To the Com mittee on 1911 May 3. St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, which provides that the Boston Elevated Railway Company may "establish, and take a toll or fare, which shall not exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage in the same general direction upon the roads owned, leased or operated by it," which "sum shall not be reduced by the legislature during the period of twenty-five years, from and after the passage of this act," with the further provision that the Board of Railroad Commissioners may, upon petition and after notice and a hearing, reduce such toll or fare, but that such toll or fare shall not, without the consent of the corporation, be so reduced as to yield less than a certain fixed income, and which further provides that "said corporation shall also provide free transfer from elevated to surface and from surface to elevated cars at all stations of the elevated lines reached by surface lines and from one elevated car or train to another at junction points entitling a passenger to a continuous ride in the same general direction," and such further free transfers on all the surface lines as may be required by the Board of Railroad Commissioners, created a contract between the Commonwealth and the Boston Elevated Railroad Company; and a proposed amendment to the section above quoted, providing in part that such corporation "may establish for its sole benefit a toll or fare which shall not exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage between the terminals and transfer points of said roads, and transfer checks shall be issued or transfers made on demand without additional payment, which shall entitle the passenger to a continuous ride from any station or transfer point to any other station or transfer point on the system," such transfers to be issued from and between midnight and six o'clock in the morning, on cars leaving certain specified stations, so as to render to passengers the same amount of service during the hours from midnight to six o'clock in the morning for the same fare as they receive during the other hours of the day, is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that it changes the requirements as to transfers established by such contract. You have requested my opinion as to whether House Bill Street Railways. No. 1164, if enacted, would be constitutional. This bill is entitled "An Act relative to free transfers on the cars of the Boston Elevated Railroad Company," and amends St. 1894, c. 548, by substituting for section 16 thereof a new section. As St. 1894, c. 548, § 16, is not now in force, having been repealed by St. 1897, c. 500, § 22, it is obvious that the bill is not in proper form. I assume, however, that the intention is to amend St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, which is the section now in force dealing with the same subject-matter, and I answer your question upon that assumption. From the title of the bill and from the petition which accompanies it, I infer that the purpose of the bill is to change the requirement as to transfers, and I therefore consider primarily its constitutionality in this aspect. St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, authorizes the Boston Elevated Railway Company to "establish and take a toll or fare which shall not exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage in the same general direction upon the roads owned, leased or operated by it," which "sum shall not be reduced by the legislature during the period of twenty-five years, from and after the passage of this act," with a provision, however, that the Board of Railroad Commissioners may, upon petition, after notice and hearing, reduce such toll or fare, but that such toll or fare shall not, without the consent of the corporation, be so reduced as to yield less than a certain fixed income. The section further provides that Said corporation shall also provide free transfer from elevated to surface and from surface to elevated cars at all stations of the elevated lines reached by surface lines and from one elevated car or train to another at junction points entitling a passenger to a continuous ride in the same general direction, and such further free transfers on all the surface lines of railway owned, leased or operated by it, as may be satisfactory to or required by the board of railroad commissioners. The proposed act provides, in part, as follows: Said corporation may establish for its sole benefit a toll or fare which shall not exceed the sum of five cents for a single continuous passage between the terminals and transfer points of said routes. And transfer checks shall be issued or transfers made on demand, without additional payment, which shall entitle the passenger to a continuous ride from any station or transfer point to any other station or transfer point on the system and said transfers shall be issued from and between the hours of twelve midnight and six in the morning on cars leaving and arriving at Adams square, Hanover street, Scollay square and Northampton street, Boston, and Harvard square, Cambridge, and Uphams Corner, Dorchester, so as to render passengers the same amount of service during the hours of twelve midnight and six in the morning for the same fare as they receive during the other hours of the day. The provisions of St. 1897, c. 500, § 10, undoubtedly created a contract between the Commonwealth and the Boston Elevated Railway Company (2 Op. Atty.-Gen. 261, 426, 429; Opinion of the Attorney-General to the House of Representatives, April 22, 1911), and this contract is still in force. The right to charge a toll or fare of a fixed amount which shall not be reduced except in a prescribed manner is of the essence of the contract. So is the limitation as to the transfers which may be required. A change in the rate other than in the prescribed manner, or, what is equivalent thereto, a change in the requirements as to transfers, is an impairment of the contractual rights of the company. See Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 398; Minneapolis v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 215 U. S. 417, 434; see also, Interstate Ry. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79, 86. The proposed act clearly changes the requirements as to transfers. It substitutes for a requirement that the corporation shall provide "such further free transfers on all the surface lines of railway owned, leased or operated by it, as may be satisfactory to or required by the board of railroad commissioners," certain absolute requirements. It is immaterial that the railroad commissioners might make even more stringent requirements than are made by the proposed act. The corporation is entitled to have the requirements made in the manner fixed by its contract. To this extent at least, the bill, if enacted, would be unconstitutional. I do not imply that there are not other aspects in which it would be unconstitutional. GOVERNOR STATEMENT OR ESTIMATE OF PROPOSED EXPENDI- The authority of the Governor under St. 1910, c. 220, § 1, in substance requiring that certain statements and estimates should be submitted to the Governor and Council, and that the Governor should transmit the same to the General Court with such recommendations, if any, as he might deem proper, was not extended by the provisions of St. 1911, c. 82, authorizing him "to employ such persons as he may deem proper to make such investigation of any of the commissions, departments or institutions of the commonwealth as he believes is necessary to enable him to carry out the provisions of chapter two hundred and twenty of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and ten," and his power to investigate, by means of agents, investigators or experts employed under the provisions of the chapter last cited, any officer, department or institution, must be predicated upon the existence of a statement of proposed expenditures and of other matters required by St. 1910, c. 220, which is to be transmitted to the Legislature. It follows, therefore, that after the Governor has transmitted to the Legislature the statements or estimates of expenditure in relation to any particular officer, department or institution there is no longer authority or occasion for any such investigation. You submit for my consideration a communication dated To the May 8, 1911, in which you say, in part, that Under authority of His Excellency the Governor, given by chapter 82 of the Acts of the year 1911, on or about the middle of March last, Mr. Harvey S. Chase began an investigation of the department of the Treasurer and Receiver-General. He was granted free access to every book and record in the department and there was shown and explained to him everything he desired. On March 28 he rendered a report to the Governor, the Executive Council and the joint committee on ways and means. This report was sent to the Legislature by the Governor and referred to the joint committee on ways and means. and, further, that Mr. Chase has demanded of me the privilege of further investigating this department and thus covering the same ground of his previous investigation. I desire, therefore, to be advised of the extent of the authority for Treasurer investigating this department given by chapter 82 of the acts of the General Court of this year. You further state that Mr. Chase was appointed by the Governor to conduct an investigation, on March 17, 1911, by a written authority, in part as follows: Acknowledging your favor of to-day, you are hereby authorized to conduct an investigation in regard to the offices of the Treasurer, in accordance with the provisions of the legislative act approved March 2, 1911, a copy of which is hereto attached. Said chapter 82 of the Acts of 1911 did not extend the general power of the Governor with respect to investigations, as defined and described in an opinion rendered to the Governor by the Attorney-General, dated April 26, 1909. The statute was passed solely for the purpose set forth therein, namely, to enable the Governor "to carry out the provisions of chapter two hundred and twenty of the acts of the year nineteen hundred and ten," which is the so-called "Walker act." The effect of this latter statute was determined by the Supreme Court in an opinion of the justices to the Senate, dated April 7, 1911, which is, in part, as follows: The St. of 1910, c. 220, has made but a very small change in the law of the Commonwealth. . . The only new provision in this particular is the requirement that it [estimates and statements] shall be submitted "to the governor and council for examination, and the governor shall transmit the same to the general court with such recommendations, if any, as he may deem proper." ... Under this statute, after the document has been printed it is to be formally submitted to the Governor and Council for examination as well as distributed to the members of the General Court; while under the former statute the governor was left to obtain a copy as he might. Under the present statute he is to transmit it to the General Court, so that they may know that he has had an opportunity to examine it, and he may make recommendations or not, as he chooses. . . . The only material effect of this statute is to give a legislative invitation to the Governor to examine the documents prepared by the Auditor, and to make recommendations upon the subjects contained in them if he chooses, and also |