Employment Agents.

insurance can be taken out of any property acquired by the Commonwealth subsequent to that date. The general rule would therefore be that where no insurance was carried on State-owned property at the time of the approval of this Act, none could thereafter be placed thereon, and none can be placed on property acquired by the State after that time. In accordance with the foregoing, you are therefore advised as follows:

First-As to any property owned by the State at the Valley Forge Park at the date of the approval of the above Act, namely: May 14, 1915, on which insurance was then carried, insurance may now be taken out on said property not to extend beyond December 31, 1920, and in an amount as will conform to the requirement of the Act. Since three full calendar years have elapsed since the thirty-first day of December, 1915, it will be seen that the amount of insurance that now could be taken out in such case must be 60% less than the amount carried at the time of the passage of the Act. If taken out, the cost thereof must be borne by the Valley Forge Park Commission out of any funds it may have available for such purpose. This cost cannot be paid by the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings out of the funds appropriated to it by the General Appropriation Act of 1917, since the appropriation to it for inusrance purposes was limited to insurance upon State property "which may be properly under the control and supervision" of said Board. (Appropriation Acts 1917, p. 57.)

Second-Neither the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings nor the Valley Forge Park Commission can lawfully place any outside insurance on any buildings or property which the State owns in connection with the Valley Forge Park where no insurance was carried thereon at the time of the passage of the above cited Act, or upon any buildings or other property there acquired by the State since that time, protection against loss by fire or other casualty being afforded pursuant to the provisions of said Act.

Employment Agents.

Employment Agents-Act of June 7, 1915.

The publication of a weekly pamphlet devoted exclusively to advertisements of employers seeking employes and sale and rent advertisements, does not constitute engaging in the business of an employment agent, within the meaning of the Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 888. Attorney General's Department. Opinion to Walter McNichols, Acting Commissioner of Labor and Industry.

Employment Agents.

Collins, Deputy Attorney General, March 11, 1919.

There was duly received your communication of the 5th inst., to the Attorney General, requesting an opinion relative to the following stated case:

There is being issued in this Commonwealth, weekly, a certain publication in pamphlet form under the name or title of "Jobs." According to the statement of the Director of the Bureau of Employment and from an examination of the copy of this publication accompanying your communication, it appears to be exclusively an advertising one, containing, at stipulated rates, advertisements of various prospective employers. advertising for employes and also for sale and rent advertisements.

The question submitted by you is whether the issuing of this publication constitutes engaging in the business of an employment agent within the meaning of the Act of June 7, 1915, P. L. 888.

Section 2 of this Act defines the term "employment Agent,' as therein used, to "mean every person, co-partnership, association or corporation engaged in the business of assisting employers to secure employes, and persons to secure employment, or of collecting and furnishing information regarding employers seeking employes, and persons seeking employment.'

The true import of this definition is to be read in the light of, and sought in, the Act taken as a whole. In my opinion, it would be giving the above quoted provision an unwarranted construction to hold that the mere issuing of a publication containing advertisements of an employer seeking employes, and popularly called "want advertisements" would in itself be deemed the business of an employment agent. It is a matter of common knowledge and every-day observation that newspapers carry such advertisements extensively, and which. are for the precise purpose, to use the words of the Act, "of furnishing information regarding employers seeking employes." This is an important part of the business of a newspaper. Certainly it could not be contended that this requires a license as an employment agent. I see no distinction in principle between the case of a newspaper carrying advertisements of that class and that of a publication which is exclusively an advertising medium carrying such. The fact that in one instance it is only a part of the business and in the other the whole thereof would not be material in the legal aspect.

Every advertisement wherever published or however issued having for its object the bringing together of employers and employes is furnishing information to those seeking employers

Trust Companies.

or employes, and might literally be held to fulfill what the Act defines as an "employment agent," but it is obvious that this is not what is meant by the term "collecting and furnishing information" as the same is used therein. While the Legislature may fix its own definition in a statute, yet it is a settled rule that "general words and phrases, however wide or comprehensive in their literal sense" must be construed as strictly limited to the objects of the Act. Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes, 113. The intent is to be followed, although contrary to the letter.

You are therefore advised that the above stated case does not in itself constitute engaging in the business of an employment agent under the above cited Act of 1915.

Trust Companies.

Trust companies-Sale of undivided interests in mortgage securities. There is nothing in the law regulating trust companies that makes it illegal for a trust company to sell undivided interests in mortgage securities and issue certificates therefor guaranteeing payment of principal and interest on the portion of the security assigned.

Attorney General's Department. Opinion to John S. Fisher, Commissioner of Banking.

Myers, Deputy Attorney General, March 11, 1919.

Your letter of the 27th ultimo, submitting a plan which has been outlined by a certain Trust Company, of Philadelphia, for the sale to its customers of an undivided interest in loans secured by bond and mortgage, and requesting an opinion as to the legality of this line of business when carried on by a trust company, is received.

This Trust Company is incorporated under Section 29 of the General Incorporation Act, approved the twenty-ninth day of April, A. D. 1874, P. L. 73, as supplemented by the Act approved the twenty-fourth day of May, A. D. 1881, P. L. 22. The plan, as set forth in the letter of the Treasurer of said Trust Company to you, is as follows:

The Trust Company is to buy first mortgages on real estate, not over sixty per cent. of the market value, and issue to its customers certificates setting forth that said Trust Company has assigned or sold a part of the bond accompanying said mortgage to said customer. This certificate would guarantee the payment of principal and interest on that portion of the bond and mortgage assigned to the customer, less a certain. percentage of said interest retained by the Trust Company to pay it for its services in guaranteeing and collecting the inter

Meadville Distilling Company's License.

est and paying the same over to the assignee or holder of the certificate.

I see nothing in the plan, as set forth, contrary to the laws relating to trust companies. In fact, trust funds are often invested by trust companies in large mortgages and certificates issued to fiduciaries, or usually to the trust company, itself, as fiduciary, for a certain portion of said mortgage, setting forth the amount of the mortgage assigned to the particular trust. In this way the funds of a trust which are in a small amount can be invested in a first class mortgage, and, in my opinion, the sale to its customers by a trust company of an undivided interest in loans secured by bond and mortgage, and certificate issued evidencing such sale in the form submitted by said Trust Company, is not in violation of any law of the Commonwealth.

Meadville Distilling Company's License.

Distilling companies-License.

A distilling company which did not distill during the year 1918, and desires a state license to sell its product on hand from previous years, should pay a license fee of one hundred dollars, under the Act of July 30, 1897, P. L. 464.

Attorney General's Department. Opinion to Charles A. Snyder, Auditor General.

Hargest, Deputy Attorney General, February 24, 1919.

Your favor of the 17th inst., adressed to the Attorney General, is at hand.

You ask to be advised as to what amount the Meadville Pa. Disstilling Company should pay for a license for the year beginning March 1, 1919.

The facts I understand to be as follows:

The Meadville Pa. Distilling Company has been operating a distillery for a number of years, at Meadville, Pa. For the last three years no license has been granted by the Court of Crawford County, but the distillery has been paying its State license and selling to dealers in quantities of not less than forty gallons. The company paid $1,500 for the license year ending March 1, 1918, and $1,000 for the license year ending March 1, 1919, pursuant to the Act of July 30, 1897, P. L. 464.

Owing to the order of the President of the United States of September 8, 1917, no distilling was done by this company during the year 1918. The company now desires a license to dispose of the surplus stock which it has on hand.

Meadville Distilling Company's License.

Under existing laws the sale of whiskey must be stopped on July 1, 1919, and thereafter no whiskey can be sold until peace is officially declared. In any event, because of the adoption of the Prohibition Amendment, the manufacture and sale of whiskey cannot be carried on after January 16, 1920.

The Act of July 30, 1897, P. L. 464, provides for a graded license fee to be paid, based upon the annual production "in the preceding year."

It provides, among other things,

"Each distiller, the annual production of whose distillery in the preceding year was less than fifty barrels, shall pay annually a license fee of one hundred dollars."

From this amount the license fee is graded, for distilleries, up to $2,000.

The Act also provides that:

"All distilleries and breweries established and located in any part of the Commonwealth, shall pay a license fee of $1,000 for the first year."

The theory upon which the Act of 1897 is drawn, is that the annual production should determine the amount of the license fee. A new distilling company is required to pay $1,000 in lieu of a fee based upon production, but thereafter the annual production determines the amount of the fee. This distilling company paid $1,000 for a license which expires March 1, 1919. It did not distill during the year 1918. It now desires a license to sell the product which it distilled in 1917.

The license of $1,000 which it paid for the year ending March 1, 1919, covers the production of the whiskey which it now desires to sell. It is not a new distillery, and therefore is not subject to the license fee of $1,000 for such distilleries. It has yearly paid the license based upon the preceding year in which it was distilling.

The situation is one which was not contemplated when the Act of 1897 was drawn. That Act contemplates a license based upon the annual production "in the preceding year." There was no such annual production in this case. The distillery is not a new distillery and yet it has paid a license based upon all of the whiskey which it has heretofore produced. Being an old distillery, and its product being less than fifty barrels, in the preceding year, I am of opinion that it comes within the provisions of the Act of 1897 which provides that each distiller whose annual production was less than fifty barrels in the preceding year shall pay an annual license fee of $100.