affects or modifies the statute of 1907. Accordingly, in my opinion, sections 7 and 8 of the statute of 1914 have no application to violations of the statute of 1907, and I must advise you that prosecutions may be begun for violation of the statute of 1907 without first giving the party interested an opportunity to be heard before you in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of chapter 653 of the Acts of 1914.

CIVIL SERVICE- SUPERINTENDENTS OF ENGINEERING AND OF

COMMERCE.

Appointments to the positions of superintendent of engineering and superintendent of commerce, created by Gen. St. 1916, c. 288, are not subject to the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission.

mission on

Waterways and

You have requested my opinion as to whether any ap- To the Compointments that may be made to the positions of superintendent of engineering and superintendent of commerce, created under Gen. St. 1916, c. 288, are to be filled under the regulations of the Civil Service Commission.

At the time of the passage of said act the Civil Service Commission, under the provisions of R. L., c. 19, was authorized from time to time to prepare rules regulating the selection of persons to fill appointive positions in the government of the Commonwealth. Ordinarily, the passage of an act creating appointive positions in the government of the Commonwealth would be subject to the provisions of chapter 19 of the Revised Laws, for the reason that it is not to be presumed that the Legislature intends to repeal or affect general laws passed by its predecessors unless there is something in the act, either by reason of its inconsistency with the general law or otherwise, which indicates an intention that the provisions of the general law are not to apply to the positions created.

It follows that if nothing had been said in chapter 288 of the General Acts of 1916 in relation to the civil service, the positions thereby created would be subject to the provisions of law relating to the civil service, unless there was some inconsistency in their application. Section 3 of said chapter 288 provides:

Public Lands. 1916 October 24.

The commission shall appoint a superintendent of commerce and a superintendent of engineering who shall each receive such salary as the commission may determine, with the approval of the governor and council. They shall, under the control of the commission, perform such duties. as may from time to time be assigned to them respectively by the commission. The commission may also employ such clerical and other assistance as may be necessary for the performance of its duties, subject to all general laws, now or hereafter in force, relating to appointments and employment in the civil service of the commonwealth.

It is to be noted that under said section the Legislature has provided specifically that all clerical and other assistance other than the superintendent of commerce and the superintendent of engineering shall be subject to all general laws now or hereafter in force relating to appointments and employment in the civil service of the Commonwealth. The Legislature, having thus specifically provided that the rules shall apply to all positions other than the superintendent of commerce and superintendent of engineering, indicated, it would seem, an intention that the positions of superintendent of commerce and superintendent of engineering should be excluded from the operation of the civil service law.

I am fortified in this opinion by the fact that section 9 of chapter 19 of the Revised Laws provides that

Judicial officers and officers elected by the people or by a city council, or whose appointment is subject to confirmation by the executive council, ... shall not be affected as to their selection or appointment by any rules made as aforesaid.

While it is not entirely clear that the appointment of these officials is subject to the confirmation of the Governor and Council, yet the compensation to be paid them is unquestionably subject to such confirmation and approval, and the salary, apparently applying to the persons appointed rather than to the positions, necessarily, in a large measure, determines the appointment.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that your question is to be answered in the negative.

FIRE PREVENTION COMMISSIONER

STABLES.

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER

Under Gen. St. 1916, c. 158, § 2, providing that stables equipped with an automatic sprinkler system shall not be subject to certain other requirements, the word "stable" means the entire building, so that where the second floor of a building is used for stabling horses, this condition is not fulfilled by equipping that floor alone with an automatic sprinkler system.

Prevention
Commissioner.

With reference to chapter 158 of the General Acts of 1916 To the Fire you have requested my opinion as to whether, in a three-story 1916 building in which horses are kept only on the second floor, October 25. the word "equipped," in section 2, would be construed to relate to all floors, or only to the floor where the horses are stabled, or to the floor or place where the horses are stabled plus the dangerous part or parts of other floors.

The statute mentioned is entitled "An Act to require fire protection in stables for horses and mules." The first two sections are as follows:

SECTION 1. No horse or mule shall be stabled on the second or any higher floor of any building unless there are two means of exit therefrom, at opposite ends of the building, to the main or street floor.

SECTION 2. This act shall not apply to stables equipped with an automatic sprinkler system.

66

Your question first raises the inquiry as to whether the word 'stables," in section 2, includes the whole building in which the animals in question are stabled, or merely that floor or part of the building which is used for that purpose.

Our Supreme Judicial Court has used the following language in the case of Riverbank Improvement Co. v. Bancroft, 209 Mass. 217, at 221:

In Worcester's Dictionary, edition of 1900, a stable is defined as “a house or building for horses or other beasts;" in Webster's edition of 1903, as "a house, shed, or building, for beasts to lodge and feed in; especially, a building or apartment with stalls, for horses; as, a horse stable; a cow stable;" and in the edition of 1910 in practically the same language; in the Century Dictionary, as "a building or an inclosure in which horses, cattle, and other domestic animals are lodged, and which is

furnished with stalls, troughs, racks, and bins to contain their food and necessary equipments; in a restricted sense, such a building for horses and cows only; in a still narrower and now the most usual sense, such a building for horses only;" in the Standard Dictionary, edition of 1895, as a "building or part of a building set apart for lodging and feeding horses or cattle, especially one fitted with stalls, fastenings, etc., also often for storing hay or putting up vehicles: sometimes specifically carriage-stable, cowstable, etc." In 36 Cyc. 812, and in 26 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law (2d ed.), 154, it is defined as "a house, shed, or building for beasts to lodge and feed in." See also Dugle v. State, 100 Ind. 259.

No other decision which has come to my attention throws any light upon this question, and it is to be observed that in the case cited the point decided did not relate to a situation such as is here presented. The apparent purpose of the present statute seems to be to provide protection for the animals named, in the event of fire, by providing ready means of exit or means for extinguishing any fire which may start. Obviously, the lives of the animals are endangered as much, if not more, by fires which have started on the first or third floors of a three-story building as by fires which may start on the second floor, and the purpose of the act would not be accomplished if it were held to require merely the equipment with a sprinkler system on the second floor of such a building as you describe.

Taking these considerations into account I am of the opinion that in using the word "stables," in section 2, the Legislature intended to describe the entire building used for that purpose rather than any particular floor or portion of the same.

Accordingly, I am of the opinion that, in order to obtain the benefit of the exemption provided for in section 2, it is necessary that all floors of a building such as is described in your request should be so equipped.

How extensive an installment of automatic sprinklers is necessary in order to comply with the provisions of this section is largely a question of fact. It probably is undesirable to attempt to lay down any hard and fast rule, such as saying that the "dangerous part or parts of other floors" are to be

66

In my

provided with sprinklers. The language of the statute is,
'equipped with an automatic sprinkler system."
opinion, this requires a sprinkler system reasonably adequate
for the premises in question, taking into account the character
of the building and its parts with regard to the danger to be
anticipated from fire.

SENTENCE - PERMIT TO BE AT LIBERTY

EFFECT.

Where a permit to be at liberty has been issued to a prisoner under R. L., c. 225, § 117, as amended by St. 1906, c. 244, if it is subsequently revoked, the prisoner is treated as not having served any portion of his sentence beyond the time he was held in prison, and therefore, if the revocation was made before the expiration of his original sentence, it is immaterial that the order of arrest issuing on such revocation is not served until after the expiration of such time.

of Prisons.

You have requested my opinion as to whether the fact that a To the Bureau warrant issued before the expiration of the sentence of a prisoner November 1. released from the Massachusetts Reformatory under a permit to be at liberty, and served after the time when the sentence would have expired if the prisoner had not been released under a permit to be at liberty, makes his return and commitment to the Massachusetts Reformatory improper.

R. L., c. 225, § 117, as amended by St. 1906, c. 244, provides as follows:

If it appears to the prison commissioners that a prisoner in the Massachusetts reformatory, or a prisoner who has been removed therefrom to a jail or house of correction, has reformed, they may issue to him a permit to be at liberty during the remainder of his term of sentence, upon such terms and conditions as they shall prescribe; but a prisoner who has been removed thereto from the state prison shall not be given a permit to be at liberty before the expiration of the minimum term of his sentence without the consent of the governor and council. They may delegate to a committee of their board or to their secretary, until their next meeting, the authority to decide when such permit shall be issued.

I assume that the prisoner was released under the provisions of this section.