

Kelly, Thomas, estate of. Harriet L. Kelly, petitioner. Pend- 
ing. 

Lincoln, Annie Preston, estate of. State Street Trust Com- 
pany, trustee. Rescript. 

McCarthy, John A., estate of. Andreas Blume, executor. 
Decree. 

Sweetser, Frank D., estate of. Charles X. Barne} 7 , administrator 
c. t. a. Reserved for full court. Pending. 

Wharton, Nancy Willing, estate of. Laurence Minot et al., 
trustees. Reserved for full court. Rescript. 

Worcester County. 

Buck, Horace B., estate of. Frank G. Fay, administrator. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Gage, Thomas H., estate of. T. Hovey Gage, administrator. 
Decree. 

Whitcomb, Rebecca, estate of. Carl M. Blair, administrator. 
Decree. 



1912.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 137 



Inventories. 
Barnstable County. 

Clark, Achsah S., estate of. Lewis F. Clark, administrator. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Smith, Clara P., estate of. Heman N". Smith, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Berkshire County. 

Cadron, William H., estate of. Nellie Cadron, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Jeter, Minta M., estate of. Eobert A. Jeter, administrator. 
Final decree. 

Kelly, Jnlia, estate of. James O'Brien, executor. Dismissed. 

Mahanna, Bridget, estate of. Timothy E. Mahanna, executor. 
Dismissed. 

Roberts, Herbert I., estate of. Lura M. Roberts, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Ty meson, Edward, estate of. William E. Tymeson, administra- 
tor. Pending. 

Urell, Michael, estate of. Ellen Urell, executrix. Dismissed. 

Wolfe, William D., estate of. Orlando C. Bidwell, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Bristol County. 

Boulanger, Michael, estate of. Charles Latraverse, executor. 
Dismissed. 

Correia, Joseph, estate of. Manuel Correia, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Gibbs, Lizzie F., estate of. C. P. Sherman, executor. Dismissed. 

Jeudy, Caroline Kurz, estate of. Francis Jeud}^, executor. Dis- 
missed. 

Rogers, Helen A., estate of. James W. Richardson, adminis- 
trator. Disposed of. 

Essex County. 

Agganes, Louis N"., estate of. George P. Agganes, administrator. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Callahan, Howard P., estate of. Annie F. Callahan, adminis- 
tratrix. Dismissed. 

Cook, Katherine F., estate of. Thomas M. Cook, administrator. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 



138 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Crowley, James E., estate of. Mary E. Crowley, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Curran, Hanorah, estate of. Patrick Curran, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Delfuocco, Teresa, estate of. Venanzio Delfuocco, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Donovan, Daniel J., estate of. Snsan A. Donovan, administra- 
trix. Final decree. 

Duffy, Catherine M., estate of. Michael J. Duffy et al., execu- 
tors. Dismissed. 

Goodrich, William B., estate of. Priscilla F. Goodrich, adminis- 
tratrix. Dismissed. 

Grandmaison, Abraham, estate of. Vena A. Grandmaison, ad- 
ministratrix. Pending. Unable to locate. 

Harris, Henry W., estate of. Rebecca Harris, administratrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Hayes, John J., estate of. Ellen T. Sullivan, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Hollingshead, Samuel W., estate of. Benjamin B. Hanson, ad- 
ministrator. Dismissed. 

Mulry, Winifred T., estate of. William A. Mulry et ah, execu- 
tors. Dismissed. 

Eoche, Alice, estate of. John O'Brien, Jr., administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Swiderski, Frank, estate of. Josie Swiderski, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Tallouse, Ethel M., estate of. Fred Tallouse, administrator. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Walshe, Edward, estate of. John B. Walshe, administrator. 
Final decree. 

Hampden County. 

Kurlej, Maryanna Eusin, estate of. Waldyslaw Kurlej, exec- 
utor. Pending. Unable to locate. 

Noble, Leonard E., estate of. Julia F. Noble, executrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Premont, Eosalie Poulin, estate of. Isidore Lusignan, executrix. 
Dismissed. 

Tessier, Marie L., estate of. Charles E. Moreau, administrator. 
Dismissed. 



1912.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 139 



Hampshire County. 

Keating, Ellen, estate of. Honora L. Finn, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 

McGrath, Robert, estate of. Margaret McGrath, executrix. Dis- 
missed. 

McKenna, Jerry C, estate of. Mary McKenna, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Werner, Andrew J., estate of. Bertha Werner, administratrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Middlesex County. 

Boudreau, Walter J., estate of. Jane Bondreau, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Brown, Belmore N"., estate of. Anna E. Brown, administratrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Chadbourne, Marshall W., estate of. Addie Chadbonrne, execu- 
trix. Pending. 

Clark, George E., estate of. T. Frank Clark et ah, administra- 
tors. Final decree. 

Crowdle, Annie M., estate of. Mary L. Murphy, executrix. 
Dismissed. 

DeAngelis, Antonio, estate of. Fredericco DeAngelis, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

Dubinka, Piotr, estate of. Stasia Wolska, administratrix. Dis- 
posed of. 

Fairbank, Abbie B., estate of. George W. Fairbank, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

Flynn, James F., estate of. Mary F. Flynn, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Friel, Hannah G., estate of. Charles H. Friel, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Keefe, Bridget, estate of. John T. Keefe, executor. Dismissed. 

Kenney, Mary E., estate of. Andrew J. Rady, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Kleinau, John, estate of. Dorothy S. Kleinau, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Lavender, Stephen S., estate of. Robert M. Lavender, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

Long^, Asa P.. estate of. Ella M. Longley, administratrix. 
Final decree. 



140 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Masson, Joseph, estate of. Louis H. Masson, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

McKinnon, INeil A., estate of. Margaret G. McKinnon, execu- 
trix. Dismissed. 

Morrissey, Richard J., estate of. John J. Morrissey, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

Nichols, James, estate of. Maud M. Nichols, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Plunkett, James, estate of. Owen Tighe, executor. Dismissed. 

Pratt, David G., estate of. Eva H. Pratt, administratrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Stanton, Catherine, estate of. Thomas Brennan, executor. Dis- 
missed. 

Staples, Mary E., estate of. Mabel D. Thirierge, executrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Zwicker, William B., estate of. Ella M. Zwicker, administra- 
trix. Disposed of. 

Norfolk County. 

Butler, William H., estate of. Lizzie F. Butler, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Collins, Michael, estate of. Bridget Collins, executrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Crowther, Rebecca, estate of. J. William Crowther, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

McPherson, Mary A., estate of. Duncan McPherson, adminis- 
trator. Pending. 

Wadsworth, Dexter E., estate of. Kate A. Wadsworth, special 
administratrix. Dismissed. 

White, Asher A., estate of. Samuel White, special administra- 
tor. Dismissed. 

Plymouth County. 

Hovey, Anna H., estate of. Daisy L. Fisher, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Peres, John, estate of. James F. Kiernan, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Russell, Patrick, estate of. William J. Coughlan et ah, executors. 
Pending. 

Suffolk County. 

Babson, John M., estate of. Annie R. Bohaker, administratrix. 
Dismissed. , 

Bailey, John, estate of. James Bailey, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 141 

Bithwell, William, estate of. Mary A. Bithwell, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Boardman, Henry W., estate of. William Greenwood, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

Bonner, Laura E., estate of. Joseph A. Bonner, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Brown, Carlan A., estate of. Mary E. Brown, executrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Campana, Michael E., estate of. George Campana, administra- 
tor. Pending. Unable to locate. 

Carty, Patrick, estate of. Mary T. Carty, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Clayton, Frank H., estate of. Minnie A. Clayton, executrix. 
Pending. 

Colbert, James, estate of. James E. Colbert, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Costello, Bridget, estate of. Bridget A. Costello, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Costello, Catherine, estate of. Michael W. Costello, executor. 
Final decree. 

Crowley, Daniel J., estate of. Patrick J. Crowley, administra- 
tor. Pending. Unable to locate. 

Dion, Louise L., estate of. Napoleon J. Dion, administrator. 
Disposed of. 

Driscoll, John J., estate of. Catherine Driscoll, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Dyer, Willie H. S., estate of. Ethel M. Dyer, executrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Evans, Margaret A., estate of. William E. Burke, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Fahey, Thomas, estate of. Thomas Fahey, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Fallon, Jennie E., estate of. John B. Fallon et ah, executors. 
Final decree. 

Fallon, John F., estate of. Annie McNally, administratrix. 
Disposed of. 

Fargo, Martha, estate of. Anna F. Rogers, executrix. Pending. 
Unable to locate. 

Fournier, Eleanor, estate of. Thomas J. Fournier, administra- 
tor. Dismissed. 

Fournier, Loraine, estate of. Thomas J. Fournier, administra- 
tor. Dismissed. 



142 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Frothinghani, Edwin, estate of. Mattie M. Frothinghani, ad- 
ministratrix. Disposed of. 

Gerrish, Jennie L., estate of. Herbert W. Angier, administrator. 
Pending. 

Gleason, Michael J., estate of. Annie Gleason, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Goodale, George L., estate of. William P. Martin, executor. 
Pending. 

Gray, James N., estate of. Helen F. Eaton, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Gray, Mary D., estate of. William P. Gray, administrator. 
Pending. 

Griffith, Edward, estate of. George A. Griffith, administrator. 
Pending. 

Ham, Henrietta J., estate of. Edwin A. Bayley et al., adminis- 
trators. Dismissed. 

Hanson, Mary N., estate of. Andrew Hanson, administrator. 
Pending. 

Hardy, Lylie M., estate of. Lucy B. Hoadley, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Harrington, Mary, estate of. Joseph A. Sheehan, administrator. 
Pending. 

Hedrington, Ellen, estate of. Joseph A. Sheehan, administra- 
tor. Dismissed. 

Heffernan, Patrick, estate of. John J. Heffernan, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Hogstrom, Victor, estate of. Maria Hogstrom, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Home, Norman S., estate of. Irene S. Home, administratrix. 
Disposed of. 

Howard, May, estate of. John E. Nolan, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Hurvitz, Isaac, estate of. Jennie Hurvitz, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Jame, Rebecca, estate of. Barnet Jame, administrator. Pend- 
ing. 

Jordan, Lena, estate of. Frida Jordan, administratrix. Pending. 

Kalis, Abraham, estate of. Joseph Kalis, administrator. Pend- 
ing. Unable to locate. 

Kane, Bridget, estate of. Mary Kane, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Kelly, Ellen, estate of. C. I. Quirk, administrator. Dismissed. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 143 

Kenney, Martin, estate of. James J. Kenney, administrator. 
Pending. 

Keohane, Hannah, estate of. Nora Coughlin, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Killeen, Margaret A., estate of. Henry P. Moltedo, executor. 
Decree. 

King, David J., estate of. Elizabeth King, administratrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Lydon, Mary A., estate of. Hannah Doole} 7 , administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Marble, Edward D., estate of. Bertha A. Granger, administra- 
trix. Dismissed. 

Marchant, Henry G., estate of. Lawrence Bond, executor. Dis- 
missed. 

McCallion, Bridget M., estate of. Bichard Minton, administra- 
tor. Dismissed. 

McCarthy, Maria, estate of. John McCarthy, administrator. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

McGann, Patrick, estate of. Margaret Sheehan, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Mclnnis, Florence, estate of. Daniel Mclnnis, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

McKeen, William, estate of. Katherine M. McKeen, adminis- 
tratrix. Disposed of. 

McKenney, Johannah, estate of. Johannah M. Gallagher, admin- 
istratrix. Dismissed. 

McLaughlin, Michael, estate of. Catherine McLaughlin, admin- 
istratrix. Dismissed. 

Mikolajczak, Mary, estate of. Joseph Mikolajczak, administra- 
tor. Decree. 

Moffatt, Lydia L., estate of. Stella A. Simpson, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Murphy, John E., estate of. Thomas Murphy, administrator. 
Pending. 

Murtagh, Pose, estate of. John J. Murtagh, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Nagle, David J., estate of. Julia B. Nagle, executrix. Dismissed. 

O'Brien, Mary, estate of. Frank O'Brien, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Powers, William, estate of. Nellie Powers, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 



144 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Quinn, Timothy F., estate of. Catherine C. Quinn, administra- 
trix. Dismissed. 

Reddish, Michael H., estate of. Mary Reddish, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Reilly, Honora, estate of. Annie F. Reilly, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Rozander, Hannah, estate of. Emma Crane, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Russell, Patrick F., estate of. Mary E. Russell, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Sanders, Abbie 0., estate of. Thornton E. Sanders, adminis- 
trator. Dismissed. 

Schmidt, John Joseph, Jr., estate of. John Joseph Schmidt, 
administrator. Dismissed. 

Scollard, Michael J., estate of. Joseph P. Costello, executor. 
Dismissed. 

Shacat, Isidore C, estate of. Hyman Shacat, administrator. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Sirvain, Marcelin, estate of. Aglar Sirvain, executor. Pending. 

Slattery, Teresa M., estate of. Natabia G. Crotty, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Smith, Calvin B., estate of. Francis S. Smith, executor. Final 
decree. 

Spafford, Iasac B., estate of. Isaac B. Spafford, Jr., adminis- 
trator. Final decree. 

Sribikr, Longina, estate of. Anastasia Sribikr, administratrix. 
Pending. Unable to locate. 

Steeves, Henry S., estate of. Austin E. Greene, administrator. 
Dismissed. 

Strid, August, estate of. Elma Strid, administratrix. Pending. 
Unable to locate. 

Sullivan, Daniel, estate of. William T. Sullivan, administrator. 
Pending. 

Swan, Alice C, estate of. Lillian W. Wells, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

Thorner, Elmina, estate of. Morris Thorner, administrator. 
Pending. 

Tower, Abby A., estate of. F. A. Appleton, administrator. Dis- 
missed. 

Trengove, William E., estate of. Charles T. Trengove, adminis- 
trator. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 145 

Vincent, Alexander, estate of. William Vincent, administrator. 
Pending. 

Wagner, Stephen G., estate of. Mary A. Wagner, administratrix. 
Pending. 

Whitehouse, Frank N., estate of. Mary E. Whitehouse, execu- 
trix. Dismissed. 

Williams, Sarah M., estate of. John H. Williams, administrator. 
Pending. 

Woods, Patrick, estate of. Jane Woods, administratrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Wren, Cornelius, estate of. Edward C. Wren, administrator. 
Pending. 

Young, Ellen, estate of. Catherine Driscoll, executrix. Dis- 
missed. 

Worcester County. 

Bartlett, Frederick P., estate of. Carrie E. Bartlett, administra- 
trix. Dismissed. 

Dorsey, Catherine, estate of. Timothy Dorsey, administrator. 
Pending. 

Gouch, Mary, estate of. Mark N". Skerrett et al., executors. 
Dismissed. 

Kumin, Nathan, estate of. Bessie Kumin, executrix. Dismissed. 

Leonard, Ellen, estate of. Mary A. Martin, administratrix. 
Dismissed. 

O'Shea, Margaret M., estate of. Michael J. O'Shea, administra- 
tor. Dismissed. 

Smith, Everett W., estate of. Charlotte J. B. Smith, adminis- 
tratrix. Dismissed. 



146 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUSTS. 



Berkshire County. 
Mason, Mary A., estate of. Frank H. Wright, petitioner. Pe- 
tition for leave to compromise will. Decree. 

Bristol County. 
Rowland, Sylvia Ann, estate of. Henry H. Crapo, petitioner. 

Petition for appointment as trustee. Attorney-General 

waived right to be heard. 
Matthes, Cornelia P., estate of. Charles E. Hunt, administrator. 

Petition for instructions. Decree. 
Matthes, Cornelia P., estate of. Charles E. Hunt, administrator. 

Petition for instructions. Pending. 
Matthes, Cornelia P., estate of. Charles E. Hunt, administrator. 

Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Essex County. 

Atwood, Margaret, estate of. Henry B. Little et als., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of petitioners as trustees. Pend- 
ing. 

Bertram, Mary A., estate of. Alden P. White, executor. Pe- 
tition for instructions. Decree. 

Coburn, Abbie A., estate of. William A. Donald et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of fourth and fifth and final accounts. 
Attorney- General waived right to be heard. 

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 ac- 
cepted. Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed. Pending. 

Essex Institute, petitioner. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Hallihan, Dennis F., estate of. Stephen J. Birmingham, peti- 
tioner. Petition for appointment of trustee. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Haskins, Leander M., estate of. Grafton Butman, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 147 

Hawks, Esther H., estate of. Frank W. Atkins et al., executors. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Healy, Jeremiah J., estate of. Dennis Healy, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Needham, Alice, estate of. Salem Monthly Meeting of Friends, 
petitioner. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Otis, Margaret Sigourney, estate of. Philip Dexter et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Kobbins, Mary B., estate of. Charles E. Sawyer, trustee. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

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

RopeSj Eliza 0., estate of. Charles W. Richardson et ah, execu- 
tors. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Ropes, Eliza 0., estate of. Civic League of Salem, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Ropes, Eliza 0., estate of. Edward S. Morse et als., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of trustees. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Charles W. Richardson et al., admin- 
istrators. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Charles W. Richardson et al., admin- 
istrators. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

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

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Civic League of Salem, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Ropes, Mary P., estate of. Edward S. Morse et als., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of trustees. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Smith, John, estate of. J. Duke Smith, trustee. Petition for 
instructions. Pending. 

Franklin County. 

Stratton, Abigail, estate of. Frank H. Montague et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of tenth account. Pending. 

Tilton, Chauncy B., estate of. Petition for appointment of trus- 
tee. Assented to the appointment of Arthur G. Clapp. 



148 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Williams, Ebenezer H., estate of. Irving H. Childs, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 



Hampden County. 

Allen, Ethan, estate of. Springfield Safe Deposit and Trust 
Company, trustee, petitioner. Petition for allowance of 
third account. 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. 
Decree. 

Hampshire County. 

Gaylord, George H., petitioner. Petition for termination of 
trust fund created for Russell Society. Pending. 

Moore, Philomela C, estate of. Herbert Sabin et al., petitioners. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Russell Church in Hadley. Francis S. Reynolds, trustee. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Bennett, Eleanor, estate of. Joseph Jaquith et als., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of trustees. Pending. 

Choate, Lydia G., estate of. Ellen M. Dow et als., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of first, second and third accounts. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Copeland, Sarah E., estate of. Alba A. Giles, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Copeland, Sarah E., estate of. Alba A. Giles, executor. Peti- 
tion for allowance of second account. Pending. 

Hammond, George P., estate of. Elizabeth F. Johnson, execu- 
trix, petitioner. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Holbrook, Adin, estate of. Alonzo Stearns et al., executors. 
Petition for appointment of trustee without surety on bonds. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Litchfield, William, estate of. Henry W. Bragg, administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Martin, Webster Warner, estate of. Wesley T. Lee et al., trus- 
tees. Petition for allowance of sixth account. Account al- 
lowed. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 149 

Shepard, Obed C, estate of. Charles H. Sherman, executor. 
Petition for leave to adjust by compromise controversy in 
regard to allowance of will. Eeserved for the full court. 

Tabor, Frances F., estate of. Charles S. Norris, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Thompson, Emulus, estate of. Melvin G. Rogers, administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Ward, Winthrop, estate of. Francis H. Brown et als., petition- 
ers. Petition for appointment of trustees. Pending. 

White, Daniel, estate of. Winslow Warren et ah, trustees. Peti- 
tion for allowance of sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth 
accounts. Pending. 

Whitney, Caroline A. P., estate of. Henry R. Hayes, adminis- 
trator. Petition for allowance of third account. Pending. 

Norfolk County. 
Adams, Levi, estate of. Goerge W. Bullard et ah, trustees of 

the Second Congregational Church of Medway, petitioners. 

Petition for instructions. Decree. 
Mann, Jonathan, estate of. John F. Brown et ah, executors. 

Petition for instructions. Pending. 
Sanderson, Julia A., estate of. Marshall L. Perrin, executor. 

Petition for instructions. Pending. 
Sanderson, Julia A., estate of. Marshall L. Perrin, executor. 

Petition for authority to purchase an annuity for H. H. 

Brown. Pending. 

Plymouth County. 
Pitcher, James S. H., estate of. Oliver W. Cobb, trustee. Peti- 
tion for distribution of trust estate. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 

Appleton, William, estate of. J. Morris Meredith et ah, trus- 
tees. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Ashton, Elisha V., estate of. Charles P. Curtis et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of fifth to eleventh accounts, inclu- 
sive. Pending. 

Ashton, Elisha V., estate of. Charles P. Curtis et ah, trustees. 
Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Atkins, Henry Holly. William Warren Vaughn et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of seventh to tenth accounts, inclu- 
sive. Pending. 



150 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Bird, John H., estate of. George A. Thayer et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of thirty-third, thirty-fourth and 
thirty-fifth accounts. Accounts allowed. 

Bird, John H., estate of. George A. Thayer et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of thirty-sixth account. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Boston Dispensary, petitioner. Petition for leave to sell real 
estate. Pending. 

Bradstreet, Charlotte A., estate of. Moses Williams et ah, peti- 
tioners. Petition for appointment as trustees. Pending. 

Brigham, Peter Bent, estate of. Edmund D. Codman et ah, 
trustees. Petition for allowance of first to fourth accounts, 
inclusive. Attorney-General waived right to be heard. 

Brown, Josiah W., estate of. Sewall F. Abbott et ah, trustees. 
Petitions for instructions. Pending. 

Cazenove, Sarah Elizabeth, estate of. George H. Richards, trus- 
tee. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Church Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Trustees of, peti- 
tioner. Two petitions for leave to mortgage real estate. 
Attorney-General waived right to be heard on both petitions. 

Clapp, Mary H., estate of. Richard C. Humphreys, trustee. 
Petition for allowance of first and final account. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Clapp, Mary H., estate of. Silas E. Parsons, petitioner. Peti- 
tion for appointment of trustee. Assented to the appoint- 
ment of Silas E. Parsons. 

Clay, R. Richard, estate of. Thomas J. Kenny, trustee. Peti- 
tion for allowance of third and final account. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Clay, R. Richard, estate of. Thomas J. Kenny, trustee. Petition 
for leave to terminate trust by paying certain legacies. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Devens, Sarah A. W., estate of. Laurence Minot et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of thirty-fourth account. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Drury, Michael, estate of. Charles E. Cotting, trustee. Petition 
for allowance of first to seventh and final accounts, inclu- 
sive. Pending. 

Forbes, Sarah S., estate of. James S. Russell, petitioner. Peti- 
tion for appointment of trustee. Attorney-General waived 
right to be heard. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 151 

Gardner, Ellen K., estate of. Herbert I. Boyer, trustee. Peti- 
tion for allowance of first account. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Geyer, Mary French, estate of. Charles H. Cary, trustee. Peti- 
tion for allowance of second account. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Geyer, Mary French, estate of. George H. Cary, petitioner. 
Petition for appointment of trustee. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Gurney. Elizabeth F., estate of. Warren Avenue Baptist Church 
v. Attorney- General. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Haven, George, estate of. Herbert Parker et al., trustees. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Lawrence, Abbott, estate of. John Lawrence et ah, trustees. 
Petition for allowance of twenty-first account. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Locke, Elbridge W., estate of. Otis Merriam et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of seventh and eighth accounts. Ac- 
counts allowed. 

Mabie, William I., et ah, v. Edwin S. Gardner and Attorney- 
General. Petition for instructions regarding a public char- 
itable trust under will of Mary Eedding. Pending. 

Nute, Lewis W., estate of. Charles H. Moulton et als., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth 
and twenty-first accounts. Accounts allowed. 

Patterson, Adoniram Judson, estate of. Joseph Houghton et 
ah. executors. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Pine, James A., estate of. Frank W. Grinnell, trustee. Petition 
for instructions. Pending. 

Potter, Sarah E., estate of. New Bedford Free Public Library, 
petitioner. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Rufus S. Frost General Hospital v. Attorney-General. Petition 
for leave to sell certain real estate. Attorney- General waived 
right to be heard. 

Rust, Nancy E., estate of. Henry A. Wyman et al., trustees. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Saint Paul's Church, Wardens and Vestry of, v. Attorney- Gen- 
eral. Petition for authority to borrow money. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Snow, Sophia J., estate of. Gorham Rogers, trustee. Petition 
for allowance of sixth account. Attorney- General waived 
right to be heard. 



152 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Thompson, Thomas, estate of. John F. Moors, petitioner. Peti- 
tion for appointment of trustee. Pending. 

Thorndike, George L., estate of. Albert E. Clary et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of first account. Account allowed. 

Thorndike, George L., estate of. Albert E. Clary et ah., execu- 
tors. Petition for allowance of first to fifth and final ac- 
counts. Accounts allowed. 

Thorndike, George L., estate of. William A. Morrison, surviv- 
ing trustee. Petition for allowance of second account. Ac- 
count allowed. 

Tyler Street Day Nursery Company v. Attorney- General. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Pending. 

Walshe, Genevieve B., estate of. Neil McNeil et al., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of first and final account. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Warren, Caroline, estate of. Rackemann, Felix, et al. v. Harriet 
E. Coffin et al. Petition for instructions. Decree. 

Weber, Frederick E., estate of. Arthur L. Howard et al., peti- 
tioners. Petition for appointment of trustees. Attorney- 
General waived right to be heard. 

Wellesley Boys' Club, R. K. Sawyer et ah., trustees of, petition- 
ers. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Whitney, Sarah W., estate of. Charles A. Stone, trustee. Peti- 
tion for leave to sell real estate. Pending. 

Wild, Catherine H., estate of. Charles P. Bowditch, trustee. 
Petition for allowance of nineteenth and final account. At- 
torney-General waived right to be heard. 

Willard Hospital, The, v. The Frances E. Willard Settlement 
et ah. Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Worcester County. 

Bemis, George, estate of. Myron A. Young et al., petitioners. 
Petition for appointment of trustees. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Brooks, Sarah, estate of. Thomas H. Russell, petitioner. Peti- 
tion for appointment of trustee. Thomas H. Russell ap- 
pointed trustee. 

Fletcher, Ezra W.. estate of. Edward Whitin et al., trustees. 
Petition for leave to transfer trust fund. Attorney- General 
waived right to be heard. 

Foster, Richard W., estate of. Catherine E. Foster et al., execu- 
tors. Petition for instructions. Disposed of. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 153 

Grout, Eliza P.. estate of. Robert L. Carter et ah., trustees. 
Petition for allowance of sixth account. Pending. 

Pierce, Ellen M.. estate of. Joseph A. Lovering, administrator. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Pierce, William D., estate of. Romeo E. Allen, executor. Peti- 
tion for instructions. Decree. 

Williams, Henry, estate of. Reason T. Lee et als., trustees of 
the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, petitioners. 
Petition for instructions. Pending. 

Winch, Ellen M. B.. estate of. Charles W. Perkins et al.. execu- 
tors. Petition for allowance of first, second and third and 
final accounts. Accounts allowed. 



154 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 



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. 
Allen, Herbert F., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Blais, Eugenia V., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Blais, Michael, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Debbins, Robert W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Kerr, William B., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Northrup, Stephen C, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Patterson, Mary J., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Phelan, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Robinson, Sumner, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 
Hurley, John J., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
"Welch, Mary E., et als. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

2. Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board. 
Petition 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 County. 
Ward. Oporto A., et als v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 155 

Norfolk County. 
Goddard, George A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Worcester County. 
Allen, Byron D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Allen, Byron D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Bradley, Patrick, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Cutting, Louis, administrator, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Kendall, Sanford C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Keyes, Henry F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Knight, Asa E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
"Welch, James E., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wood, James H., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wood, J. Frank, et als. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Wood, J. Frank, et als. 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 this Common- 
wealth most of these cases are defended by the various towns in 
which the land is situated. 

Bristol County. 
Cooper, Frederick P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lincoln, Benjamin A., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Seabury, Phcebe W., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Talbot, Joseph, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Essex County. 
Bishop, Emeline, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Donovan, John, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Perley, Osborne, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Hampshire County. 
Flagg, Lucretia Taft, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Taft, Kate P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 
bourse, Joseph P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



156 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Norfolk County. 
McLaughlin, Nancy M v et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Worcester County. 
Hill, Everett, v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 
Sullivan, Kate, v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 
Warren, Alice E. M., v. Commonwealth. Dismissed. 

4. Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners. 

Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have heen sustained by the taking of land by said 
commissioners. 

Suffolk County. 
Butler, Philip H., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
East Boston Company v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, George, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Lamb, George, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

5. Charles River Basix Commissioners. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages al- 
leged to have been sustained by the taking of land by said com- 
missioners. 

Suffolk County. 
Allen, Henry F., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Apthorp, Octave L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Barstow, Catherine A., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Brown, Rebecca W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Cotting, Charles E., et al., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Edmands, Katherine B., r. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Fields, Annie, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Homans, Helen A., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Hooper, James R., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hooper, Robert C. et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Hutchins, Edward W., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Inches, Louise P., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Jewell, Edward, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Xiles, Sarah F., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Parker, George W., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Pierce, Katherine C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Pierce. Wallace L.. v. Commonwealth. Settled. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 157 

Prince, Fannie L., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Prince, Lillian C, /;. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Sears, Mary C, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Sears, Eichard D., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Shaw, Francis, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Sleeper, Maria W., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Stanton, Esther H., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Tarbell, Arthur P., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Taylor, Georgianna 0., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Taylor, Mary M., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Whitney, Christiana S., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Williams, John D., trustee, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

6. Armory Commissioners. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land by said com- 
missioners. 

Suffolk County. 
Brooks, Ellen A., et al. v. Commonwealth et al. Settled. 
Lyons, Ellen E., v. Commonwealth et al. Settled. 
Mahoney, Agnes, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

7. Greylock Reservation Commission. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land by said com- 
mission. 

Berkshire County. 
Phillips. Dewey, v. Commonwealth. Settled. 
Smith, Clarence M., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

8. State Board of Insanity. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land by the said 
board. 

Suffolk County. 
Beatty, John F., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Callahan, Frank J., et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Callahan, George A., et al. r. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Flint, James H., et al.. trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 
Fourth National Bank of Boston v. Commonwealth. Settled. 



158 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Holbrook, Wellington, et al. v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Kile} 7 , Daniel J., v. Commonwealth. Pending. 

Shea, Julia A., et als., trustees, v. Commonwealth. Pending. 



9. Teustees of the Wrentham State School. 
Petitions to the Superior Court for assessment of damages 
alleged to have been sustained by the taking of land by said 
trustees. 

Norfolk County. 
Soderberg, Annie L., v. Commonwealth. Settled. 

10. Miscellaneous Cases from Above Commissions. 

Essex County. 

Cilley, Orran G., v. Cattle Bureau. Petition to recover the value 

of cattle condemned by Cattle Bureau. Pending. 
Peed, William H., v. Commonwealth. Claim for damages on 

account of injury to horse on State highway in Gloucester. 

Pending. 
Tremblay, Paul, v. Commonwealth. Action of tort for injuries 

caused Vy defect in State highway in East Boston. Pending. 

Middlesex County. 

Hogan, James, v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover for ma- 
terials furnished to contractor in construction of boulevard 
in Quincy. Settled. 

International Automobile and Vehicle Tire Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Petition to recover damages caused by con- 
struction of bridge across Charles River under St. 1903, 
c. 391. Pending. 

Whitney, Arthur E., v. Commonwealth. Bill in equity to enjoin 
the Commonwealth from filling in Abajona River in Win- 
chester. Pending. 

Suffolk County. 

Austin Engineering and Construction Company v. Common- 
wealth. ; Bill to recover on contract with Park .Commission. 
Settled. 

Davis, James A., et al. v. Commonwealth et al. Petition to re- 
cover for labor and materials used in construction of sewer. 
Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 159 

De las Casas, William B., et al., Metropolitan Park Commission, 
petitioners. Petition for appointment of commissioners to 
apportion payments from the cities and towns in the metro- 
politan parks district. Decree. 

De las Casas, William B., et al. v. Sewer Commissioners of 
Eevere. Petition for injunction to restrain town from 
obstructing sewer built by the Park Commission for bath 
house. 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. 

Eastman, Charles Albert, v. Board of Eegistration in Medicine. 
Bill in equity to enjoin Board from revoking certificate. 
Pending. 

Ellinwood, Balph E., Commonwealth v. Petition to restrain re- 
spondent from infringing park regulations on Eevere boule- 
vard. Pending. 

G. M. Byrne Company v. Commonwealth. Suit for payment of 
money claimed to be due on contract. Pending. 

Gibbons, William H., v. Commonwealth. Damage caused by 
blasting in construction of metropolitan sewer. Pending. 

Kinmond, John D., v. Commonwealth. Action of tort to recover 
for injuries caused by defect in State highway in Salisbury. 
Pending. 

Lake, Alexander G., v. Commonwealth. Action of tort to recover 
for injuries caused by defect in State highway in Natick. 
Pending. 

McGinniss, Margaret T., Commonwealth v. Bill in equity to re- 
strain defendant from encroaching on land of the Common- 
wealth. Pending. 

Natick, Commonwealth v. To recover for use of water of Lake 
Cochituate. Dismissed. 

Xational Contracting Company et al., Commonwealth v. Action 
of contract to recover on bond. Pending. 

Xiland, Michael, v. Commonwealth. Petition for assessment of 
damages caused by blasting for metropolitan sewer. Pend- 
ing. 

Xiland, Michael, v. Edward W. Everson et al. and Metropolitan 
Water and Sewerage Board. Action of tort. Damages 
caused by blasting. Pending. 



160 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Xormile, Francis, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. Peti- 
tion for a jury to assess damages caused by construction of 
sewer in Roxbury. Pending. 

Xormile, Francis, v. Edward W. Everson & Co. and Henry H. 
Sprague et al. Action of tort. Pending. 

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. 

Thomas, Lyman P., v. George M. Quirk et al. Action to re- 
cover for labor and materials furnished in construction of 
State highway. Pending. 

Worcester County. 
Lamb, Arnoline M., v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover dam- 
ages caused by change in grade of highway in Boylston. 
Pending. 

11. State Boards of Charity and Ixsaxity. 
Actions of contract pending in the Superior Court to recover 
charges for the support of persons in State hospitals. 

Suffolk County. 
Chapin, Treasurer, v. Charles A. Mullin. Pending. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. Joseph C. Colligan. Pending. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. Granville S. Dow. Pending. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. Lowell. Pending. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. Lowell. Settled. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. New Bedford. Pending. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. Quincy. Pending. 
Stevens. Treasurer, v. Emma C. Russell, guardian. Pending. 
Stevens, Treasurer, v. John Shea, guardian. Settled. 
Stevens, Treasurer, r. George M. Sterns, administrator. Settled. 
Stevens. Treasurer, ?'. Stoughton. Pending. 



1912.1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 161 



MISCELLANEOUS CASES. 



A. C. Lawrence Leather Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Ahmeek Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1010 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Allouez Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1011 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

American Axe & Tool Company, The, v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

American Can Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

American Chicle Company r. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

American Dyewood Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

American Eadiator Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

America Soda Fountain Company. Attorney-General ex rel. v. 
Dumping material into tide water. Pending. 

American Soda Fountain Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

American Steel and Wire Company of Xew Jersey v. Common- 
wealth. Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid 
by foreign corporation. Pending. 

American Steel and Wire Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 



162 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

American Sugar Refining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

American Woolen Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the } r ears 1909 and 1910 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

American Writing Paper Company et at., Attorney-General v. 
Petition for an injunction to restrain respondents from 
dumping material into tide water. Discontinued as to 
American Writing Paper Company. Disposed of. 

Ames Shovel and Tool Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Amesbury & Salisbury Gas Company, Commonwealth v . Action 
to recover penalty on account of sulphuretted hydrogen in 
gas. Disposed of. 

Amoskeag Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Anderson, Mary J., administratrix of the estate of Elizabeth P. 
Anderson, Attorney- General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Androscoggin Mills, The, v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Arizona Commercial Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Armstrong Cork Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Ashland Emery and Corundum Company v. Commonwealth. 
Petition to recover excise tax for the } 7 ear 1911 paid by for- 
eign corporation. Pending. 

Atlas Tack Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Baltic Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending in the United States Supreme Court on writ of 
error. 

Baltic Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 12. 163 

excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Barry, Edward P., v. Albert P. Langtry et al. Petition for writ 
of mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth 
to correct an alleged mistake in counting of ballots. Dis- 
missed. 

Bates Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Belding Bros. & Company v. Commonwealth.' Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Bingham Mines Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Bohemia Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Boston v. Commonwealth. Sewer assessment on Butherford 
Avenue, Charlestown. Pending. 

Boston & Maine Bailroad v. Deerfleld et ah Alteration of Cheap- 
side Bridge in Deerfleld, crossing a State highway. Attor- 
ney-General waived right to be heard. 

Boston & Northern Street Bailway Company. Claim for amount 
expended in rela} r ing water pipes in Washington Street, 
Lrynn, destroyed by electric currents. Pending. 

Breakwater Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover ex- 
cise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Brennan, James M., v. Charles E. Woodbury, Superintendent. 
Action of tort for personal injuries. Pending. 

Brookside Mills v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover excise 
tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 

Br}me, Andrew W., et als. v. Commonwealth et al. Petition to 
recover money in hands of Commonwealth. Pending. 

Burr, Arthur E., trustee, v. Commonwealth. Action to recover 
money held by Commonwealth, and belonging to H. P. Cum- 
mings Company. Pending. 

Butland, Francis A., Attorney-General ex rel. v. Information 
in the nature of quo warranto to try the title of the re- 
spondent to the office of call fireman in Lawrence. Dis- 
posed of. 



164 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Canada, Atlantic & Plant Steamship Company Ltd. v. Common- 
wealth. Petition to recover excise taxes for the years 1905, 
1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Centennial Copper Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Champion Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpo- 
ration. Pending. 

Champion Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911. Paid by foreign corpo- 
ration. Pending. 

Chapin, Arthur B., Bank Commissioner, v. Sonthbridge Savings 
Bank. Petition for injunction. Disposed of. 

Charles H. Schieren Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the } 7 ear 1911 paid by foreign corpo- 
ration. Pending. 

Chase, Stephen A., et ah v. Adam H. Dickey et ah Petition to 
compel conveyance of real estate. Pending. 

Cheney Brothers v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover excise 
tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 

Coblents, Salenda E., executrix of the will of Arthur A. Aver- 
ille, Attorney-General ex reh v. Petition to recover inheri- 
tance tax. Pending. 

Columbian National Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth. 
Petitions for abatement of franchise tax paid in 1903, 1904, 
1905, 1906 and 1907. Pending. 

Commonwealth v. Boston. Action to recover money expended 
in changing grade of Bowdoin Street. Pending. 

Commonwealth v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 
Company. Action of tort for damage to property of Massa- 
chusetts Reformatory, caused by fire. Pending. 

Commonwealth v. Worcester. To recover for land taken from 
the Commonwealth. Pending. 

Conant, Nellie M., v. Mary F. Conant et al. Action of tort. 
Disposed of. 

Conant, Nellie M., v. Hosea M. Quimby. Action of tort. Pend- 
ing. Disposed of. 

Consolidation Coal Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for year 1909 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 165 

Consolidation Coal Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Consolidation Coal Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Continental Gin Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Copper Range Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Copper Range Consolidated Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the }^ear 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

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

Cullen, Maurice F., executor of the will of Thomas Cullen, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Final decree. 

Currier, John E., administrator of the estate of Caroline E. 
Currier, Attorney- General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Davis Sewing Machine Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Dean, John J., et al., executors of the will of Thomas H. Buck- 
ley, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheri- 
tance tax. Pending. 

Dewey, Henry S., v. State Officers. Actions to replevy copies 
of notes of proceedings in the case of Dewey v. Good Gov- 
ernment Association. Pending. 

Dolan, Arthur W., Register of Probate and Insolvency for the 
County of Suffolk, petitioner. Petition for authority to 
pay to the Treasurer and Receiver-General money deposited 
with said register to secure payment of fees. Pending. 

Donahue, Frank J., r. Commonwealth. Petition for writ of 
mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth 
to correct ballots on which the petitioner's name had been 
misspelled. Dismissed. 



166 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

East Butte Copper Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Eddy, Mary Baker G., estate of. Henry M. Baker, executor, 
petitioner. Petition for probate of a foreign will. Decree. 
Appeal by Treasurer and by Attorney-General. Decree 
affirmed. 

Eclgerly, Frank EL, et al. v. Cattle Bureau. Bill to recover for 
horse killed by order of Cattle Commissioner under R. L., 
c. 90. Pending. 

Edwards Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Elm River Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid b} r foreign corpo- 
ration. Pending. 

Empire Accident Corporation, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Peti- 
tion for injunction and appointment of a receiver. Chan- 
ning H. Cox appointed receiver. 

Ennis, John D., et ah, administrators of the estate of Edmund 
Walsh, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover in- 
heritance tax. Pending. 

Everett, Willard S., executor of the will of Elizabeth Davis, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 

Farr Alpaca Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
franchise tax for the year 1911 paid by domestic corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Field, John Q. A., executor of the will of Caroline AYood, Attor- 
ne}'-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance tax. 
Pending. 

Fields, Annie, v. Charles River Basin Commission. Bill to 
enjoin Commonwealth from interfering with riparian rights 
on Charles River. Pending. 

Fifield, George W., executor of the will of Ruth S. Shaw, Attor- 
ney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance tax. 
Pending. 

Fowler, Charles F., executor of the will of Eliza E. Crocker, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 

Framingham, town of, petitioner. Petition to register title to 
land in Framingham. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 107 

Frankfort Marine and Plate Glass Company v. Commonwealth. 
Petition to recover deposit with Treasury. Decree. 

Frontenag Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Galvin, Stephen P., administrator of the estate of Calvin R. 
Baker, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover in- 
heritance tax. Pending. 

Gardner Gas, Fuel and Light Company, Commonwealth v. To 
recover penalty on account of sulphuretted hydrogen in gas. 
Disposed of. 

Gardner Gas, Fuel and Light Compaq, Commonwealth v. Ac- 
tion to recover penalty on account of sulphuretted hydro- 
gen in gas. Pending. 

Georgia Home Insurance Company v. Commonwealth. Action 
to compel Treasurer and Eeceiver-General to return bond 
deposited with him by said company. Pending. 

Globe-Wernicke Compaq, The, v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpo- 
ration. Pending. 

Gordon-Nash Library, petitioner. Petition to register title to 
land in Somerville. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 

Grant Nail and Supply Company, The, v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover franchise tax for the year 1911 paid by 
domestic corporation. Pending. 

Grant, Robert, Judge of Probate, v. William W. Risk et ah 
Contract on bond as public administrator. Pending. 

Gratiot Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Great Western Cereal Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Greenfield Savings Bank v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
tax for 1910. 

Griffin Wheel Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 



168 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

H. J. Heinz Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the } T ear 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Haddock v. Provident Securities and Banking Company. Peti- 
tion for application of fund held in court. Attorney-Gen- 
eral waived right to be heard. 

Harrington, Charles C, executor of the will of Elizabeth A. 
Harrington, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Haverhill, city of, v. Ansel J. Cheney. Appeal from ruling of 
factory inspector. Appeal dismissed. 

Herbert, John, executor of the will of Edward T. CWdrey. At- 
torney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 

Herwig, Mary. Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Pending. 

Hickey-Riedman Compaq, Attorne} 7 -General ex rel. v. Bill in 
equity to enjoin defendant from discharging waste into 
Assabet River. Pending. 

Houghton Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Howe, Theodore C, et als., petitioners. Petition to register title 
to land in Chariest own. Attorney-General waived right to 
be heard. 

Howes Brothers Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Hurley, Edwin L., executor of the will of Elizabeth F. Hurley, 
Attorne} r -General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Final decree. 

International Automobile and Vehicle Tire Company v. Com- 
monwealth. Petition for damages to petitioner's property 
caused by change of east branch of Charles River by Park 
Commission. Pending. 

International Trust Company v. Commonwealth et al. Petition 
to recover bonds deposited with the Treasurer and Receiver- 
General. Final decree. 

Isle Royale Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Italian Catholic Cemetery Association, Attorney-General ex rel. 
u. Petition for use of the Attornev-General's name in a 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 169 

proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to ascertain and 
determine whether the respondent had forfeited its char- 
ter. Use of name denied. 
Jackson Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover excise 
tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 
Jenney, E. C, executor of the will of Maria P. Stark, Attorney- 
General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance tax. 
Pending. 
John P. Squire Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 
Keyes, "Wade, executor of the will of Annie E. Bobinson, Attor- 
ney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance tax. 
Settled. 
Keystone Watch Case Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 
Lake Milling, Smelting and Penning Company v. Common- 
wealth. Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1911 
paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 
Lamont-Corliss Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 
Lanston Monot} T pe Machine Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 
LaSalle Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 
Laurium Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 
Leland, Percy F., petitioner. Petition to register title to land 

in Natick. Pending. 
Libby, George W., administrator of the estate of Oliver Libb} r , 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 
Little, George T., et dl. t executors of the will of Eachel R. 
Thayer, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 
Little, Henry B., petitioner. Petition to register title to land 
in Peabody. Decree. 



170 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Locomobile Company of America, The, v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Low, Ivers M., Attorney-General, ex reh v. Petition for use of 
the Attorney-General's name in an information in equity to 
restrain the respondent from interfering with the use of 
a public highway in Weymouth. Use of name refused. 

Lyman, Charles E., v. Commissioners on Fisheries and Game. 
Petition for annulment of an order of said commissioners. 
Pending before full court. 

Macfarlane, Ada. Petition to register title to land in Winthrop. 
Decree. 

Mahar, Joseph P., executor of the will of Thomas J. Rehill, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 

Manchester, Abraham, executor of the will of Abraham E. Man- 
chester, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Manitou Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Maritime Insurance Company v. Commonwealth et ah Bill to 
recover bonds deposited with the Treasurer and Receiver- 
General. Decree. 

Massachusetts Baptist Missionary Society, petitioner. Petition 
to register title to land in Boston. Attorney-General 
waived right to be heard. 

Massachusetts Consolidated Mining Company, The, v. Common- 
wealth. Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1911 
paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 

Mayflower Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

McCann, Charles J., et ah v. Charles Warren et als., Civil Serv- 
ice Commissioners. Petition for writ of mandamus to 
compel certification of the petitioners' names by the Civil 
Service Commissioners. Decree. Appeal by petitioners. 

McGuirk, Ann, executrix of the will of Terrence, Farley, Attor- 
ney-General ex reh v. Petition to recover inheritance tax. 
Pending. 

Mclnnis, Catherine F._ Geary, executrix of the will of Michael 
Connor, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Dismissed. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 171 

Mclntire, Charles H., trustee under the will of Maria T. Clark, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise taxes for the years 1909 and 1910 
paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Frank H. Hardison, 
Insurance Commissioner. Petition for review, under St. 
1907, c. 576, § 75. Kescript. 

Michigan Smelting Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Middleborough, town of, Commonwealth v. Action to recover 
penalty on account of sulphuretted hydrogen in gas. 
Pending. 

Moore, William H., et ah, executors of the will of Edward W. 
Murray, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Morgan, Thomas, et ah, executors of the will of Martha Frank- 
land, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inher- 
itance tax. Pending. 

Morse, Electra A., et ah v. David Ferguson et ah Action of 
tort. Pending. 

Munroe, Susan L., administratrix of the estate of Lawton I. 
Ware, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inher- 
itance tax. Final decree. 

Murphy, James S., administrator c. t. a. of the estate of Charles 
H. Young, Attorne}'-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Murplry, Mary E., executor of the will of Delia Martin, Attor- 
ney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance tax. 
Pending. 

N. K. Fairbank Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Nashua Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

National Calfskin Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

National Contracting Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover under E. L., c. 201. Pending. 



172 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

New England Dressed Meat and Wool Company v. Common- 
wealth. Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1910 
paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 

New England Home for Little Wanderers, petitioner. Petition 
to be allowed use of Attorney-General's name in an infor- 
mation to prevent a breach of trust in the administration 
of trust funds. Use of name granted. 

New England Maple Syrup Company v. Henry P. Walcott 
et ah. Bill in equity for an injunction. Pending. 

North Packing and Provision Company v. Commonwealth. Pe- 
tition to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

O'Connell, Joseph P., v. Commonwealth et al. Bill to recover 
money in hands of Commonwealth belonging to Austin 
Engineering and Construction Company. Pending. 

O'Donohue, Lillie B., executrix of the will of Joseph J. O'Dono- 
hue, Attorney- General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inherit- 
ance tax. Pending. 

Ohls, Frederick W., et al., State Board of Charity v. Action to 
recover on bond. Pending. 

Old Colony Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Oliver Typewriter Company, The, v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Order of Owls, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition for injunc- 
tion. Dismissed without prejudice. 

Osceola Consolidated Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Osman, Charles F., v. Commonwealth et al. Bill in equity to 
reach and apply funds in the hands of respondents. 
Pending. 

Oxford Linen Mills v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover ex- 
cise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Parker, Galen A., executor of the will of Martha E. Temple, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 

Pepperell Manufacturing Company, The, v. Commonwealth. 
Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by 
foreign corporation. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 173 

Pocahontas Fuel Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Porter, Bose M., v. Frank H. Hardison. Action of tort. Pend- 
ing. 

Powers, Wilbur H. Petition to register title to land in Win- 
throp. Decree. 

Pratt, Fred B., et al., executors of the will of Eliza J. Pratt, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Final decree. 

Providence Ice Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the years 1910 and 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Provident Institution for Savings, Attorney-General v. Petition 
to withdraw deposits under St. 1907, c. 340. Eescript. 
Writ of error. Pending in the Supreme Court of the United 
States. Eescript. 

Quincy, city of, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
penalty for failure to instal water meters. Pending. 

Eafferty, Ann, administratrix of the estate of Alice Cumiskey, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Decree. Eescript. 

Eice & Hutchins, Inc., v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Eice & Hutchins, Incorporated, v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Eichardson Silk Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Eiedl, Joseph, administrator of the estate of Michael Eiedl, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Final decree. 

Eing, Joseph A., et al., administrators of the estate of Ellen 
M. Bresnahan, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to 
recover inheritance tax. Final decree. 

Eitchie, Christina, v. Treasurer and Eeceiver-General. Action 
of contract under E. L., c. 128, § 96. Pending. 

Eockland Trust Company, petitioner. Petition to register title 
to land in Scituate. Attorney-General waived right to be 
heard. 



174 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Russell-Miller Milling Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
-recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpo- 
ration.. Pending. 

S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. 
Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by 
foreign corporation. Pending. 

Seager Engine Works v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover 
excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Sears, David, et al., petitioners. Petition to register title to 
land on Chapel and Colchester streets, Brookline. Attor- 
ney-General waived right to be heard. 

Shannon Copper' Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Shapleigh, Samuel B., executor of the will of Ellen L. Shap- 
leigh, Attorney- General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inher- 
itance tax. Pending. 

Shepard & Morse Lumber Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Sill, Alfred B., executor of the will of Alonzo C. Emmons, At- 
torney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Final decree. 

St. Mary's Mineral Land Company v. Commonwealth. Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

Stafford Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover excise 
tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corporation. Pending. 

Stone, Ann Elizabeth, Attorney-General v. Information for col- 
lection of inheritance tax. Pending. 

Stone, Frank Victor, Attorney-General v. Information for col- 
lection of inheritance tax. Pending. 

Stone, Ralph Edgarton, Attorney-General v. Information for 
collection of inheritance tax. Reserved for full court. 
Rescript. 

Stone, Stephen Stoddard, Attorney-General v. Information for 
collection of inheritance tax. Pending. 

Stonghton Mills, Incorporated, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Bill 
in equity to enjoin defendant from discharging waste into 
Xeponset River. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 175 

Swift & Co. v. Commonwealth. Petition to recover excise tax 
for the years 1910 and 1911 paid by foreign corporation. 
Pending. 

Tamarack Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Tarbell, Arthur P., v. Boston Athletic Association et al. Bill 
in equity to enjoin defendant from building a boathouse on 
Charles Biver basin. Pending. 

Thomas, Mary and Nicholas, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Peti- 
tion for use of Attorney-General's name in an information 
in equity to enjoin the respondents from interfering with 
the use of a public way in Sharon. Use of name granted. 

Titcomb, George H., v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Company, George 
A. Marden, Treasurer, et al. Petition for injunction to re- 
strain the Treasurer of the Commonwealth from trie pay- 
ment of money under St. 1883, c. 259, and St. 1891, c. 
397. Disposed of. 

Trimountain Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Turley, Thomas J., et al., administrators of the estate of Mary 
Benson, Attorne} r -General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Pending. 

Union Copper Land and Mining Company v. Commonwealth. 
Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by 
foreign corporation. Pending. 

Union Square Methodist Episcopal Church, petitioner. Peti- 
tion to register title to land in Charlestown. Pending. 

United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Common- 
wealth. Bill in equity to collect money paid creditors of 
Shanahan, Casparis Company. Dismissed. 

United States Badiator Corporation v. Commonwealth. 'Peti- 
tion to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign 
corporation. Pending. 

United States Worsted Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1910 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 

Victoria Copper Mining Company v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 



176 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 

Vining, Floretta, executrix of the will of Elizabeth Jacobs, At- 
torney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 
Walen, William W., administrator of the estate of Almira C. 
Walen, Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover in- 
heritance tax. Pending. 
Walpole Rubber Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 
Waltham Watch Company v. Commonwealth. Action to recover 

corporation tax for 1908. Pending. 
Waltham Watch Company v. Commonwealth. Action to recover 

corporation tax for 1909. Decree. 
Warren Brothers Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 
Webster, Jackson, administrator of the estate of Annette L. 
Webster, Attorney- General ex rel. v. Petition to recover 
inheritance tax. Final decree. 
Welch, Mary Ann, executrix of the will of Thomas Welch, At- 
torney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 
Welch, William J., v. John A. Campbell. Action of tort. Pend- 
ing. 
Welch, William J., v. Hosea M. Quimby, superintendent. Ac- 
tion of tort. Pending. 
Welsbach Street Lighting Company of America v. Common- 
wealth. Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid 
by foreign corporation. Pending. 
Westborough Insane Hospital, Trustees of, v. Daniel A. Dorsey 
et al. Petition to recover for breach of contract. Dis- 
posed of. 
Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Commonwealth. Petition 
to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 
Whitaker, Elbridge J., executor of the will of Oliver Everett, 
Attorney-General ex rel. v. Petition to recover inheritance 
tax. Pending. 
White Pine Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 177 

Winona Copper Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to re- 
cover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign corpora- 
tion. Pending. 

Winslow Brothers & Smith Company, Attorney- General ex rel. v. 
Bill in equity to restrain defendant from discharging waste 
into Neponset River. Pending. 

Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, The, v. Commonwealth. 
Petition to recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by for- 
eign corporation. Pending. 

York Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax assessed on foreign corporation. Pending. 

York Manufacturing Company v. Commonwealth. Petition to 
recover excise tax for the year 1911 paid by foreign cor- 
poration. Pending. 



178 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



COLLECTIONS. 



Collections have been made by this department as follows: — 

Corporation taxes for the year 1910, overdue and referred 
by the treasurer of the Commonwealth to the Attorney- 
General for collection, $136,446 64 

Interest, M02 78 

Costs, L • • • 1,936 01 

Miscellaneous, 208,518 39 

Total, $348,203 82 

The following table shows a detailed statement of the Corporation 
Taxes: — 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



A. Baab & Company, Inc., . 
A. C. & M. L. Felkin Company, 
A. E. Gloyd Shoe Company, 
A. H. Demond Company, . 
A. H. Ordway Company, 
A. Homer Skinner Lumber Com 



pany, 

A. I. Asher Pants Company, 
A. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc., . 
A. P. Nardini Company, 
A. Varnerin Company, Inc., 
A. W. Chesterton Company, 
Abbott-Detroit-Boston Company 
Adams Square Company, 
Adco, Inc., .... 
Addison Building Company, 
Alden Brothers Company, . 
Aldis Owen Hall's System of Busi- 
ness Enterprises, Inc., 
Alfred H. Aldrich Company, 
Alley & Emery, Inc., 
Almy Uniform Company, 
Alpha Investment Company, 
American Builders Finish Com 
pany, 



$35 20 
58 50 
44 00 
88 00 
10 56 

598 40 

100 32 

149 60 

88 00 

67 58 

1,005 80 

114 40 

92 40 

8 80 
35 20 
64 94 

10 77 

9 96 
660 00 
145 20 

20 00 

23 23 



$0 25 
25 
34 
62 
04 

3 89 
30 

8 23 
58 
25 

4 00 
68 
53 
08 



44 

08 
10 
82 
35 
10 



$35 45 
58 75 
44 34 
88 62 
10 60 

602 29 

100 62 

157 83 

88 58 

67 83 

1,009 80 

115 08 

92 93 

8 88 

35 20 

65 38 

10 85 

10 06 

677 82 

149 55 

20 10 

23 23 



1912.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



179 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



American Cloak Company, . 
American Clothing Company, 
American Color and Chemical 

Company, .... 
American Cultivator Publishing 

Company, .... 
American Electric Sign Company 
American Fireworks Company, 
American Grocery Company, 
American Knitting Company, 
American Narrow Fabric Com- 



pany, 

American Paper Stock Company 
American Respirator Company, 
American Stable Company, . 
American Tannery Engineering 

Company, .... 
Anderson's, Inc., 
Aristo Company, 
Arthur C. Harvey Company, 
Atlantic Rubber Company, . 
Atlantic Telegraph Company of 

Massachusetts, . 
Atlas Glue and Gelatine Company, 
Atlas Manufacturing Company, 
Atwood-Gould Company, 
Atwood Preserving Company, 
Austin Ford & Son Company, 
Austin Furniture Company, . 
Auto Renting Company, 
Automatic Gas Lighting Equip 

ment Company, . 
Automobile League of New Eng 

land, Inc., .... 
B. F. Smith Construction Com 



pany, 

Baer Clothing Company, 
Bartlett Box and Lumber Com 



pany, 

Barton-Child Company, 
Baseball Magazine Company, 
Bay State Cotton Corporation, 
Bay State Hame Company, . 
Bay State Realty Company, 
Beacon Investment and Supply 

Company, .... 
Beatty Construction Company, 
Belisle Printing and Publishing 

Company, .... 
Belmont Pharmacy, 
Belmont Spring Water Company, 



$136 99 


$0 89 


176 00 


53 


7 55 


- 


44 00 


1 70 


11 03 


11 


50 68 


2 68 


724 24 


1 45 


107 36 


35 


137 28 


34 


88 00 


2 64 


11 61 


69 


35 20 


20 


12 67 


43 


116 16 


46 


213 84 


1 92 


1,108 80 


2 77 


53 68 


36 


70 40 


15 


93 47 


28 


24 57 


- 


825 44 


4 64 


26 92 


67 


179 23 


90 


176 88 


1 34 


108 41 


8 02 


17 45 


08 


95 04 


- 


270 00 


90 


61 60 


41 


239 36 


94 


72 16 


49 


47 74 


32 


14,833 77 


64 28 


31 15 


31 


21 12 


73 


88 00 


2 90 


73 92 


22 


69 08 


42 


30 80 


07 


186 77 


1 31 



$137 88 
176 53 

7 55 

45 70 

11 14 

53 36 
725 69 
107 71 

137 62 
90 64 

12 30 
35 40 

13 10 
116 62 
215 76 

1,111 57 

54 04 

70 55 
93 75 

24 57 
830 08 

27 59 
180 13 
178 22 
116 43 

17 53 

95 04 

270 90 
62 01 

240 30 

72 65 
48 06 
14,898 05 
31 46 
21 85 

90 90 
74 14 

69 50 

30 87 
188 08 



180 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



Benj . N. Moore & Sons Company, 
Benson Furniture Company, 
Berkshire Mineral Company, 
Beverly Chemical and Supply 

Company, .... 
Bianco Brothers Company, . 
Blake Pump and Condenser Com 

pany, 

Bloodine Corporation, . 
Bon-Ton Millinery Company, 
Boston & Haverhill Dispatch 

Company, .... 
Boston Arena Company, 
Boston Book Company, 
Boston Brokerage Company, 
Boston Camera Exchange, Inc., 
Boston Cold Storage Company, 
Boston Cycle and Sundry Com- 
pany, 

Boston Electric Garage Company 
Boston Furnace Company, . 
Boston Gas Engine Company, 
Boston Self-Locking Block Com- 
pany, 

Bow Ridge Development Com- 
pany, 

Bridge Street Drug Company, 
Brighton Coal Company, 
Brighton Dressed Meat Company 
British Tea Table, Inc., 
Broadway Pharmacy, Inc., . 
Brockton Die Company, 
Brockton Ideal Shoe Company, 
Brockton Lumber and Construc- 
tion Company, . 
Brookline Press, 

Brown Garage and Carriage Com- 
pany, . . . _ . 
Brown-Talbot Machinery Com- 
pany, 

Brown Wales Company, 
Builders' Iron and Steel Company, 
Bull Dog Clip Manufacturing 

Company, .... 
Bullard Company, . 
Bunkio Matsuki Corpn., 
Burleigh & Martin, Incorp., . 
Burleigh Rock Drill Company, 
Burn's River Ice Corpn., 
Butler Beef Company, . 
Butman & Cressey Company, 



$1,775 84 
10 88 

42 24 

9 60 

60 72 

79 20 
93 49 
57 20 

26 40 

559 18 

1,320 00 

21 12 

35 20 

719 40 

798 16 

116 16 

40 48 

52 80 

47 52 

16 19 

35 20 

141 15 

44 66 

43 29 
35 20 
79 51 

424 95 

39 28 
10 56 

88 00 

102 78 

1,094 72 

237 60 

59 66 

73 65 

8 97 

57 02 

8 62 

92 40 

528 00 

269 28 



$11 84 
09 
29 

04 

29 

70 
1 33 



14 53 

7 70 

14 

1 05 

20 14 

5 45 
62 

27 
1 32 

20 

16 
70 
31 



77 
24 
59 
83 

74 



35 

69 
2 74 
2 97 

1 40 
73 

1 57 

04 
25 

2 11 

6 28 



$1,787 68 
10 97 
42 53 

9 64 
61 01 

79 90 

94 82 

57 20 

26 40 

573 71 

1,327 70 

21 26 

36 25 

739 54 

803 61 

116 78 

40 75 

54 12 

47 72 

16 35 

35 90 
141 46 

44 66 

45 06 
35 44 
81 10 

427 78 

40 02 
10 56 

88 35 

103 47 

1,097 46 

240 57 

61 06 

74 38 
8 97 

58 59 
8 66 

92 65 
530 11 
275 56 



1912. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



181 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






C. A. Cook Company, . 


$405 29 


$0 81 


$406 10 


C. B. Williamson, .... 


44 00 


22 


44 22 


CD. Wright Company, 


176 00 


3 52 


179 52 


C. F. Leteney Company, 


105 60 


78 


106 38 


C. H. Annable Lumber Company, 


267 52 


1 78 


269 30 


C. Sargent Bird, Inc., 


61 60 


29 


61 89 


C. W. Luce & Co., Inc., 


516 52 


11 36 


527 88 


C. W. Wilcox & Son Company, . 


70 40 


- 


70 40 


Cacocum Fruit and Products 








Company, 


24 00 


07 


24 07 


Cahill Manufacturing Company, . 


13 37 


05 


13 42 


Carl Seaberg Company, 


26 40 


08 


26 48 


Carroll Construction Company, . 


111 93 


2 80 


114 73 


Carter Press of Baltimore Corpn., 


12 32 


- 


12 32 


Central Dry Goods Company, 


123 20 


82 


124 02 


Central Garage, Incorporated, 


29 56 


25 


29 81 


Central Inter-State Express Com- 








pany, 


8 80 


13 


8 93 


Chandler Machine Company, 


178 69 


1 16 


179 85 


Charles E. Perry Company, . 


252 08 


1 08 


253 16 


Charles H. Morej^ Company, 


8 40 


54 


8 94 


Charles Holmes Leather Working 








Machinery Company. 


64 41 


- 


64 41 


Charles J. Jacobs Company, 


26 40 


- 


26 40 


Charles S. Gove Company, . 


114 40 


76 


115 16 


Chase & Baker Company, 


166 88 


95 


167 83 


Chattel Loan Company, 


1,272 97 


8 69 


1,281 66 


Cheney & Thomson Company, . 


102 08 


1 65 


103 73 


Choate Drug and Chemical Com- 








pany, 


110 00 


83 


110 83 


Circular Loom Products Com- 








pany, 


308 17 


1 39 


309 56 


Citizens' Loan Association, . 


120 15 


2 72 


122 87 


Clapp & Abercrombie Company, 


22 88 


- 


22 88 


Clapp-Eastham Company, . 


17 60 


- 


17 60 


Coates Clipper Manufacturing 








Company, 


158 40 


3 26 


161 66 


Cobb & White Company, 


37 31 


1 07 


38 38 


Cohannet Silver Company, . 


650 32 


17 24 


667 56 


Collins Hardware Company, 


1,848 00 


12 94 


1,860 94 


Colonial Bed Company, 


65 12 


1 95 


67 07 


Colonial Clothing Company, 


151 06 


76 


151 82 


Colonial Cranberry Company, 


23 05 


12 


23 17 


Columbia Comb Company, . 


177 76 


50 


178 26 


Columbia Electric Engineering 








Company, 


23 35 


23 


23 58 


Common Sense Gum Company, . 


143 47 


4 28 


147 75 


Conant & Donelson Company, 


267 87 


6 96 


274 83 


Conant Whiting & Co., Incorpo- 








rated, 


6 35 


- 


6 35 


Concord Drug Company of Lowell, 


61 60 


1 23 


62 83 



182 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






Congress Bowling Alleys, Inc., 


$7 39 


_ 


$7 39 


Continental Wood Screw Com- 








pany, 


1,050 94 


$2 10 


1,053 04 


Converse Rubber Shoe Company, 


1,250 04 


4 37 


1,254 41 


Coulter Coal and Lumber Com- 








pany, 


168 08 


1 26 


169 34 


Coveney Building Company, 


39 07 


18 


39 25 


Craftsman Press, Inc., . 


7 56 


18 


7 74 


Crane Puller Company, 


85 64 


43 


86 07 


Crocker Drug Company, 


26 40 


15 


26 55 


Crowley & Gold Company, . 


176 00 


2 71 


178 71 


Crown Novelty Company, . 


290 40 


8 71 


299 11 


Crown Packing Company, 


79 20 


53 


79 73 


Cummings Machine Works, . 


158 40 


1 08 


159 48 


Curtis & Cameron, Incorporated, 


79 20 


41 


79 61 


D. Caro & Co., Inc., 


24 64 


12 


24 76 


D. F. O'Connell Company, . 


107 80 


75 


108 55 


Dadmun Company, 


105 60 


3 15 


108 75 


Daley & Wanzer Allerton Express 








Company, 


97 68 


50 


98 18 


Daley's Nantasket Express Com- 








pany, 


72 45 


38 


72 83 


Dalton-Ingersoll Manufacturing 








Company, 


640 64 


4 38 


645 02 


Davies Rose & Co., Limited, 


72 33 


50 


72 83 


Derrin Ice Cream Company, 


40 92 


27 


41 19 


Desmond-Hayden Shoe Company, 


66 88 


1 79 


68 67 


Diadem Manufacturing Company, 


99 44 


42 


99 86 


Dill Cattle Company, . 


100 00 


53 


100 53 


Dorchester Ice Company, 


505 91 


3 37 


509 28 


Dr. Rudolph Mertin, Inc., . 


103 48 


2 38 


105 86 


Driscoll & Co., Inc., 


45 76 


34 


46 10 


Dukelow & Walker Company, 


42 24 


42 


42 66 


Durant Company, .... 


176 00 


1 45 


177 45 


Dustbane Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


79 18 


52 


79 70 


Dyke Mill, 


33 08 


14 


33 22 


E. A. Smith Company, Inc., 


7 04 


07 


7 11 


E. G. Tutein & Co., Inc., . 


167 55 


4 14 


171 69 


E. H. Friedrich Company, . 


576 40 


5 77 


582 17 


E. H. Saxton Company, 


237 60 


1 04 


238 64 


E. H. Smith Company, . 


158 40 


1 27 


159 67 


E. L. LeBaron Foundry Com- 








pany, ...... 


58 71 


40 


59 11 


E. L. Smith Company, . 


105 60 


42 


106 02 


E. R. Brown Beer Pump Com- 








pany, 


56 10 


3 20 


59 30 


E. T. Slattery Company, 


2,024 00 


13 83 


2,037 83 


E. Van Noorden Company, . 


393 55 


92 


394 47 


East Douglas Clothing Company, 


26 40 


17 


26 57 


East Coal Company, 


200 64 


1 34 


201 98 



1912.1 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



183 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






Eastern Counter Company, . 


$43 04 


$0 29 


$43 33 


Eastern Electric Company of New 








Bedford, 


70 40 


38 


70 78 


Eastern Furniture Company, 


35 90 


- 


35 90 


Eastern Handle Company, . 


49 63 


2 08 


51 71 


Eastern Oil and Rendering Com- 








pany, 


20 50 


- 


20 50 


Eastern Paper Stock Company, . 


10 50 


05 


10 61 


Eastern Rag and Metal Company, 


6 86 


- 


6 86 


Eastern Sanitary-Products Com- 








pany, . . . 


48 40 


97 


49 37 


Easthampton Co-operative As- 








sociation, 


31 02 


- 


31 02 


Eaton Candy Company, 


21 12 


27 


21 39 


Economy Drug Company, . 


42 24 


29 


42 53 


Edward A. Tucker, Inc., 


6 33 


07 


6 40 


Edwards & Finkelstein Company, 


55 96 


1 65 


57 61 


Eldridge Ice Cream Company, 


68 64 


33 


68 97 


Electric Maintenance Company, . 


15 66 


- 


15 66 


Elk Flint Bottle Company, . 


88 44 


2 92 


91 36 


Elk River Milling Company, 


46 56 


- 


46 56 


Elliott Specialty Company, . 


13 20 


13 


13 33 


Emanuel Wasserman Company, . 


105 60 


56 


106 16 


English & Flett, Inc., . 


238 86 


68 


239 54 


Enterprise Comb Company, 


52 80 


- 


52 80 


Enterprise Company of Pittsfield, 


70 40 


50 


70 90 


Eureka Valve Company, 


35 20 


- 


35 20 


Everett Foundrv Company, . 


44 00 


26 


44 26 


F. B. Taylor & Son, Inc., . 


352 00 


70 


352 70 


F. H. Lane Company, . 


281 60 


1 40 


283 00 


F. M. Bill Company of Boston, . 


755 04 


1 88 


756 92 


F. S. McDermott Company, 


88 00 


1 00 


89 00 




16 57 


34 


16 91 


Fall River, Warren & Taunton Ex- 








press Company, .... 


5 28 


04 


5 32 


Fay Welding and Manufacturing 








Company, 


17 60 


- 


17 60 


Feldman & Co., Inc. 


18 48 


10 


18 58 


Felton Turner Heating Company, 


165 88 


88 


166 76 


Ferguson Coal Company, 


318 56 


2 54 


321 10 


Ferris Wheel Amusement Com- 








pany, Inc., 


17 60 


05 


17 65 


Fink Cigar Company, . 


44 00 


- 


44 00 


Fitchburg Real Estate and Loan 








Company, 


132 79 


4 11 


136 90 


Foley's Clothing Store, Inc., 


96 80 


35 


97 15 


Forbes Manufacturing Company, 


137 24 


3 37 


140 61 


Francis Dike, Inc., .... 


105 60 


5 28 


110 88 


Frank A. Andrews Company, 


152 31 


4 27 


156 58 


Frank P. Brown Company, . 


33 79 


21 


34 00 


Franklin Clothing Company, 


105 60 


71 


106 31 



184 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



Franklin Press, Inc., 
Fred A. Day Corporation, 
Fred E. Squire Company, 
Fred S. & A. D. Gore Corporation, 
Frederick C.Warren Construction, 

Company, 

Frederik Peterson Company, 
Freeman Clothing Company, 
Freeman-Cotting Coat Company, 
Frye & Crawford Drug Company, 
G. H. Chessman Company, . 
G. W. Lord Company, . 
G. W. Peterson Company, . 
Gardner Autumobile Company, 
Gardner Gas, Fuel and Light Com 

pany, 

Garnett Leather Company, . 
Geddis Remedy Company, . 
George A. Turner Company, 
George C. Mellville Company, 
George D. Jewett Bag Company, 
George E. Feast Company, . 
George E. Smith Company, . 
George F. Vester Company, . 
George G. Snow Company, . 
George H. Sallaway Company, 
George P. Bingham Company, 
Globe Credit Company, 
Globe Gas Light Companj^, . 
Globe Mattress Manufacturing 

Company, 

Golden Grain Farming Company, 
Goldman Brothers Company, 
Goodale Comb Company, 
Goodwin Company, 
Graham Company, . 
Granfield's Pharmacy, Inc., . 
Greek American Fruit and Candy 

Company, 

Greendale Gas Engine Company, 

Grocers Supply Company, Limited 

Guarantee Plate Works, 

H. A. Johnson Company, 

H. A. Rich Company, . 

H. C. & C. D. Castle, Incorporated 

H. C. Girard Company, 

H. E. Lindbladh Company, . 

H. F. Curtis Company, . 

H. M. Kinports Company, . . 

H. W. Vinson Company, 

Hackett Brothers Company, 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



$17 60 

105 60 

153 03 

88 00 

10 56 

6 54 

21 12 

82 72 

35 20 

88 00 

160 51 



8 
11 



SO 

ss 



50 16 
94 60 
18 14 
35 20 

176 00 
13 72 

110 15 

52 80 

44 00 

1,936 00 

162 20 
88 00 
75 68 

132 00 

105 60 

126 20 

61 60 

102 08 

20 38 
66 00 

105 60 

17 60 
40 30 
48 57 

21 12 
3,064 98 

188 10 

139 04 

140 80 

22 88 
44 00 

140 80 

211 20 

83 84 



Interest. 



Totals. 



$0 37 

69 

46 

4 54 

04 
06 

82 
18 
22 
40 
18 



31 
61 
11 
20 
3 52 

3 30 
20 
30 

38 72 

1 27 

2 64 

85 

58 
90 
40 
44 
15 
50 
70 

1 02 
20 
31 

20 42 
1 22 
67 
70 
12 
31 

4 20 

3 63 
21 



$17 97 

106 29 

153 49 

92 54 

10 60 
6 60 

21 12 

83 54 
35 38 
88 22 

160 91 
8 98 

11 88 

50 47 
95 21 
18 25 
35 40 

179 52 
13 72 

113 45 

53 00 

44 30 

1,974 72 

163 47 
90 64 
75 68 

132 85 

106 18 

127 10 

62 00 

102 52 

20 53 
66 50 

106 30 

18 62 
40 50 
48 88 

21 12 
3,085 40 

189 32 

139 

141 

23 

44 31 
145 00 
214 83 

84 05 



71 
50 
00 



1912.1 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



185 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






Hampden Creamery Company, . 


$132 49 


$0 86 


$133 35 


Hampden Shoe Company, 


264 00 


1 71 


265 71 


Harrington Press Company, . 


14 92 


11 


15 03 


Harrison Drug Company, 


44 35 


31 


44 66 


Harry Eldredge Goodhue Com- 








pany, 


126 72 


59 


127 31 


Hartshorn Company, 


17 16 


09 


17 25 


Harvard Baking Powder Company, 


53 41 


- 


53 41 


Haverhill Construction Company, 


128 77 


84 


129 61 


Healey Sewer Machine and Con- 








struction Company, . 


77 90 


52 


78 42 


Healy "^urnishing Company, 


14 08 


17 


14 25 


Henry F. Farrow Company, 


101 90 


66 


102 56 


Henry H. Tuttle Company, . 


462 00 


2 93 


464 93 


Hertig Furnace Company, 


52 80 


35 


53 15 


Highland Drug Company, 


42 24 


13 


42 37 


Highland Paint and Wall Paper 








Company, 


105 60 


37 


105 97 


Hillcrest Farm, Incorporated, 


17 31 


- 


17 31 


Hilton & Sons Express, Inc., 


88 88 


2 38 


91 26 


Hingham Seam Face Granite 








Company, ' . 


54 12 


1 54 


55 66 




655 81 


1 75 


657 56 


Hoagland Curtis Drug Company, 


1,232 00 


9 85 


1,241 85 


Hodgson, Kennard & Co., Inc., . 


615 38 


5 89 


621 27 


Holyoke Base Ball Association, . 


88 00 


2 06 


90 06 


Hooper Printing Company, . 


65 82 


65 


66 47 


Houghton Heel and Leather Com- 








pany, _. 


210 76 


65 


211 41 


Housatonic Water Works Com- 








pany, 


79 20 


50 


79 70 


Hoyt Company, . . . . 


396 00 


2 64 


398 64 


Huberman Oil Company, 


36 96 


92 


37 88 


Human Life Publishing Company, 


500 00 


3 33 


503 33 


Huntt's Lunch Company, 


492 80 


1 72 


494 52 


Ideal Dental Laboratory Incorpo- 








rated, 


25 34 


17 


25 51 


Ima-Fibre Company, 


10 56 


22 


10 78 


International Bedding Company, 


91 48 


- 


91 48 


Interstate Express Company of 








Fall River, 


9 50 


- 


9 50 


Inter-State Lumber Company, 


167 20 


1 14 


168 34 


Interstate Oil Company, 


40 12 


30 


40 42 


Inter-Trust Security Company, . 


76 26 


76 


77 02 


Investors Corporation Company, . 


84 12 


1 00 


85 12 


Irving F. Moore Amusement Com- 








pany, 


19 36 


19 


19 55 


Isaac H. Dinner Company, . 


52 80 


- 


52 80 


Italian Importing Company, In- 








corporated, 


31 68 


- 


31 68 


J. A. Cloutier Company, 


84 48 


— 


84 48 



186 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






J. C. Fraser & Sons Company, 


$110 72 


$0 28 


$111 00 


J. G. Blount Company, 


322 08 


1 40 


323 48 


J. G. Bridge Company, . 


356 64 


9 27 


365 91 


J. G. Walker & Son Corporation, 


224 11 


1 40 


225 51 


J. H. Chandler Company, 


107 71 


72 


108 43 


J. H. Folkins Company, 


318 56 


1 91 


320 47 


J. Lerner Company, Inc., 


52 80 


2 76 


55 56 


J. Nardi Company, 


63 88 


1 84 


65 72 


J. T. Tighe Company, . 


387 20 


2 58 


389 78 


J. W. Greenhalgh Company, 


23 86 


12 


23 98 


J. W. Luther Company, 


246 40 


1 50 


247 90 


J. W. Jordan Company, 


61 07 


- 


61 07 


James B. Wood & Son Company 


237 60 


- 


237 60 


James Barrett Manufacturing 


1 






Company, 


202 40 


67 


203 07 


Jenks- Williams Paving Company, 


14 08 


- 


14 08 


Jeremiah Clark Machinery Com- 








pany, 


176 29 


97 


177 26 


Jewish Publishing Company o: 








New England, 


44 00 


2 06 


46 06 


John C. DeLaney Moulding Com- 








pany, 


24 64 


17 


24 81 


John C. Frohn Company, 


44 00 


2 72 


46 72 


John Cashman & Sons Com- 








pany, 


264 00 


1 71 


265 71 


John Cavanagh & Son Building 


■ 






Moving Company, 


198 00 


2 66 


200 66 


John F. Ryan Company, 


616 00 


21 42 


637 42 


John Foster Company, . 


908 51 


6 35 


914 86 


John J. Cluin Company, 


48 40 


28 


48.68 


John T. Scully Foundation anc 


I 






Transportation Company, 


184 80 


78 


185 58 


Jordan & Bradley, Inc., 


12 32 


36 


12 68 


Jordan Drug Company, 


13 20 


10 


13 30 


Joseph Andrews Lumber Com- 


• 






pany, 


24 64 


53 


25 17 


Joseph M. Bradley Company, 


30 80 


30 


31 10 


K. A. Kelly Company, . 


44 54 


47 


45 01 


K. G. Laham & Company, . 


16 89 


- 


16 89 


Kaleva Store Company, 


57 72 


35 


58 07 


Keilty Company, 


202 03 


1 47 


203 50 


Keniston Engineering Company 


88 00 


57 


88 57 


Kennedy Ideal Carbureter Com- 








pany, 


21 12 


06 


21 18 


Kenney Brothers Company, 


87 12 


22 


87 34 


King Mining Company, 


85 00 


1 42 


86 42 


Kinney Heating and Supply Com 








pany, 


36 25 




36 25 


Kissell Kar Kompany, . 


66 31 


66 


66 97 


Kleno Manufacturing Company, 


17 60 


10 


17 70 


Knox Automobile Company, 


6,271 67 


46 00 


6,317 67 



1912.1 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



187 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



Kress Brothers Carriage Com- 
pany, 

L. & L. Bakery Company, . 
Labelle Gas Regulator Company 
Lamere & Robinson Company, 
Lang and Jacobs Company, . 
Laundry Specialty Company, 
Lawrence B. Smith Company, 
Lawrence Market Company, 
Lawrence Produce Company, 
Leavitt's Scotch Polish Com- 



pany, . . 
Leominster Fine Tool and Ma 

chine Works, Incorporated, 
Leominster Novelty Company, 
Leona Mining Company, 
Leslie Manufacturing Company, 
Lever Cream Separator Company 
Lewis F. Small, Incorporated, 
Linscott Motor Company, . 
London Harness Company, . 
Lovell & Covel Company, 
Lovells, Incorporated, . 
Lynch Heel Company, . 
Lynn Hebrew Mutual Loan As- 
sociation, .... 
McPherson Brothers Company, 
Macalaster, Wiggin Company, 
MacLean Produce Company, 
Magee Furnace Company, . 
Magnet Photo Materials Com- 
pany, 

Maine State Creamery Company, 
Majestic Company, 
Maiden Grain Company, 
Manhattan Collar Company, 
Manhattan Company, . 
Manhattan Market Company, 
Manufacturers Shoe Trimming 

Company, .... 
Manufacturing Equipment and 

Engineering Company, 
Marathon Egyptian Cigarette 

Company, .... 
Marshall-Hackel Company, . 
Marston Shoe Company, 
Martel Motor Car Company, 
Massachusetts Aktzia, Incorpo- 
rated, 

Massachusetts & Rhode Island 
Despatch Express Company, 



$61 60 
17 77 
7 95 
61 88 
96 80 
17 60 

228 80 
79 20 

144 53 

23 14 

26 40 

95 04 

68 81 

569 65 

40 20 

17 60 

230 56 

660 00 

349 53 

70 40 

44 00 

12 67 
31 15 
82 72 
35 20 

3,910 20 

19 48 
26 40 
140 80 
153 12 
101 90 
6 33 
352 00 

58 08 

213 40 

14 36 
203 96 

13 55 
63 36 

29 60 

15 84 



$0 39 



03 

65 

92 
18 

87 

19 

20 

24 

3 99 

25 06 

40 

1 53 

7 59 

1 22 

35 

32 

06 
28 
25 

26 72 



70 

1 00 

30 

77 

1 70 

2 45 

14 
6 12 

1 47 

20 

10 



$61 99 

17 77 

7 95 

61 91 

97 45 

17 60 
229 72 

79 38 
145 40 

23 33 

26 60 
95 28 
72 80 
594 71 
40 20 

18 00 
232 09 
667 59 
350 75 

70 75 
44 32 

12 73 
31 43 
82 97 
35 20 

3,936 92 

19 48 
26 40 

141 50 
154 12 
102 20 
6 33 
352 77 

59 78 

215 85 

14 50 
210 08 

13 55 
64 83 

29 80 

15 94 



188 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



Massachusetts Caloric Bath Com- 
pany, $39 60 ! $0 55 $40 15 

Massasoit Company, . . . 313 28 i 2 19 315 47 

Matheson Vail Company, . 42 24 2 11 44 35 

Mellish & Byfield Manufacturing 

Company, 72 16 58 72 74 

Melvin Bancroft Company, . 61 60 25 j 61 85 

Metropolitan Air Goods Com- 
pany, _ | 82 72 I 20 82 92 

Metropolitan Lithograph and 
Publishing Company, 

Miller-Richards Manufacturing 
Company, 

Milliken & Robie, Incorporated, 

Minard's Liniment Manufacturing 
Company, .... 

Miscoe Spring Water Company, 

Mitchell Press, ... 

Morse-Gemmell Company, . 

Motor Specialties Company, 

Muir's Laundry, Incorporated, 

Mulliken Oil Company, 

Murch & Loomis Company, 

Murphy Coal & Wood Company, 

National Matzo Company of 

~3IBoston, 

National Self- Warning Fire Alarm 
Company, 

Neponset River Coal Company, . 

New Can Company, 

New England Cereal Company, . 

New England Cigar Box Com- 
pany, 

New England Cloak and Suit 
Company, 

New England Discount Company, 

New England Motor Vehicle 

Company, . ... 63 36 63 I 63 99 

New England Office Furniture 

Company, 70 40 1 83 72 23 

New England Reed Company, . 452 35 3 02 455 37 

New England Shoe Manufactur- 
ing Company, .... 75 32 - 75 32 

New England Society Incorpo- 
rated, 22 17 - 22 17 

New England Trading Company, 61 60 55 62 15 

Newton Graphic Publishing Com- 
pany, 32 56 11 32 67 

New Stock Opera Company, . 26 40 95 27 35 

North Main Market Company, . 133 05 42 133 47 

North Shore Leather Company, . 17 60 84 18 44 



313 28 


10 43 


323 71 


350 24 


7 00 


357 24 


26 40 


66 


27 06 


94 37 


98 


95 35 


35 20 


22 


35 42 


10 91 


63 


11 54 


35 55 


25 


35 80 


46 00 


1 38 


47 38 


61 60 


1 30 


62 90 


52 80 


2 34 


55 14 


110 00 


73 


110 73 


299 20 


76 


299 96 


63 36 


42 


63 78 


34 81 


1 60 


36 41 


120 52 


- 


120 52 


237 60 


6 41 


244 01 


30 00 


12 


30 12 


34 71 


- 


34 71 


153 12 


1 02 


154 14 


259 38 


2 51 


261 89 



1912." 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



189 





Collected on 








Account 
of Cor?' oi 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






Noyes & Dewar Company, . 


$61 60 


$1 31 


$62 91 


Oak Island Grove Company, 


40 00 


14 


40 14 


Oakley Steel Foundry Company, 


271 62 


3 26 


274 88 


Office Specialties De Luxe, In- 








corporated, 


85 36 


68 


86 04 


Old Colony Box Company, . 


2,231 52 


45 60 


2,277 12 


Old South Lunch, Incorporated, . 


52 80 


35 


53 15 


Oleic Company, Incorporated, 


9 15 


- 


9 15 


Overland Motor Company of 








Boston, 


188 46 


1 24 


189 70 


Oxidite Manufacturing Company, 


27 52 


19 


27 71 


P. Creedon Company, . 


225 28 


4 50 


229 78 


P. J. Ferguson, Incorporated, 


26 40 


41 


26 81 


P. R. Glass Company, . 


94 51 


2 85 


97 36 


P. Reilly & Son Leather Com- 








pany, 


176 00 


1 76 


177 76 


Page & Symmes Company, . 


123 20 


2 63 


125 83 


Palatable Distilled Water Com- 








pany, 


5 28 


34 


5 62 


Paleface Shooting Grounds Cor- 








poration, 


10 27 


14 


10 41 


Parisian Jewelry Company, . 


22 42 


- 


22 42 


Parker & Page Company, 


1,241 29 


8 07 


1,249 36 


Parker J. Webber Company, 


84 48 


- 


84 48 


Parker Transmission and Appli- 








ance Company, .... 


18 18 


08 


18 26 


Parker-Turco Company, 


48 64 


32 


48 96 


Pastime Theatre Company of 








Lawrence, Inc., .... 


126 72 


2 53 


129 25 


Pattinson Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


36 96 


23 


37 19 


Peabody Supply Company, . 


70 40 


47 


70 87 


Pean Medical Company, 


29 77 


12 


29 89 


Peoples Drug Store Company, 


26 40 


18 


26 58 


People's Furniture Company, 


105 60 


85 


106 45 


Perkins & Co., Inc. 


344 96 


10 31 


355 27 


Peter F. Connolly Company, 


17 60 


10 


17 70 


Photo Supply Company, 


24 64 


61 


25 25 


Pierce & Barnes Company, . 


17 60 


14 


17 74 


Plymouth Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


44 00 


30 


44 30 


Point Breeze Company, 


57 72 


- 


57 72 


Polish Co-operative Market, In- 








corporated, 


23 93 


47 


24 40 


Polonia Baking Company, 


6 33 


30 


6 63 


Post Office Pharmacy, Incor- 








porated, 


52 80 


25 


53 05 


Pratt-Reid Shoe Company, . 


2,200 00 


11 00 


2,211 00 


Premier Leather Company, . 


77 44 


77 


78 21 


Prexite Comb Company, 


209 44 


1 68 


211 12 


Prudential Supply Company, 


123 55 


1 11 


124 66 



190 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






Purity Confectionery Company, 


$58 08 


$0 66 


$58 74 


Quincy New System Wet Wash 








Company, 


9 50 


02 


9 52 


Quinsigamond Lake Steamboat 








Company, 


105 60 


2 53 


108 13 


R. C. Goudey Company, 


118 27 


52 


118 79 


R. H. Messer Compairy, 


85 80 


57 


86 37 


R. L. Cleveland Company, . 


173 18 


1 17 


174 35 


R. L. Morgan Company, 


1,870 88 


28 75 


1,899 63 


R. M. Bucknam & Co., Incorpo- 








rated, 


23 14 


21 


23 35 


Randall-Faichney Company, 


931 53 


5 89 


937 42 


Ray-Lawson Granite Company, . 


14 16 


24 


14 40 


Regal Comb and Novelty Com- 








pany, Incorporated, . 


114 40 


33 


114 73 


Reliance Motor Bus Company, . 


96 80 


65 


97 45 


Remington Manufacturing Com- 








pany, 


7 92 


- 


7 92 


Remington Tool and Machine 








Company, 


36 74 


24 


36 98 


Revere & Winthrop Co-operative 








Ice Company, .... 


19 71 


- 


19 71 


Rhode Island Machinery Com- 








pany, 


15 48 


08 


15 56 


Robert R. McNutt, Inc., 


224 40 


6 72 


231 12 


Robert S. Jones Company, . 


21 82 


- 


21 82 


Rosengard Furniture Company, . 


121 44 


30 


121 74 


Rowe Contracting Company, 


295 68 


74 


296 42 


Roxbury Shoe Thread Company, . 


176 00 


1 17 


177 17 


Royal Shoe Company, . 


118 97 


70 


119 67 


Ruff Bros. Company, 


67 58 


1 58 


69 16 


Russ, Eveleth & Ingalls Com- 








pany, 


1,121 98 


43 59 


1,165 57 


S. A. Ryan & Co., Incorporated, 


61 60 


22 


61 82 


S. D. Viets Company, . 


620 20 


9 02 


629 22 


S. L. Gabriel Company, 


29 92 


- 


29 92 


S. M. Howes Company, 


1,589 28 


10 86 


1,600 14 


Salem Barrel Company, 


52 80 


38 


53 18 


Salem Box Companj^, 


54 20 


- 


54 20 


Samano American Company, 


10 00 


- 


10 00 


Samson Draught Spring Com- 








pany, 


78 14 


52 


78 66 


Samuel Ward Company, 


1,663 20 


6 09 


1,669 29 


Saskatchewan Investment Com- 








pany, 


45 45 


30 


45 75 


Satuit Cranberry Company, . 


35 30 


39 


35 69 


Savory Express Company, . 


67 58 


96 


68 54 


Sayles & Jenks Manufacturing 








Company, 


974 68 


2 60 


977 28 


Scandinavian Co-operative Gro- 








cery Union, 


64 32 


19 


64 51 



1912.1 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



191 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



Schipper Bros. Coal Mining Com 

pany (Inc.), .... 
Sectional Rubber Tire Company 
Seth W. Fuller Company, 
Shadduck & Normandin Company 
Shapleigh Coffee Company, . 
Shawmut Waxed Paper Com- 
pany, 

Sheedy Amusement Company, 
Sheedy Theatre Company, . 
Sheldon Brothers Company, 
Shepard Clark Company, 
Sherry Shoe Company, . 
Shultz-Goodwin Company, . 
Silas Pierce & Co., Limited, . 
Small Maynard & Co., Incor- 
porated, .... 
Smith & McNault Company, 
Smith & Wallace Company, . 
Society for Americana, Inc., . 
Somerset Coal Company, 
Somerville Sun Publishing Com- 
pany, . . . 
Soule Art Publishing Company, 
Southgate Machinery Company, 
Southgate Press, The, — T. W 

Ripley Company, 
Spatula Publishing Company, 
Springfield Loan Association, 
St. Clairs' (Inc.), . 
Stadden's Art Shop, Incorpo 

rated, 

Standard Credit Company, . 
Standard Leather Company of 

Brockton, .... 
Standard Lens Company, 
Standard Publishing Company, 
Standard Stoneware Company, 
Stetson Coal Company of Bos 

ton, 

Storer & Gelotte Company, . 
Suffolk Supply Company, 
Sylvia Steamboat Company, . 
Svmonds & Poor Carbonator Com 



Pany, 

T. H. O'Donnell & Co., Inc., 
Tarr Marine Paint Company, 
Taunton Evening News, 
Taxi Motor Cab Company of 

Boston, .... 
Taylor & Barker Company, . 



$34 00 
61 88 

123 28 
95 04 

340 89 

49 28 
22 50 
25 00 
22 00 

890 85 
54 56 

714 56 
2,195 98 

528 00 
80 96 

897 42 
54 91 
89 76 

10 56 
161 92 
174 66 

682 88 
38 72 
10 73 

387 20 

203 63 
79 62 

48 57 
15 91 
83 42 

22 70 

832 48 
67 21 

23 23 
88 00 

589 60 
184 80 
144 84 
158 40 

422 40 
45 32 



$0 26 

1 44 

80 

64 

1 13 



34 

27 

14 
6 09 

16 

4 44 

14 64 

3 33 
54 



02 
60 



40 

1 28 

4 60 
20 
07 

7 78 

2 00 
16 



60 
25 
16 

2 50 

69 
22 

26 91 
7 39 
1 90 
1 10 

16 88 
91 



$34 26 
63 32 

124 08 
95 68 

342 02 

49 62 

22 77 
25 00 
22 14 

896 94 
54 72 

719 00 
2,210 62 

531 33 
81 50 

897 42 
57 93 
90 36 

10 56 
162 32 
175 94 

687 48 
38 92 
10 80 

394 98 

205 63 

79 78 

48 57 
16 51 
83 67 

22 86 

834 98 
67 21 

23 92 

88 22 

616 51 

192 19 

146 74 

159 50 

439 28 
46 23 



192 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan, 





Collected on 








Account 
of Corporation 


Interest. 


Totals. 




Tax for 1910. 






Telepost Company of Massachu- 








setts, 


$176 00 


$0 76 


$176 76 


Thayer Woolen Company, . 


278 08 


56 


278 64 


Therapeutic Publishing Company, 


21 12 


17 


21 29 


Thissell Company, .... 


35 20 


24 


35 44 


Thomas D. Gard Company, In- 








corporated, 


74 41 


75 


75 16 


Thomas H. Logan Company, 


880 00 


2 20 


882 20 


Thomas J. Shea Company, . 


24 64 


16 


24 80 


Thomas O'Callahan Company, . 


44 00 


60 


44 60 


Thompson Construction Com- 








pany, 


30 97 


18 


31 15 


Tichnor Brothers, Incorporated, 


242 88 


3 48 


246 36 


Times Newspaper Company, 


161 04 


3 33 


164 37 


Trombfy Jewelry Company, . 


226 82 


1 54 


228 36 


Truscott Boat Manufacturing 


i 






Company of Massachusetts, . 


44 00 


35 


44 35 


Tudor Press, Inc., .... 


200 46 


8 82 


209 28 


Turva Co-operative Store Com- 








pany, 


41 07 


82 


41 89 


Umbagog Camp Company, . 


6 33 


- 


6 33 


Union Furniture Company, . 


161 92 


1 07 


162 99 


Union Loan Association, 


107 71 


10 80 


118 51 


Union Optical Company, 


33 17 


33 


33 50 


Union Parlor Furniture Company, 


35 20 


- 


35 20 


Union Seal Company, . 


42 94 


13 


43 07 


Union Shoe Compairy, . 


77 61 


23 


77 84 


Union Tool Company, . 


20 87 


- 


20 87 


Unique Amusement Company, 


8 34 


07 


8 41 


Unique Theatre Company of 








Boston, 


123 20 


1 04 


124 24 


United Building Company, . 


5 80 


05 


5 85 


United Cloak and Suit House 








Company, 


19 36 


- 


19 36 


United Hospitals Drug Company, 


32 20 


21 


32 41 


United Sewing Machinery Com- 








pany, . .... 


63 36 


78 


64 14 


Utica Treeing Machine Company, 


13 27 


04 


13 31 


V. H. Moody Shoe Company, 


221 40 


55 


221 95 


Vigosan Medicine Company, 


39 79 


1 31 


41 10 


Vinton Manufacturing Company, 


44 95 


1 84 


46 79 


Vulcan Manufacturing Company, 


88 00 


2 20 


90 20 


W. A. Norton Company, 


35 20 


- 


35 20 


W. E. Chipman Company, . 


17 68 


09 


17 77 


W. E. Richards Company, . 


440 00 


- 


440 00 


W. F. Godber Company, 


183 46 


1 83 


185 29 


W. G. Hall Fur Company, . 


158 40 


3 74 


162 14 


W. H. I. Hayes Company, . 


140 80 


94 


141 74 


W. H. Magrath Cigar Company, 


16 49 


48 


16 97 


W. K. Farrington Press, 


89 76 


54 


90 30 


W. L. Waples Company, 


61 24 


3 55 


64 79 



1912.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



193 



Collected on 

Account 

of Corporation 

Tax for 1910. 



Interest. 



Totals. 



W. N. Hamel Clothing Company, 

W. P. Goode Brush Company, . 

W. T. Shackley & Son Companj' - , 

W. W. Spaulding Company, In- 
corporated, .... 

Wade Machine Company, 

Wadleigh Company, 

Walker Bros. Dyeing and Bleach- 
ing Company, 

Walker Drug Company, 

Walworth Construction and Sup 
ply Company, 

W'arner Box Companj^, . 

Warren Automobile Company, 

Warren, Brookfield & Spencer 
Street Railway Company, 

Waverly Liquor Company, . 

Wellington-Pierce Company, 

Wheeler & Shaw, Inc., 

White Eagle Bottling Company, 

White Smith Music Publishing 
Company, .... 

Whitman Pharmacal Company, 

Whittier Woodenware Company, 

William Allen Sons Company, 

William H. Franklin Brass 
Foundry Company, 

William L. Browne Electric Com 



Com 



pany, . _ . 
William Morris, Inc., 
Wire Bound Packing Case 

pany of Massachusetts, 
Winter Hill Motor Company, 
Woburn Degreasing Company, 
Woman's Shop, Incorporated, 
Wood, Clarke Press, Inc., 
Woodberry Press, . 
Woodward & Cochey, Incorpo 

rated, . ... 

Wordell Plumbing Company, 
Workers Co-operative Company, 
Woronoco Heating and Plumbing 

Company, 
Worthington Transportation Com- 
pany, .... 
Young & Follett Company, 



$130 06 

71 28 

193 60 

242 00 

89 76 

119 32 

46 81 
21 12 

124 52 
35 72 
79 20 

188 32 

52 80 

388 66 

537 09 

24 64 

1,003 32 

24 39 
475 20 

288 64 

33 00 

107 71 
88 00 

67 63 
44 00 
151 36 
264 00 
12 81 
70 40 

108 59 
70 40 
12 58 

88 00 

25 76 
35 20 



($136,446 64 



$2 13 
1 35 

1 35 

80 

28 



31 
24 
24 

47 

35 

1 23 

16 17 



2 33 

70 

2 62 

5 48 

21 

03 
4 08 

1 35 
29 
45 

1 24 
13 
42 

34 



2 03 

17 
2 04 



$130 06 

73 41 

194 95 

243 35 

89 76 
120 12 

47 09 
21 12 

124 83 
35 96 
79 44 

188 79 

53 15 

389 89 

553 26 

24 64 

1,005 65 

25 09 
477 82 
294 12 

33 21 

107 74 
92 08 

68 98 
44 29 
151 81 
265 24 
12 94 
70 82 

108 93 
70 40 
12 58 

90 03 

25 93 
37 24 



$1,302 78 



$137,749 42 



194 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



GO 



ft 
o 






0) 




pq 




+j 




>> 




o 




d 




o> 












V 


i 


03 




X 




W 


d 




o 


DO 


03 


H 


0) 




■J3 


>> 




^ 


a 




o 


nd 


Q< 


03 


0) 


— 


fH 


Ph 




^ 


T3 


03 


d 


Fh 


rt 


d 


d 


OJ 


o 




■{3 




d 


0J 




> 






03 


oi 




w 


U 


1/1 


& 


3 


^ 


• 1—4 


i—i 




1— 1 


a 


OS 


o 




Ph 




*4H 


i—( 




CO 


rr 




03 




> 


o 




CD 


'So 


Q 


.3 


bfl 




S-i 


t-H 




o 


-a 


«+-< 


d 




a> 


X 




d 


a 


o 


0j 




03 




>4 


on 




3 


03 

-5 


CD 




F-< 


&r 


a 


d 





H 


e«-i 


d 




T"5 


on 




d 


+J 


O 


d 


+3 


03 


ed 


H 


u 




* ""1 


tH 


a 


rt 


d< 


ft 


nj 


01 




^3 


M 




g 






pd 


ts 


^J 








o 


+J 


e+H 


u 




o 


01 

-G 


d 

a 


H 


0) 

> 









O 





a 


a 


a 


a* 


3 


3 


3 


5 


3 


3 


a 


3 




M 




p 


t- 






C 




M 






M 




«2 


J 


^o 


s 


3 


a 


,o 


£ 


O 


s 


>s 


^O 




H 


(h 


M 


j_, 


u 


M 


;_, 


h 


(_ 


M 


■— 


!-. 




© 


CJ 


o 


a 


a 


O 


o 


© 


o 


© 


9 


o 




a 


a 


P, 


& 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


• 


8 


2 


s 


p 


2 


2 


o 


c 


o 


2 


2 


2 


a 

© 


G 


a 


a 


s, 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


.9 


.3 


_d 


c 


_s 


.3 


^a 


.3 


3 


G 


.3 


_s 


T3 


-3 


T3 


-d 


T3 


— 


73 


-3 


-3 


-3 


■3 


■3 




CI 


s 


3 


a 


c 


3 


3 


fl 


3 


3 


3 


3 




c3 


e8 


93 


03 


09 


08 


03 


c3 


03 


03 


09 


09 




3 


"3 


3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


"3 


"a 






























& 


Is 


Te 


£ 


£ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


* 


£ 


I 


^ 




J 


J 


c-3 


Hi 


J 


o9 


3 


J 


>5 


e9 


3 


oj 


o.2 


















o* 


























E 








© -3 


























2 § 


















Id 








- - 


J* 


44 


^ 


3j 


^ 


M 


M 


^ 


33 

a 


^ 


M 


££ 


0) 99 


























~o 


o 


O 


o 


"c 


O 





o 


a 


O 


o 


.o 


to 


S3 


to 


te 


to 


to 


ta 


ta 


ta 


ta 


ta 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


w 


3 


3 


3 




oq 


□Q 


QD 


X 


02 


X 


H2 


X 


X 


X 


X 
























1 


























a 


























a 


























a 




13 






















1 




V 




fcl 


















o 






73 


3 

'-3 

3 








.3 








>> 

3 

09 


a 
1 




© 

| 


-3 
o 

pS 


J 
9 








8 

c 








o 


3 
09 




u 


"3 

a 


"d 

d 

99 








— 
= 

09 








a 

-3 
3 
03 


3 
O 






"o 


>> 


^ 


^ 


>^ 


3 


•^ 


£ 


h 


>> 








$ 


a 


3 


3 


t. 




a 


3 


3 


U 


o 


u 




CD 


8 


<B 


o 


^4 


© 


o 


© 


ffi, 


3 


a 




3 


3 
c 


s 


gf 


2 


1 

h3 


3 


2 


£P 


-3 






< 


J 


J 


J 


£ 


n 


3 


J 


£ 


< 


£ 


© 


























> 












X 














j-g 






. 






-Ld 














'5b 






a 






a 














3 
Pn 

a 




1 


"a 

'o 


'Sc 

3 


1 

3 


a 

-3 
G 
03 


o 


d 

§ 




2 
o 



3* 

1 

£ 


3* 

'3 




>> 
a 

3 

Q 

3 

,3 


s 

£ 


b 

a 


O 

3 




Q 

d 

3 

> 

-3 


© 

go 

si 

a 

CD 

CO 


3 
s 

© 
K 

b£ 
fl 
09 


3 
p| 

5 

09 


© 

*3 

3 

•3 


S 

hd 

3 

■M 


c 
H 

TO 

3 

£ 

g 



© 

s 




£ 


a 


s 


3 


w 


^ 


w 


Q 


&H 


% 


H 


o 


1 


























^>-£ M 


























£ 3 c3 


























d§^ 


























3 X rt 


















































O ^••'TS 


























s|:II 




d 

'3 


















.2 

3 




ra a 


44 


s9 




^r 




M 


44 


M 


^" 




03 


44 


M 


> 




(4 




i- 




■~ 






> 


b 


O 




m 


c 


© 


o 


o 




5* 


o 


of 


02 


52 


& 


a 

3 


J 


pi 


3 


fe 


& 


* 


& 


o 


3 
3 


fe 


3 


© 




© 


"ea 


£ 


to 


© 


9 


© 




© 




55 


M 


55 


s 


55 


55 


55 


5^ 





a 


55 


£ 


c* 


ta 


t» 


OS 


oa 


o 


o 


CI 


o 


-r 


cc 


N 




















Cl 


C4 


CM 




l«8 


^ 3 


3 


d 


d 


d 


3* 


d 


3 


d 


3 


3 


jd 


"o 


03 


09 


o 


s9 


:i 


09 


09 


sj 


B| 


b9 


89 


PR 




►3 


^ 


Hs 


^ 


>-a 


1-3 


►-a 


*-a 


^ 


t-a 


^5 



1912.1 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



195 



i 


£J 


a* 


?! 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


fl 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


Fl 


2 


a 





















































O 





o 


□ 


o 


c 


Q 





3 







- 














R 


S 


o 














































t< 








u 


U 


b 










u 




bl 


(-4 








h 








K 


a 


ft 


K 


ft 


g 


ft 


0) 

a 


ft 




ft 


ft 


99 

ft 


a 


£ 


ft 


ft 


ft 


a 


0) 

ft 


S 


09 

a 


g 


s 


s 


£ 


s 


o 


p 


s 


p 


s 


g 


O 


R 


o 


2 


b 


S 


g 


c 


g 


g 


g 


q, 


a 


ft 


ft 


ft 


a 


a, 


ft 


ft 


Ch 


a 


ft 


a 


ft 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


ft 


a 


c 


a 


a 


13 


d 


3 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


3 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


T3 


— 


-o 


-o 


Tj 


TT 


T3 


t- 


-r 


— 


TJ 


T5 


-3 


T) 


— 


-3 


-i 


T3 


-3 


T) 


Tl 


-a 




d 


d 


a 


d 


3 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


3 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


a 


3 


d 


s 


03 


as 


09 


09 


































































"2 
















3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 






3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 














































* 


£ 


£ 


rS 


* 


•4 


£ 


k 


E 


* 


E 


S 


tf 


E 


k 


* 


* 


^ 


Pt 


&! 


pt 


is 


3 


09 

-4 


=5 


■1 


3 


5 


& 


& 


J 


J 




a 


J 


a 


J 


3 


3 


J 


J 


- 


J 


^ 








p 


i 








H 










8 


















^c 


44 


44 


Id 


$ 


44, 


M 


44 


00 


44 


-a 


44 


44 


S 


M 


^ 


-^ 


44 


^J 


^ 


^ 


44 















































o 





^ 


-! 











— 


c 





O 


o 


2 

09 


c 










O 




3 


O 


i- 


m 


W 


— 


id 


id 


S3 


— 


to 


id 


fc 


id 


id 




m 


id 


kfi 




ir: 


to 


d 


d 


3 


a 




3 


3 


3 




3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


s 


3 


3 


3 


55 


3 


3 


DQ 


DQ 


X 


pq 


>j 


DO 


DQ 


DO 


A 


yj 


DQ 


72 


DQ 


DQ 


DC 


DC 


SQ 


DQ 


DQ 


£ 






































d 






(D 






























>. 








£ 






p 






























d 














ft 






























| 








OS 






~ 




3° 










3* 
















_rt 


, 


d 




G 






if 




5 

a 




i 






1 
d 
















■♦a 

a 

2 


G 

s 

Pi 


d 

09 




1 

d 

a) 






£ 




d 




S 






-3 








| 








'6 


-3 


-3 
d 




-3 

d 






.1 

09 

o 
d 

6 


£ 


55 
Bj 

5 




3 
-2 
03 


£ 


>! 


03 

M 

d 


>, 






ft 

-3 




>" 


>. 


49 


d 
o3 


03 

d. : 


r? 


03 

d 


>> 


^ 


a 
o 

1 


IS 

I 


09 

1 


a 


d 
g 


a 
3 


1 

pq 


d 




13 

& 


o3 

o 

00 

H 


09 


G 

1 


d 
o 


2 


I 


s 

pq 


Si 


o 
pq 


a 


3 


















o 












i 
















3 

S 

B 

s 

BO 
H 
J 

G 


i 

s 

l 



DQ 


s 

d 
3 

d 

d 

"5 

-3 


2 

3 

n 

n 

44 

a 

r 2 


c 
o 

> 

'> 


o 
d 
g 

M 

.2 

3 
3 


a? 

*> 
Q 

H 

y 
S 

o 


,a 

d 

1 

o 

1 


CO 

d 

o9 

d c 

s9 

o 
a 
a 

.2 


-3 

£ 


a 
g 
DQ 

3 

1 


1 
03 

tn 

ft 

12 


"3 
R 

09 

a 


■■c 

e 
"e 

d" 

c 

si 
I 


a 

M 

o 

d 

1 
O 

09 

"8 

DO 
09 


oi" 

,c 

"5 

99 

b 

d 

hi 


DO 

OS 

'd 
3 


3 

2 
5= 


! 

c 

w 

d 

'a 

09 

'd 

09 


3 

pq 
d 

-d 


o 
"a 

09 

2 

pq 

a 
o 

00 

c 


d" 

d 

00 

a 
►1 


2 


























~ 


















a 


44 


44 


M 


^* 


44* 






>j 


M 


44 


3 




d 

09 








44 


44' 


44 


3 


44 








































Bj 


f) 




























o 


O 


o 




O 


w 


|H 


>H 


> 


J* 


!* 


- 






>* 


>* 


« 


m 


o 


^ 


00 


Tl 


> 


> 


>H 


09 


>H 


& 


* 


* 


& 


* 


P5 




fe 


% 


>. 


% 


d 


c 
d 


"3 

O 


^ 


d 


a 


% 


& 


fcs 


d 

3 


& 


© 


















09 


5 




-d 


















z 


55 


55 


55 


2; 


2 


pq 


55 


55 


2 


2 


s 


- 


Z 


s 


o 


* 


Z 


55 


O 


55 






C5 


o 
















^ 






_ 




o 


00 


CO 


GO 


CO 


to 














-d 


-d 


^ 


-d 


x: 


^3 


c-1 






ri 






















.a 


| 


s 




g 

09 


I 
1 


g 

09 

s 


o 
u 
09 


g 


1 


a 


a 
< 


a 


9 


o? 




* 


eS 



196 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 





a 

<2 




a 


a 
<2 


a 


S 
b 


a 
■S 


a 
^0 


a 




a 

«2 


a 
1 


a 

>- 


a 
1 


O 


6 


i i 

«2 .2 




u 


u 


b 


b 


b 








fcl 


h 


h 






b 






a 1 




£ 


09 

a 


o 


© 


o 

a 


a 






a 





S 

a 


© 

a 




a 




a 


a 


s 

a 


3 

a 


.li 


8 


£ 


8 


£ 


£ 


£ 


c 


£ 





£ 


£ 


£ 


p 


£ 








a a 


a 

o 


Q 


a 


& 


Q, 


a 


P. 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


.2 


a 


.2 


_3 


cj 


Jjj 


4 3 


_3 


_s 


a 


.a 


g 


d 


d 


.3 


.a 


.3 d 


M 


T3 


TJ 


T) 


t; 


T) 


"0 


-3 


^3 


-a 


"3 


T3 


-3 


T5 


"3 


■3 


T3 


TJ T3 




a 


d 


3 


d 


d 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


d 


3 


3 


3 


3 


d 


a g 




o3 


03 


03 


03 


03 


09 


09 


03 


« 


09 






















































3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


d 


_3 


3 


3 3 








































I 


| 


is 


is 


is 


& 


is 


is 


"S 


"S 


& 


i 


It 


^ 


t 


"? 


1 *& 




$ 


J 


J 


03 


o3 


J 


J 


3 


5 


c3 


c3 


08 


^ 


£ 


rt 

uJ 


3 


J ,3 


3 
"8.S 




































2 3 

3 © 

© 55 








rO 






b 








>i 










rj 


!? 


M 


44 


44 


3 

o 


44 


M 


© 


M 


J« 


44 


© 

© 


44 


jT 


44 


44 


3 
C 


44 1 








a 


3 




© 


















—3 


ft 


o 


C 


«2 


c 


o 


O 





"0 


^5 


3 


O 


3 


*o 


Q 


O w 


to 

3 
CO 


SO 

3 
X 


to 

3 
CO. 


>> 
s 


o 


i3 
3 
X 


■- 
o 


80 

3 
X 


3 
X 


>3 
3 
X 


3 


to 

3 

X 


S3 
3 
X 


so 

3 

X 


X 




















3" 




































§ 


















*j 


"3 
















M 






oj 












O 

a 








<D 










© 

a 






1 








>^ 




& . ' 






"£ 










© 






d 









3 
© 
© 




a 
3 
02 


3 £ 


t5 




*o 






. 




a 


1 






3 
09 

M 

3 

'> 








_H 


3" 


._c 


bp § 


1 

o 




1 

bf 






BO 

is 

u 

o 






tr. 




i 


2 

ia 
© 




a 
a 
© 


1 


a 
© 




> 




343 

"B'S " 


J 

u 




— 






.2" 

"3 






3 
© 


§ 


2 . 


42 




,3 


a 


a i 




o3 
3 




3 




O 




T3 
3 
a9 


«5I 


"rt 

a 




s 

M 

s 


3 
g 


£ 
bo 


4^?3 
73 03 ' 
3« . 




^ 


'3 
O 


£ 


'a 
a 


d 

C 


>> 


a 


^ 


CC 

5 


.2 


■3 a 

b£ 


"3 


>1 


a 


>> 


3 


42 * >. 
1 -u b' 




ft 


-a 

d 

c3 

-2 

<! 


3 
© 
b 

3 


03 

a 


M 

> 


a 
© 

Q 
1-1 


5 
© 


3 
© 


^2 

03 

3 

m 


•s a J 

& <3 


3 



b 


09 


h1 


© !S g 3 
£ £ £ 


© 

> 


















© 


















'5c 

3 


















3 


















s 












» 






'o 


















© 

a 

55 


o 


BO 

ft 


d 

3 

w 

7? 

o3 
is 
73 


1 

DQ 
ft 

~ 

© 


-3* 

a 

a 

ta 

X 

b 
© 
"3 
3 
03 


M 

1 

w 
a 


>1 

— 

pq 

in 

a 


g 

-3 
O 
» 

.2 
g 




O 

03 
l-B 

T3 
3 
03 

a 

© 

5 


la 

3 


.2 
> 

© 

44 

O 
« 

3 
O 
_© 
'0 


6 

a 

© 

'a 

1 



3 

03 

^2 


a 

"5 

43 

1 
X 

>. 

u 

o9 


PES 

i 


b 
S9 

a^ 

d 

d 

8 


§ a 
I | 

3 | 

i i 




w 


ft 


H 


s 


< 


1 


03 

•-s 


w 


^ 


^ 


w 


2 


O 


W 


4 


►j 


< 


© 
> 




































j- 3 03 




































agi£ 




































or Cou 
ose Ex 
isition 
made. 


3 


















"B, 












g 

43 

a 


s 

'3 


03 « 

3 




44 




M 


44*" 


^ 






03 




44 


44 


44 


44 


a 


03 




A 
















> 




hi 


t.. 


b 


b 


> a 


© 


03 


1 


3 




5* 


c 





sj 


.S 


% 


a 



^ 


O 


iS 





03 




C 

a 


3 
a 


* 


1 


& 


* 


& 


■3 


n 


d 


g 


& 


P* 


1 


& 


| 


d ^ 
3 © 


o 




© 




© 


o 





3 


3 




© 


© 


© 


© 


^ 


© 


© f!3 




O 


s 


£ 


s 


55 


£ 


55 


« 


<! 


£ 


> 


55 


55 


55 


55 


55 


(2 a 


J 


t^ 


ep 


eo 


— 


o 


CI 


ro 


CO 


M 


»o 








CO 


^, 


^ H 


t» 


<M «© 






C) 


c-j 


CO 








C-l 


N 


















.S'S © 

"3 


03 


>> 


>> 


oa 


© 

3 
3 


© 

3 
3 


© 

3 
3 


© 

a 

3 


© 

3 
3 

t-s 


>. 


"3 

»-5 


3 

•-B 


M 

3 
< 


b£ 

3 
< 


3 

< 


3 
< 


1 i 

X X 



1912. 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



197 



s 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


G 


a 

































,o 


a 


c 


o 








,c 





o 


o 


o 


c 


<2 




^ 






t, 


u 


u 




kl 


tl 


^, 


,_ 


^ 




S 














o 








a 






a 


0, 


A 


a 


ft 


5, 


a 


a 


a 


:-. 


a 


a 


a 


o 


2 


s 


o 


a 


o 


p 


hi 


g 


o 


p 


c 


p 


S 


a 


a 


a 


a 


o< 


a 


a 


a 


ft 


a 


a 


a 


a 


o, 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


c 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


Tj 


T3 


-n 


TJ 


13 


T3 


-3 


nfl 


-a 


~ 


— 


~f 


-a 


13 


3 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a) 


03 


03 


« 


03 


cs 


a 


aj 


C3 


C3 


03 


03 


3 


03 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


a 


3 


a 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


a 


kl 


bt 


N 


► 


& 


s 


b! 


\t 


> 


N 


N 


£ 


f; 


£ 




3 


J 


,3 


^ 


ci 

h3 


J 




A 




^ 


J 


J 


J 






d 




-3~ 


y. 
















£ 


44 


44 


•a 


44* 


a 


1 


_- 


- 


J* 


M 


M 


,44 


^i" 


^a 

03 































o 


s 

CO 




a 
>> 


— 












O 


r> 


n 


a 

03 

w 


1 

DQ 


Eg 

3 

DQ 


1 




pq 


pq 


to 

3 
02 


so 

3 
QQ 


3 
DQ 


to 

3 
CO 


Stt 

a 

X 






a 




























a 




























o 




o 
























,_, 




a 





























a 





























a 




















































a 




n o. 




a 








a" 












— 


03 

© 




©a 

O t- 




© 


M 

a 

ID ' 






ID 


Si 


















a 








,a 












P 




U, e 






© 














>", 


£ 


bO 

a 

"8 
o 


>. 


.2 p 


>: 


a 

2 

>> 


-a 

a 

o3 
M 


£ 


£ 


S 

£ 

>> 


B 

>> 
o 


>" 


^ 


a 


a 


is a a 


frl a 


a 


a 




a 





3 


a 


a 


a 


O 




d£» 










0) 










1 


3^3 




<8 






J 


>3 




o 

O 


J 


















B 














B 






0* 








8 














a 

>> 


o 

,d 


,$? 


a 

s] 


a 
1 


3 


> 


© 

a 
>> 


8 






a 
e 

D 

w 

'a" 

99 

pq 






a 

© 

IS 


w 

13 

3 
PQ 


d 

^3 

a 
•-a 




8 
a 






<i 

-d 

w 


p. 

i 


-3 
X 

o 
£ 




£ 
o 

-a 
H 


si 
O 

a 
| 


O 
% 


a 
J 

= 


a" 
J 
O 

M 

3 

1 


I 

a 

JD 

<1 










g* 




























ja 










03 


















ft 
























44 


a 


S 


44 


44 


44 


jij 


03 


M 


44 


44 


44 








































C3 





o 



















O 


>H 


{H 


> 


>H 


W 


&H 


f* 


>* 


^ 


>> 


> 


h 


^ 


^ 


& 


& 


* 


t* 


& 


fe 


> 


& 


& 


a 


& 


fe 


^ 


is 






























5? 


£ 


£ 


fc 


& 


* 


£ 


fe 


a 


pi 


fc 


» 


^ 


!5 




,_, 


■* 


,_ 


CO 


OS 


3 


p 


<# 


tH 


co 


30 


so 


OS 




*"* 










1-1 


"^ 




1-1 


rt 


'""' 


""" 


1-1 


^ 


43 




> 




> 
o 


> 
o 


> 

O 





> 




S 


ci 


S 


s 


8 





o 





g 


fc 


5 


fc 


z 


2 


tt 


« 


P 


Q 


P 



198 



ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. 



[Jan. 



£h 


-^ 


<V 


U 


6 


o 


o 


0) 




fH 


=4-1 




o 


^3 




Pi 
a3 






"M 


c 




o 




-t-^ 




C3 


<D 


r 


M 




■p 


^ 


B 


X 


o 


cu 


Ph 




c£h 


FH 


EQ 


.8 


> 


7 



&0 05 



•go 



O >> 

0) 

O +3 
S bO 
> .S 

a 



3 
T3 



2 +J 

S Si 
S 3 

Ij 



t 



0<£ 

1-8 

3 > I 

&3 



S-J3, 



~ e 






s 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a" 


a 


a 


a 


B 


a 


a 








tH 




















o 


o 


o 





o 


o 








o 









































M 




*-. 


tH 




u 


!h 
















a 


a 


a 


o 

a 


o 
a 


a 


0> 

a 


o 

a 


a 


o 

a 


s 

a 


o 

a 


a 


0) 

a 


s 


2 


o 


2 


o 


s 


c 


o 


s 


2 


e 


2 


2 


c 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


d 


fl 


g 


c 


a 


fl 


fl 


fl 


c 


c 


c 


G 


G 


G 


T3 


T5 


T3 


T3 


TJ 


TS 


— 


Tt 


— 


—. 


-a 


~ 


-r 


-1 


c 


fl 


G 


G 


rt 


c 


G 





g 


~ 


G 


C 


G 


G 


c3 


OJ 


C5 


<S 


rt 


03 


ni 


a 


ai 


<a 


a! 


n 


rt 




3 


3 


3 


3 


fl 


3 


3 


3 


fl 


- 


3 


3 


3 


3 






























£ 


* 


IS 


^ 


£ 


£ 


is 


V 


ii 


£ 


15 


& 


£ 


k 


(-5 


h! 


Hi 


sf 

h-3 


h! 


si 


cd 
J 


h3 


-2 


J 


J 


i 


^ 


3 



J & 6 3 43 



s - « 



S 3 



■c s a 



fa pq fe £ pl, 






* 1 

as .a 



>" 


G 

C 


bO 












Bl 












bC 


p 


3 


r! 1 


?'' 


O 




G 


a 


fa 


-1 


cc 


PJ 


pq 



g Q 
o >> 



M OO 00 



fa fa 



§ S 



C3 Q, 



•E >> >» 



1912.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 



199 



-a n 
a a 



o o o o o 



S £ £ 



a a 
2 S 
a a 



Tl 


Tt 


T) 


T) 


— 


Tl 


TJ 


TJ 


T3 


T) 


T) 


Tl 


TJ 


a 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 




d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


a 


«j 


03 


C3 


03 


03 


03 


03 


03 




03 


03 


03 


3 


3 


3 


3 


~ 


- 


~ 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


"3 




























£ 


k 


£ 


* 


E 


is 


E 


£ 


k 


b 


£ 


(S 


is 


J 


5 


o3 


5 


ei 


03 


03 


J 


o3 


tJ 


3 


J 


3 



2 a 



6 6 



PQ O pq o 



d £ .S 3 



W W 



o 
-g o 



d X! 
d O 



03 £ 

h5 



£ £ O dg 



1 "S I 



o 

£ 



■a s 





^ 


O 


o 

c 


B 




— 


33 


ro 


!" 


W 


m 


>H 


w 


& 


d 
d 


d 
d 


o 


>. 


C 


is 


is 


d 


& 


& 




















.* 








U 


X. 


O 


O 


O 


O 


§ 


B 


fc 


fc 


a 


fc 


'A 


■M 


M 


BO 








rvT 




Ol 






o> 


TH 


1-1 






CO 


CO 




* H 




CI 






rt 




d 

-5 


<1 




bfi 

d 
<! 


si 

d 




a 

0) 

EH 


a 
a 
QQ 


a 

m 


c : 


O 


o 




4) 

Q 



200 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. 



1912.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 12. 201 

(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- 
factory 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 by 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. 



202 ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REPORT. [Jan. 1912. 

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.