Page images

lines of the Boston & Maine Railroad itself, the scope and purpose of the provision in section 47, with respect to extensions of the lines of railroads beyond the limits of the Commonwealth, would not be wholly free from doubt. In the case of Attorney-General ex rel. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 198 Mass. 413, the court, in discussing a consolidated corporation similar to the Boston & Maine Railroad, and the mutual concessions by the several States by which it was created, said (page 422):

[ocr errors]

How far, by reason of the peculiar nature of the corporation, or by force of express provisions in the statutes, has Massachusetts given up its right of control of this corporation, or relieved it of the application of our general laws, and how far has it retained such control? As creating a corporation to build and operate a railroad in two different States, and by the language quoted from St. 1844, c. 28, § 2, the Legislature recognized the fact that the corporation might have certain franchises, rights, powers, privileges and property granted or acquired under the laws of only one of the two States. As to such rights and powers as pertain only to local matters, like the location of the railroad, the possession and management of real estate, the crossing of highways and other railroads, the State in which they were to be exercised would have exclusive jurisdiction. This fact is enough to show the reason for using the language relied on by the defendant. In regard to all such matters, the action of only one State would be appropriate and sufficient. How far this implied authority to grant powers and franchises without the co-operation of the sister State should be held to extend, it is unnecessary in this case to decide. Whether it should go so far as to include the acquisition of other railroads within the State where the power is granted, or the location and construction of new lines and extensions there, and an increase of the capital stock for such purposes, is a question upon which it is not necessary to express an opinion.

See 1 Op. Atty.-Gen. 118, 137.

It further appears that all issues of stock and bonds of the Boston & Maine Railroad have been made in conformity to the laws of the Commonwealth, and have been approved by the Board of Railroad Commissioners.

This being so, I have to advise the Honorable Senate that such facts as I now have before me do not disclose any acts of

To the Commissioners on Fisheries and Game.

1909 February 26.

the Boston & Maine Railroad, or, with the exception hereinbefore stated, of any other consolidated corporation which operates a railroad within the Commonwealth, which would render liable to forfeiture the charters of such corporations under the provisions of section 47 of part II. of chapter 463 of the Acts of 1906.



Under the provisions of St. 1908, c. 484, § 3, which exempts, from the requirement prescribed by the statute of a certificate of registration, citizens who are bona fide residents on land owned or leased by them, and on which they are actually domiciled, such land being used exclusively for agricultural purposes, a person who is resident in a city or town and not upon a farm, but who is the owner of a wood lot used for growing wood, is not exempt from registration. A farmer, however, who is actually resident upon land used exclusively for agricultural purposes, may hunt without registration in a wood lot which is a part of his farm.

In a letter of present date you have requested my opinion upon the construction to be given to section 3 of chapter 484 of the Acts of 1908, requiring citizens of the United States resident in Massachusetts, who desire to hunt in Massachusetts, to be registered and to pay a registration fee. The section referred to is as follows:

Every citizen of the United States who is a bona fide resident of this state shall pay for such certificate a fee of one dollar: provided, however, that this act shall not apply to any such citizen who is a bona fide resident on land owned or leased by him and on which he is actually domiciled, which land is used exclusively for agricultural purposes, and not for club or shooting purposes.

Your inquiries, as I understand them, are: first, whether a person who lives in a city or town and not upon a farm, but is the owner of a wood lot used for growing wood, may hunt in that wood lot without registration; and, second, whether a person who does live upon a farm and carries on agriculture as a vocation, and is the owner of a wood lot used for growing wood, may hunt in that wood lot without registration.

In my opinion, the first question is to be answered in the negative. The clear intent of the proviso quoted is to exempt the farmer from restrictions upon his freedom to hunt within the limits of his own farm. The resident of a town or city who is not a farmer, but owns a wood lot, is not actually domiciled and resident on land used exclusively for agricultural purposes. He is therefore within neither the intent nor the terms of the statute, and is clearly not exempt from registration.

In reply to the second question, my opinion is that a farmer who is actually domiciled and resident upon land used exclusively for agricultural purposes may hunt without registration in a wood lot which is part of his farm. All the land embraced in the farm which he operates as a farm, whether it is tillage, pasture or woodland, is to be considered as land used for agricultural purposes. Such wood lot, while it need not be actually contiguous to the rest of the farm, must, in my opinion, be so nearly adjacent as to be considered as in fact a part of the farm upon which the farmer lives, and to be so used.




The provision of R. L., c. 80, § 6, that a person who is absent from the common

wealth for ten consecutive years shall lose his settlement," is applicable to
an insane person who was removed to an asylum in another state and there
maintained for more than ten consecutive years.

Board of

In a letter of recent date you have requested my opinion To the State upon the question arising upon the following facts: a woman Insanity. fifty years of age had an undoubted settlement in Massachu- March 5. setts, when, in 1896, she was taken to Mount Hope Asylum in Baltimore, Md., where she has remained continuously since that time supported as a private patient. Her relatives now desire to have her returned to Massachusetts and committed to an insane hospital of this Commonwealth.

The question upon which you have asked my opinion is, whether the woman's settlement in Massachusetts has been lost under the provision of the last clause of R. L., c. 80, § 6, that

To the House
of Repre-
March 25.

A person who is absent from the commonwealth for ten consecutive years shall lose his settlement.

The clause of the statute quoted, which has been held to be prospective in operation, was enacted in 1898, and has, therefore, been in effect during more than ten years of the patient's absence.

In my opinion, the statute operates upon the settlements of the sane and insane with the same effect, and whether a settlement has been lost under its provisions depends not upon the mental condition of the person in question, but solely upon her actual residence during the ten years under consideration.

The patient referred to has, therefore, in my opinion, lost the settlement which she had in Massachusetts in 1896.



[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


St. 1908, c. 329, providing in section 1 that "the sale, offer or exposure for sale, or delivery for use as food, of the carcass.. of any animal which has come to its death in any manner or by any means otherwise than by slaughter or killing while in a healthy condition . . . shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months," does not permit meat derived from the carcasses of cattle infected to any degree with tuberculosis or any other disease to be sold as food within this Commonwealth.

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of an order adopted by the Honorable House of Representatives on March 16, last, requiring the opinion of the Attorney-General “as to whether the laws and statutes of this Commonwealth permit cattle which are infected to any degree with tuberculosis to be killed and sold as food in this Commonwealth."

I am aware of no provision of law which forbids the killing of cattle which are infected with tuberculosis; on the contrary, the killing of cattle so infected is in certain cases expressly required (see R. L., c. 90, §§ 4, 6), and I therefore assume that the Honorable House of Representatives in substance requires my opinion upon the question whether or not the laws of the

Commonwealth permit the sale of food products in any form derived from the carcasses of cattle which are found to have been to any degree infected with tuberculosis. Upon that assumption I reply as follows:

The general supervision and inspection of slaughtered animals and of all meat and other food products derived therefrom is vested in boards of health of cities and towns. R. L., c. 56, § 70, provides in part that:

Boards of health of cities and towns may inspect the carcasses of all slaughtered animals and all meat, fish, vegetables, produce, fruit or provisions of any kind found in their cities or towns, and for such purpose may enter any building, enclosure or other place in which such carcasses or articles are stored, kept or exposed for sale. If, on such inspection, it is found that such carcasses or articles are tainted, diseased, corrupted, decayed, unwholesome or, from any cause, unfit for food, the board of health shall seize the same and cause it or them to be destroyed forthwith or disposed of otherwise than for food.

See R. L., c. 56, § 73.

By section 99 of chapter 75 of the Revised Laws it is provided that the proprietor of every slaughter house, canning, salting, smoking or rendering establishment, and of every establishment used for the manufacture of sausages or chopped meat of any kind, who is engaged in the slaughter of neat cattle, sheep or swine, the meat or product of which is to be sold or used for food, shall be annually licensed by the mayor and aldermen of the city, the selectmen of the town, or, in towns, having a population of more than five thousand, by the board of health, if there be any.

Section 101 provides that:

A licensee under the provisions of the preceding section shall not slaughter any such animals, or cause them to be slaughtered at such slaughter house or establishment, on any days other than those specified in the application for such license, except in the presence of a member of the board of health or of an inspector appointed therefor by said board; but he may at any time change the days for slaughtering such animals, by giving at least seven days' written notice thereof to the board or officer authorized to issue licenses, who shall immediately give written notice of such change to such inspector of such city or town.

« PreviousContinue »