I am advised that the certificate to which you refer is that required under the provisions of R. L., c. 104, § 49, which is as follows: A license which is required by law, ordinance or by-law to authorize any premises to be used for any purpose specified in section twenty-five shall not be granted until a certificate for such building or portion thereof shall first have been obtained from an inspector as above provided, and, when issued, shall not continue in force after the expiration of such certifi cate. Section 25 of that chapter, as amended by St. 1905, c. 347, and St. 1907, c. 503, § 1, provides, so far as is material, that: a hotel, family hotel, apartment house, boarding house, lodging house or tenement house in which ten or more persons lodge or reside above the second story, . . . shall be provided with proper egresses or other means of escape from fire, sufficient for the use of all persons accommodated, assembled, employed, lodged or resident therein; . . Your question, in substance, requires my opinion as to whether the words "in which ten or more persons lodge or reside above the second story" apply to hotels, family hotels, apartment houses, boarding houses, lodging houses and tenement houses, or are limited in their application to tenement houses only. The earliest legislation relating to the inspection of factories and public buildings is to be found in St. 1877, c. 214, which, in section 5, provided that all churches, schoolrooms, hotels, halls, theatres and other buildings used for public assemblies should have such means of egress as the inspectors of factories and public buildings should approve; and this provision appears in Pub. Sts., c. 104, § 20. By St. 1882, c. 266, § 2, Pub. Sts., c. 104, 20, was amended by adding thereto the following words: Every building three or more stories in height, in whole or in part used, occupied, leased or rented, or designed to be used, occupied, leased or rented for a tenement to be occupied by more than four families, or a lodging house, shall be provided with a sufficient means of escape in case of fire, to be approved by the inspector of factories and public buildings. The following year an act (St. 1883, c. 251) was passed "to secure better provisions for escape from hotels and certain other buildings, in case of fire." This provided, in part, in section 1, that the keeper of a hotel, boarding or lodging house containing one hundred or more rooms, "and being four or more stories high," should maintain at least two competent watchmen, properly assigned, and on duty between the hours of 9 o'clock at night and 6 o'clock in the morning; and the keeper of a hotel, boarding or lodging house containing more than fifty but less than one hundred rooms, "and being three stories high," should maintain at least one competent watchman on duty during the same hours. Section 2 provided that: Hotels used and occupied as public houses, for the reception and entertainment of guests, boarding or lodging houses and school buildings, being three or more stories high, and accommodating or having the means of accommodating thirty or more persons, . . . shall be supplied inside thereof with proper and sufficient means or appliances for escape, in case of fire, . . . ... In 1888 the law regulating ways of egress and means of escape from fire was codified in St. 1888, c. 426, in which section 1 contains the following provision: Every building now or hereafter used, in whole or in part, as a public building, public or private institution, schoolhouse, church, theatre, public hall, place of assemblage or place of public resort, and every building in which ten or more persons are employed above the second story in a factory, workshop or mercantile or other establishment, and every hotel, family hotel, apartment house, boarding house, lodging house or tenement house in which ten or more persons lodge or reside above the second story, and every factory, workshop, mercantile or other establishment the owner, lessee or occupant of which is notified in writing by the inspector hereinafter mentioned that the provisions of this act are deemed by him applicable thereto, shall be provided with proper ways of egress, or other means of escape from fire, sufficient for the use of all persons accommodated, assembling, employed, lodging or residing in such building; . . . And the same provision, that "every hotel, family hotel, apartment house, boarding house, lodging house or tenement house in which ten or more persons lodge or reside above the second story," is repeated in St. 1894, c. 481, § 24, and, with the single change from "every hotel," etc., to "a hotel," etc., is to be found in R. L., c. 104, § 25, as amended by St. 1907, c. 503, § 1. It appears, therefore, that the regulation of means of escape in hotels and boarding or lodging houses originally applied only to hotels and boarding or lodging houses which were three or more stories in height (St. 1883, § 251), and that such regulation so limited had been in force for five years when laws relative to the inspection of buildings were codified in St. 1888, c. 426, where substantially the same language was employed in section 1 with reference to hotels and boarding or lodging houses that is to be found in existing provisions of law. I see no reason to believe that by this codification the Legislature intended to extend the application of the law to a class of buildings which up to that time had been excepted from its provisions, or to limit the application of the qualifying words to tenement houses, so as to create a distinction between a tenement house and a hotel, family hotel, apartment house, boarding house and lodging house. The conclusion which I have reached is supported by the language of the court which considered this section (then St. 1888, c. 426, § 1), in Perry v. Bangs, 161 Mass. 35. 36, where the court said: Section 1 of St. 1888, c. 426, first describes the buildings to be subject to the provisions of the act, and this description includes "every hotel, family hotel, apartment house, boarding house, lodging house, or tenement house in which ten or more persons lodge or reside above the second story." The description ends as follows: "and every factory, workshop, mercantile or other establishment the owner, lessee, or occupant of which is notified in writing by the inspector hereinafter mentioned that the provisions of this act are deemed by him applicable thereto, shall be provided with proper ways of egress or other means of escape from fire, sufficient for the use of all persons accommodated, assembling, employed, lodging, or residing in such building." We assume that the words requiring a notice in writing from the inspector that he deems the provisions of the act applicable to certain establishments apply only to the buildings or establishments mentioned in the last clause of the description, and that a hotel in which more than ten persons lodge or reside above the second story is subject to the provisions of the act, even if no such notice has been given by an inspector. I am constrained to advise you, therefore, that a certificate of an inspector of factories and public buildings is not required before an innholder's license or a license to sell intoxicating liquors may be granted by the city or town authorities for a hotel in which not more than ten persons lodge or reside above the second story. Your communication contains certain other inquiries, as follows: Does section 33, chapter 104, Revised Laws, apply to any hotel more than one story in height outside of Boston? Does section 34, chapter 104, Revised Laws, require an annual inspection by the city or town (except Boston) inspector of buildings, or the chief engineer of the fire department, in May, of every hotel of less than ten rooms above the second story? Does section 34, chapter 104, Revised Laws, require knotted ropes or better appliances in every hotel which is not otherwise suitably provided with fire escapes, and which is more than one story in height? These inquiries relate to sections 33 and 34 of chapter 104 of the Revised Laws, and in slightly different phrase present the same questions. Section 33, so far as it is material, is as follows: The owner, lessee, proprietor or manager of a hotel, which is not otherwise suitably provided with fire escapes, or of a lodging house which contains ten or more rooms above the second story, shall place or cause to be placed a knotted rope or better appliance for use as a fire escape in every room of said hotel or lodging house used as a lodging room, except rooms on the ground floor. Your inquiries, in substance, require my opinion upon the question whether or not the words "which contains ten or more rooms above the second story" qualify the word "hotel," as well as the words "lodging house." I am of opinion that a consideration of the history of this particular provision makes it clear that the words "which contains ten or more rooms above the second story" apply to and describe a lodging house, and have no reference to the word "hotel" which precedes them. Thus, the provision with respect to hotels was originally enacted in 1890, and is to be found in chapter 307 of that year, and required that: Every owner, lessee, proprietor or manager of a hotel . . . shall. place or cause to be placed a knotted rope or other better appliance for use as a fire escape in every room of said hotel used as a lodging room, except rooms on the ground floor. The provision with respect to lodging houses containing ten or more rooms above the second story was enacted in 1894 (St. 1894, c. 341); and in the same year the two provisions were combined in St. 1894, c. 481, § 44, which is identical with section 33 of chapter 104 of the Revised Laws, except that in the latter section the words "for the protection of human life in case of fire" are omitted after the words "fire escapes" in the third line. It follows, therefore, that the description with respect to rooms above the second story is applicable only to a lodging house, and does not describe or limit the word "hotel." To the CIVIL SERVICE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF THE PENAL The assistant commissioner of the penal institutions department of the city of You request my opinion as to whether the position of assistant commissioner of the penal institutions department of Boston is within the classified civil service. The penal institutions department is a department of the city of Boston. See opinion of Feb. 16, 1910. The assistant commissioner is within the classification of civil service rule 7, section 1, clause 1, of "superintendents, assistant and deputy |