the results ascertained from the enumeration made by the enumerators "as of date June 1, 1904." Section 1 of Act 119 of Public Acts of 1903 relative to the salaries of judges of probate provides: "The amount of such salary to be paid to the judge of probate of the several counties shall be based upon and determined by the population of their respective counties as shown by each succeeding national or state census." Inasmuch as the population of the several counties is shown by the State census as of date June 1, 1904, it necessarily follows that the salaries are to be computed from that date. Yours very respectfully, CHAS. A. BLAIR, INHERITANCE TAX LAW.-A charitable institution must be within the class known as benevolent, charitable, educational, or scientific, as those terms are used in the general tax law (Section 3832, Compiled Laws of 1897) and incorporated under the laws of this State, to be entitled to exemption from an inheritance tax upon transfers of personal property to it. The entire transfer of a fund, the income from which is to be used for the purpose of caring for a family vault, including the care of decedent's grave, is not exempt from an inheritance tax. October 19, 1904. Hon. Henry Humphrey, State Accountant, Capitol, Lansing: Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your communication of September 26th, in which you submit that you have received from Hon. Riley L. Crane, Judge of Probate of Saginaw County, an inquiry in regard to the taxation of the transfers of certain bequests made under the will of Louise C. Bartlett. The bequests to which you refer are as follows: 1. A bequest of $33,742.60 to "the executors and trustees, in trust, for the purpose of establishing an Old Ladies' Home, at Saginaw, Michigan, not to exceed in value the sum of $10,000, and the remainder to the support and maintenance of said home the amount of $8,500 shares of stock." 2. A bequest of $5,000, in trust, to be invested, and the proceeds and income to be paid annually to the Home Missionary Society connected with the First Presbyterian Chuch of Saginaw. A similar bequest to the Foreign Missionary Society connected with the First Presbyterian Church of Saginaw. 3. Five thousand dollars is bequeathed "to the executors and trustees, in trust, to establish and maintain a kindergarten school at Saginaw, the building to cost $1,500 and remainder invested and proceeds applied to maintenance.” 4. Ten thousand dollars is bequeathed "to the executors and trustees, in trust, the income to be applied in maintaining the family vault, lot and grounds at Brady Hill Cemetery, Saginaw, such income not needed for that purpose to be applied to improving Brady Hill generally." 5. One thousand dollars is bequeathed to the Woman's Hospital of Saginaw. You ask to be informed which, if any, of the above bequests are taxable. Replying thereto would say, Section 1 of our Inheritance Tax Act provides that a tax shall be imposed upon the transfer of any property, real or personal, of the value of $100 or over, or of any interest therein or income therefrom, in trust or otherwise, to persons or corporations not exempt by law from taxation on real or personal property. Section 9 of our General Tax Law (being Sec. 3832, C. L., 1897), under the head of "Personal property exempted," specifies that, "The following personal property shall be exempted from taxation, to wit: First, Thet personal property of benevolent, charitable, educational and scientific institutions incorporated under the laws of this State." If the transfers of the personal property to the above named institutions can be claimed to be exempt from an inheritance tax, such claim must be made under the last mentioned sections. If they fall within any of the several terms of benevolent, charitable, educational or scientific institutions, and are incorporated under the laws of this State, they are entitled to exemption from an inheritance tax upon the transfers of the personal property received. In regard to the taxation of transfers of this nature, the rule, as repeatedly announced by this Department, and recognized as the proper practice in a great majority of the probate courts of this State, is, that institutions must not only come within some one or more of the above suggested terms, but must also be incorporated under the laws of this. State, before they can legally claim exemption. The fact that two of the above bequests are for the purpose of establishing institutions which may, after being in existence, be exempt from the general tax laws, cannot operate to change the general application of the rule or cause them to stand on any different plane than the other institutions. I am of the opinion that such of the above named institutions as come within the terms indicated in the section of the general tax law above referred to, which are incorporated under the laws of this State, are exempt from a tax upon transfers. However, if any or all of them do not fall within this class, the respective transfers of personal property to them are subject to the inheritance tax. In regard to the bequest to be paid toward the maintenance of the family vault, the transfer thereof is in part taxable. It would seem that the manifest intention of the testatrix was to provide a fund, the income of which, should be devoted in part to caring for the last resting place of all of her relatives. The fact that this involved the care of her own grave was merely incident to the general purpose. In consideration of the nature of the bequest, together with the disposition of the remainder, I believe the transfer thereof is in part subject to an inheritance tax. Very respectfully, CHAS. A. BLAIR, INHERITANCE TAX LAW.-The statute providing that if an inheritance tax is not paid within eighteen months from the accrual thereof, it shall bear interest at the rate of eight per centum per annum, if the tax is not paid within the time limited. No State officer has any authority to exempt those liable for the payment of the accrued interest. October 19, 1904. Hon. Philip T. Colgrove, Attorney at Law, Hastings, Michigan: Dear Sir-Relative to the matter of the inheritance tax upon transfers in the estate of Dan W. Reynolds, deceased, with regard to which you wrote me some time since, would say that I have considered the matter, and, from such examination as I have been able to make, it would seem that it is not a question in which discretion may be exercised by myself or any other State officer in order to relieve the beneficiaries in the above estate from the payment of interest upon the inheritance tax. I believe the language of the statute (Act No. 188, Public Acts of 1899) settles this question. The inheritance tax accrues upon the transfer of property, and the transfer takes place at the date of death of decedent. It is provided in section 4 of said above act that, "if such tax is not paid within eighteen months from the accruing thereof, interest shall be charged and collected thereon at the rate of eight per centum per annum from the time tax accrued, unless by reason of claims made upon the estate, necessary litigation or other unavoidable cause of delay, such tax cannot be determined and paid as herein provided, in which case interest at the rate of six per centum per annum shall be charged," etc. I understand that the amount of inheritance tax has been fixed and determined by the judge of probate and that the amount thereof is set forth in an order entered in said court. The tax not having been paid within the time limited, the statute fixes the interest or penalty which the tax shall bear. The interest being regulated by the statute, in the absence of any facts other than as stated in your communication and the enclosures, there appears to be no authority for exempting the parties you represent from the language of the statute. If you desire to be heard with reference to this matter, I shall of course be glad to take the matter up with you, or will have Mr. Lawler call upon you at Hastings. Yours respectfully,' CHAS. A. BLAIR, . AUDITOR GENERAL.-Without power to audit accounts of the gov erning boards of State institutions, for expenses incurred in attending conventions outside the State; even though, as an indirect result, the members attending might be better equipped for the performance of their duties as members of said boards. Jackson, Mich., November 3, 1904. Hon. Perry F. Powers, Auditor General, Capitol, Lansing, Michigan: Dear Sir-In response to your request for my opinion as to the lawfulness of items in the expense accounts of certain members of governing boards of State institutions, I have concluded, in view of the importance of the subject, to render a general opinion covering not only the specific instances brought to my attention, but, so far as practicable, the character of expenses included in statutory provisions that the members of boards of State institutions shall receive their actual and reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. Section 5 of Act No. 206 of the Public Acts of 1881, being "An act to provide for the uniform regulation of certain State institutions," etc., provided that— "The accounts of members of boards of State institutions for official expenses and services or either, where allowed by law shall first be certified to be correct by the board to which the member belongs, and then shall be audited by the Board of State Auditors and paid from the general fund." The section last cited was so amended in 1891 as to do away with the provision for an audit by the Board of State Auditors and to provide for an annual settlement with the Auditor General. Miller's Compiled Laws, Sec. 2227. Section 3 of the act relative to accounting for money received and expended, Miller's Compiled Laws, Sec. 1207, provides that: "Such account current, abstract, vouchers and receipts when received by the Auditor General shall be examined by him and if found correct, shall be so indorsed by him; and all vouchers for expenditures, so far as the amount thereof shall appear to be for lawful purposes, he shall audit," etc. It will be observed that both under the act providing for an audit by the Board of State Auditors and under the act providing for audit by the Auditor General, the expenses to be audited are those only which are allowed by law. And this has been the holding of our Supreme Court: Allen v. Board of State Auditors, 122 Mich. 324; The important question for determination, therefore, in every case must be: Are the expenditures before the Auditor General for audit allowed by law. To properly determine this question, recourse must be had to the legislative enactment specifying the duties to be performed by the particular board or member presenting the account. If the expenditure was made in the performance of some duty expressly required by the statute, little difficulty will be found in so determining and allowing it as a proper disbursement. If, however, this be not the case, it does not necessarily follow that the account should be disallowed. There are certain implied or incidental powers which must be considered. "The rule respecting such powers is that in addition to the powers expressly given by statute to an officer or a board of officers, he or it has, by implication, such additional powers as are necessary for the due and efficient exercise of the powers expressly granted or as may be fairly implied from the statute granting the express powers." Throop on Public Officers, Par. 542. In every case, therefore, where an expense account is presented for the performance of some act or duty not expressly required by the governing statute, it becomes necessary to determine whether the provision of the statute necessarily imply the authority for doing the act or whether the act done was reasonably necessary for the performance of the duties expressly provided for by the statute and without the doing of which those duties could not be efficiently discharged. For instance, Act No. 151 of the Public Acts of 1903, appropriates for the Northern Michigan Asylum for the Insane, amongst other items, the sum of six thousand seven hundred and eighty-five dollars, "for addition to bakery and baking machinery." I think this act implies authority in the board of trustees to send one of its members to the city of Chicago to examine bakeries and baking machinery in order that the board may make a prudent contract for the purchase of the best machinery and that the account of trustee G. A. Hart for his expenses should be allowed. Of course, the reasonable necessity for such expenses must have some reference to the amount of the expenditure to be made on behalf of the State and the importance of the duty to be performed. On the other hand, I do not think that statutes such as are now under consideration would authorize charges against the State for expenses incurred in attending conventions outside of this State, even though as an indirect result of attending such conventions the members attending might be better equipped for the performance of their duties as members. of State boards. Yours very respectfully, CHAS. A. BLAIR, STATE.-Is limited in regulating the rates and charges of a railroad company, to that traffic which begins and ends within the State. As to traffic which begins in one state and ends in another, neither state has the right to regulate the rate. Such a regulation would constitute an undue interference with interstate commerce. November 22, 1904. Hon. Perry F. Powers, Auditor General, Capitol, Lansing: Dear Sir-For reply to your communication under date of November 16th, as to the right of the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company to charge fare at the rate of three cents per mile on its line from Quincy, Michigan, to Elkhart, Indiana, would say that the statute |