Experiment Station under the provisions of chapter 143 of the Acts of 1894.

Statutes 1863, chapter 220, is entitled "An act to incorporate the trustees of the Massachusetts Agricultural College." By the provisions of section 1 the name of the body corporate thereby established is "Trustees of the Massachusetts Agricultural College." The corporation received certain moneys by the sale of land scrip, by virtue of the provisions of the 130th chapter of the Acts of the 37th Congress of the second session thereof, approved July 2, 1862. The land was bought and the college was located at Amherst, the town of Amherst giving thereto the sum of $75,000.

Statutes 1882, chapter 212, established an agricultural experiment station to be maintained at the Massachusetts Agricultural College in the town of Amherst, and the management of said station was vested in a board of control.

The following acts and resolves relate to said Agricultural Experiment Station: chapter 105 of the Acts of 1883; Resolves of 1884, chapter 48; Resolves of 1885, chapter 66; Resolves of 1885, chapter 68; chapter 327 of the Acts of 1885; Resolves of 1886, chapter 17; Resolves of 1887, chapter 44; Resolves of 1888, chapter 15; chapter 296 of the Acts of 1888; chapter 333 of the Acts of 1888; Resolves of 1889, chapter 12.

By chapter 31 of the Acts of 1887 the members of the Board of Control of the Agricultural Experiment Station, established by the Massachusetts Agricultural College in the town of Amherst, their associates and successors, were made a body corporate under the name of the "Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station;" and by section 5 of said act the said corporation, by virtue of the act, was authorized to take and hold as and for its property all the property in the charge of said board of control; and was thereby further authorized to hold such real estate and personal property as may be necessary for its purpose. The act was approved Feb. 21, 1887, and took effect upon its passage.

By chapter 212 of the Acts of 1887, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts assented to and accepted a grant of moneys to be annually made by the United States as set forth and defined in an act of Congress entitled "An act to establish agricultural experiment stations in connection with the colleges established in the several States," under the provisions of an act approved July 2, 1862, and of the acts supplementary thereto, said act designated "Public No. 112" being passed at a second session of the 49th Congress, and approved March 2, 1887, and upon the terms and conditions contained and set forth in said act of Congress.

The result is that there are in operation two experiment stations, one known as the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, carried on as the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, under the management of the body corporate known as the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, and a station known as the Hatch Experiment Station, carried on by the corporation known as the trustees of the Massachusetts Agricultural College. In order to consolidate these stations, the act of 1894, chapter 143, was passed.

As will be seen, section 5 of chapter 31 of the Acts of 1887 vested in the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, the body corporate constituted by said act, all the property in charge of said board of control. On the sixth day of July, A.D. 1887, the Massachusetts Agricultural College leased to the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, a corporation duly organized by law, certain real estate in Amherst for the term of ninety-nine years, which is part of the property enumerated in chapter 143 of the Acts of 1894. In the legislation in reference to the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, subsequent to chapter 31 of the Acts of 1887, to wit, chapter 333 of the Acts of 1888, and chapters 143 and 144 of the Acts of 1894, the fact that by chapter 31 of the Acts of 1887 the Board of Control was made a corporation appears to have been overlooked.

In my opinion, chapter 143 of the Acts of 1894 is insufficient to authorize the transfer of the property that is vested in the corporation by the provisions of chapter 31 of the Acts of 1887. It seems to me that the matter can be remedied only by legislation.

Very respectfully yours,

HOSEA M. KNOWLTON, Attorney-General.

The duties of the deputy superintendents of the public buildings department of the city of Boston, as defined in the evidence submitted by the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, are such as to bring the office of deputy superintendent within the classification of the public service provided by Class 7 of Schedule B, Rule 6 of the civil service rules.

CHARLES THEODORE RUSSELL, Jr., Esq.,

Chairman Civil Service Commission.

DEC. 4, 1894.

SIRI beg to acknowledge your request for my opinion as to whether the duties of the deputy superintendents of the public buildings department of the city of Boston are such as to bring the office of deputy superintendent within the classification of the public service provided by Class 7 of Schedule B, Rule 6 of the civil service rules.

The offices and places which are filled under the Civil Service Rules are classified in two divisions. The first division is subdivided into Schedule A and Schedule B, and each schedule is in turn subdivided into several classes. Class 7 of Schedule B includes inspectors of work and all persons under whatever designation doing inspection service not included in Schedule A. Rule 21, section 4, of the civil service rules, provides for the examination of applicants for the position of inspector, by giving the commissioners authority to order examinations upon subjects of a technical or special character, to test the capacity which may be needed in any part of the classified service which requires peculiar information or skill.

On the other hand, chapter 95 of the Acts of 1893 provides that heads of any principal departments of a city shall not be affected by the civil service rules, either as to their selection or their appoint

ment.

The deputy superintendents of the public buildings department are at the present time appointed by the superintendent of the department. Under authority of section 1 of chapter 33 of the city ordinances, the superintendent has divided the city of Boston into six territorial districts, and for each district he has appointed under him a deputy superintendent, giving to each deputy a designated district. The question then is, first, whether these deputy superintendents are heads of any principal department of the city of Boston, and therefore specially exempt under authority of the above act from the operation of the civil service rules; second, if not so exempt, whether they are inspectors of work or persons under any designation doing inspection service, and therefore coming within the classification of the civil service rules.

An examination of the exhibits presented with your request shows:

1. The work of inspection of buildings must be performed personally by each deputy.

A deputy has not the right to repair a building upon his own personal responsibility; but whenever, in his opinion, any building stands in need of repair, he is obliged to make a written report and recommendation of that fact to the superintendent, setting forth fully the nature of the repairs needed.

3. The execution of these repairs, and the employment of mechanics and other assistants in furtherance thereof, can only be had upon the approval of the superintendent.

4. There are no city employees under the control of any deputy. 5. The deputies have no offices of their own, each one merely having a desk in the office of the superintendent of the public buildings department.

6. The superintendent can change the number of deputies at will, and there is nothing to prevent him from sending one deputy into the district of another.

7. Each deputy is obliged to make an annual report to the superintendent.

8. The entire work is done under the general supervision of the superintendent.

The duties of the superintendent of this department are shown in section 1 of chapter 33 of the revised ordinances of the city of Boston. He has the supervision of all buildings belonging to the city and of all buildings or parts of buildings hired by the city, and he must provide therein all necessary furniture and keep the same in good condition; and he has the supervision of all repairs upon all buildings and parts of buildings used by the city.

It seems perfectly clear from the character of the deputy superintendents' duties, as shown by this analysis of the evidence submitted, that the said deputies cannot in any way be considered as the heads of any principal department of the city of Boston; and they do not, therefore, come within the exemption of chapter 95 of the laws of 1893. The evidence shows with the same clearness that in reality these so-called deputies are merely inspectors performing their work under the supervision of the superintendent, responsible to the superintendent, at the head of no department, and having no men in their employment; and, therefore, that they fall within the definition of Class 7 of Schedule B, Rule 6 of the civil service rules.

Very respectfully yours,

HOSEA M. KNOWLTON, Attorney-General.

OPINIONS UPON APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE INFORMATIONS IN THE NAME OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL ex rel. CHARLES C. SANDERSON et al. vs. GEORGE W. WELLS et al.

JUNE 25, 1894.

This was an application by Charles C. Sanderson et al. to the Attorney-General for the filing of an information by him at their relation against the respondents.

As is customary in such cases, notice of the application was issued to the respondents, and the parties were heard before the AttorneyGeneral on the fifth day of June, 1894. At that hearing the following facts appeared and were practically undisputed :

The Southbridge, Sturbridge and Brookfield Railroad Company was

duly organized and chartered as a railroad corporation on the third day of May, 1892, with a capital stock of $130,000. The towns of Southbridge and Sturbridge became associates in the original agreement under the provisions of Public Statutes, chapter 112, section 34, and in said articles of association subscribed for shares of the stock of said railroad company, — the town of Sturbridge for one hundred and thirty shares, and the town of Southbridge for one hundred and eighty-five shares. The said towns have paid into the treasury of the railroad corporation twenty-five per cent. of their several subscriptions.

The construction of the railroad was begun within one year after the vote of the towns authorizing the above action, but less than ten per cent. of the capital stock was actually expended by said railroad within said time in the construction of its road.

The annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for the election of officers was duly held at Southbridge, May 16, 1894. Two tickets were voted for by the stockholders; one containing the names of the relators and the other those of the respondents. A. H. Edgerton, chairman of the selectmen of the town of Sturbridge, having been previously so instructed by vote of the selectmen of that town, cast the vote of the shares of said town for the respondents. Calvin Claflin, chairman of the selectmen of Southbridge, being also so instructed by vote of the selectmen of his town, cast the vote of the shares of the town of Southbridge for the respondents. No objection was made at the time of the casting of said ballot by said chairmen respectively against their authority so to vote. Before the taking of the vote certain stockholders protested in writing against the right of said towns to vote at said meeting, and challenged the counting of said votes by the committee appointed to count the votes, for the reason that said subscriptions were, as they allege, void, for the reason hereinafter stated.

A majority of the committee appointed to count the votes decided to count the votes of the two towns, and so reported. Including the votes of the towns, the respondents were duly elected directors of said company. If the votes of said towns were excluded, the relators would be so elected directors. One of the committee to count the votes submitted a minority report, protesting against the counting of the votes of the towns, for the additional reason that they were cast by one of the selectmen alone.

The report of the majority of the committee was accepted, and the respondents were declared directors of said company, and are now acting as such directors.

The information which it is desired that the Attorney-General shall bring seeks to oust the respondents from their offices as such directors