having more than 100,000 in population, and to administer the above required oath to such assessors. It is the duty of the Auditor to make and preserve in his office a record of such presentation and authentication of his assessment rolls by the assessor of each county of the State, and the Auditor's certificate of such oath, or the record thereof in the Auditor's office, shall be conclusive evidence of the fact, time and place of the making of such oath. The foregoing seems to me to be the proper construction of the statute, avoids any conflict and harmonizes the two sections to which you refer; and that the same was the intention of the Legislature, I think is sustained by section 89 of said act, which provides that after the meeting of the assessors, as aforesaid, and after the abstract of assessment has been produced to the Auditor, and the affidavit of said assessment roll has been subscribed and sworn to by the assessor, and not until then, such assessor shall be entitled to fifty dollars and railway fare actually paid out, to cover the additional expense of the assessor and as further compensation for his services. It is also provided by section 85 of said act that if it shall appear that any assessor wilfully and knowingly omitted from his assessment roll any of the taxable property in his county, or wilfully or knowingly assessed the property in his county, or any part thereof, below its true value, as set forth in the statement subscribed by the assessor as provided in section 84, he shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and, upon conviction, shall be pun ished accordingly. As stated above, I am of the opinion that the assessors should present to you both the abstract of assessment and the assessment roll, and that the affidavit or statement required to be made by him applies to the assessment roll. The foregoing requirements may seem inconvenient and in some instances impracticable. However, our law-makers have so provided, and I know of no remedy except further legislation. Yours truly, N. C. MILLER, Attorney General. By W. R. RAMSEY, Assistant Attorney General. CAPITOL. Control of the capitol grounds considered in connection with the appropriation to erect a monument to the memory of Colorado soldiers who fell in the Civil war. February 3, 1906. Hon. Jesse F. McDonald, Governor of Colorado, State Capitol. Dear Sir-I have your communication of February 2d, transmitting a copy of an act entitled "An Act to Provide for a Monument to Be Erected to the Memory of the Colorado Soldiers Who Fell in the Civil War, to Be Erected on the Site of the Capitol Grounds at Denver, and Making an Appropriation Therefor." An opinion is asked as to whether the board created under that act has power to select any site on the Capitol grounds which it may deem best suited for the purpose of erecting such monument. The particular act authorizing the erection of a suitable monument to the memory of the Colorado soldiers who fell in the Civil war is found on page 78 of the Session Laws of 1905. Section 3 is pertinent to the question submitted. It reads as follows: "It shall be the duty of the board, as soon as may be practical and possible after this act shall take effect, to carefully investigate and select the most desirable location, upon the State Capitol grounds at Denver, for the site of the said monument." It is also necessary to refer to section 329a, found on page 151, volume 3, M. A. S. (R. S.). I quote from this act the following: "That there is hereby created a Board of Capitol Managers for the purpose of supervising and directing the construction, completion and furnishing of the State Capitol building for the State of Colorado, and laying out, improving and ornamenting the grounds thereof at the city of Denver. The care and control of the Capitol building and grounds shall be with the Board of Capitol Managers." * * * The supreme control over the Capitol and the grounds on which it is situated is in the Legislature. The latter body saw fit to create a Board of Capitol Managers for the purpose stated. The plan was to make this a permanent board, so that the general arrangement and symmetry of the grounds would not be destroyed by conflicting supervision and control. However, the power granted to the State Board of Capitol Managers did not prevent the Legislature, at a subsequent ses sion, by an appropriate act, from creating another board for a special purpose, nor did it prevent the Legislature from undoing what it set out to accomplish by the act of 1897-the one which created the State Board of Capitol Managers. But it is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended to do an unwise act, and therefore I presume the two acts can be construed without much apparent conflict. In my opinion, the act of 1905, for the purpose of erecting a suitable monument to the memory of Colorado soldiers who fell in the Civil war, vested the board having that matter in control with power to investigate and select the most desirable location upon the State Capitol grounds, which was not already selected and dedicated to some different and other purpose. The power of selection granted to the latter body was not intended to interfere with the selections already made. I have been informed that the site selected by the soldiers of the Philippine war is desired by some of the members of the board who have charge of the erection of a suitable monument to the memory of the soldiers who fell in the Civil war. I presume the selection made by the soldiers of the Philippine war was legally made. Accepting this latter statement as true, then I do not believe that the board which has the erection of this monument in control can choose that particular site. To hold that the board would have a right to demand that particular site because of the power conveyed under the act of 1905 would be to argue that some future Legislature might create a board for the erection of a monument to the pioneers, or to some other reputable organization, and that that body would have a right to eject the monument erected to the memory of these soldiers and put theirs up in its stead. I think that there can be no doubt about the soundness of the conclusion that the power to select is limited to the grounds not already dedicated or devoted to some particular purpose. Respectfully submitted, N. C. MILLER, Certificates of indebtedness issued to Sherman M. Bell. HON. A. E. BENT, November 15, 1905. Auditor of State, State Capitol, Denver. Dear Sir I return herewith the Sherman M. Bell Certificates of Indebtedness after investigating the matter. As I understand it, the holders of these Certificates of Indebtedness desire to turn them in to your office and have them cancelled and secure individual certificates of indebtedness to the parties in interest. These certificates were issued to Sherman Bell to enable him to cash them and he take the money and pay off the various persons represented in the certificates. This, of course, he is now unable to do and the individuals desire a certificate for their claim. I believe they ought to have the same, but I have come to the conclusion that it is not within your power to cancel the outstanding certificates and issue new ones without having a voucher for each certificate. This voucher you can only obtain by action of the Military Board, and upon the direction of this board you can cancel the same and if they would voucher up the individual claims, you could issue certificates of indebtedness upon the separate items. I see no difficulty in this; if Adjutant General Bulkeley Wells will agree to voucher the claims, the Governor and myself will sign the certificates of indebtedness. Unless the voucher bears the approval of the Adjutant General we could not do so. You understand that all the vouchers in your office are so audited, and this is the only protection which the Governor and myself have in signing the voucher. Yours truly, N. C. MILLER, Attorney General. CONVICTS-EXPENSE OF SUBSISTENCE. The expense of subsistence for convicts working upon public highways must be borne by the State, and not by the counties working such convicts. MR. H. L. WHITE, November 22, 1905. Secretary Board Penitentiary Commissioners, Canon City, Colorado. Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your communication dated November 20, 1905, informing me that the Board of Commissioners of the Colorado State Penitentiary desires an opinion. from this office on the following questions, namely: "First. As to whether the subsistence of prisoners detailed to work upon public highways under the act of the General Assembly of the State of Colorado, entitled, 'An act providing for the working of convicts in the Colorado State Penitentiary upon the public roads and highways within any county,' etc., approved April 11, 1905, should be borne by the county making the request for such prisoners, or by the State." "Second. Would a contract to subsist prisoners made with a county bind such county with reference to the power under said act on the part of the penitentiary commissioners to make such contract, or have they such power." In answer to the first question, I beg to say that the act referred to expressly provides the conditions upon which such convicts may be worked in any county making such request. Said provision is as follows: "That such county shall pay all additional expenses of guarding said convicts while working upon said public roads and highways within such county and shall furnish all tools and materials necessary in the performance of said work." No other requirement or expense on the part of such county is mentioned; and I think if the Legislature had intended to require such counties to furnish subsistence to the convicts who worked therein, the statute would have so provided, and in the absence of any such provision, I am of the opinion that such expense of subsistence must be borne by the State. The State is required by law to furnish food and clothing to all convicts, whether they work within or outside of the Penitentiary, and said act, as I understand and construe it, only intended to impose upon the counties the .additional or extra expense of guards, tools and materials necessary to carry on the work. As to the second question, I would say that the State has provided by law that all provisions and supplies for the convicts shall be furnished by the Board of Penitentiary Commissioners by contract with the lowest bidder and the necessary appropriations are made for the payment of the same, and I am of the opinion that the said Board has no power to make, or bind a county by contract, to furnish subsistence for convicts working in such county under the provisions of said act approved April 11, 1905. Yours respectfully, N. C. MILLER, By W. R. RAMSEY, |