the capital stock, bonds and other evidences of indebtedness of the Boston and Maine Railroad, and of voting upon all certificates of stock so acquired and held . . ." For many years voluntary associations, resembling in many of their attributes corporations, have been organized and are maintained to acquire the stock of public-service corporations.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the public policy of the Commonwealth does not appear to be opposed to the creation of holding companies created for the purpose of acquiring and holding the stock of street railways or gas and electric light companies, and that a provision authorizing such acquisition and holding, in the charter of a business corporation organized under the general laws, would not express an unlawful purpose as against public policy. That is, in my opinion a corporation may be organized under chapter 437 of the Acts of 1903 for the purposes set forth in your inquiry.

To the Board

of Harbor and Land Commissioners. 1911

June 24.

HOURS OF LABOR DUMPING INSPECTORS

CIVIL ENGINEER.

Dumping inspectors employed by the Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners,
whose duty it is "to see that all material which is to be dumped in tidewater
is transported and dumped in its proper locality, none of it being deposited
in any other place," are not "workmen, laborers or mechanics" within the
meaning of St. 1911, c. 494, § 1, providing that "the service of all laborers.
workmen and mechanics now or hereafter employed by the commonwealth
... is hereby restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day."
The further provision of such section that "engineers shall be regarded as mechanics
within the meaning of this act" does not extend to or include persons who
follow the profession of civil engineering.

You have requested my opinion with reference to the standing of dumping inspectors under the provision of section 1 of chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1911, that "the service of all laborers, workmen and mechanics now or hereafter employed by the commonwealth . . . is hereby restricted to eight hours in any one calendar day."

You state that the duties of dumping inspectors, who are civil service appointees, are, "To see that all material which is to be dumped in tidewater is transported and dumped in its

proper locality, none of it being deposited in any other place. The inspectors are quartered on the towboats towing the loaded scows to sea. They practically live on the boats. They are required to be on duty from the time the towboat starts with the tow until the material is dumped. They cannot leave the towboat at that time, and have to remain until she returns to her wharf or anchorage. They are not required to do any service on the return trip. As soon as the scows are dumped they may turn into their bunks and sleep until she returns to her dock or anchorage. They are fed on board the towboat."

The duties of a dumping inspector, as defined by you, appear to require special knowledge and powers of supervision, and do not appear to involve any manual labor, which has generally been regarded as an important element in the words "laborers, workmen and mechanics." Meands v. Park, 95 Me. 527; Bloom v. Richards, 2 Oh. St., 387, 401; Savannah & C. R. Co. v. Callahan, 49 Ga. 506, 511; Adams v. Goodrich, 55 Ga. 233, 234. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a dumping inspector is not a laborer, workman or mechanic within the meaning of the statute.

You further inquire whether the statute, by virtue of the provision that "engineers shall be regarded as mechanics within the meaning of this act," extends to and includes the chief engineer and several assistant engineers, draftsmen and helpers who do such civil engineering work as the commission may require. I am of opinion that the word "engineers," as used in St. 1911, c. 494, § 1, is not to be construed to include persons who follow the profession of civil engineering. Whether or not those who assist them in the performance of such duties are to be regarded as laborers, workmen or mechanics must depend upon the nature of the services which they perform.

To the

Director of the

Bureau of

Statistics. 1911

July 7.

TOWNS WATER SUPPLY-INDEBTEDNESS - VOTE-TWO-
THIRDS MAJORITY.

A town which accepts by a majority vote an act authorizing it to supply itself and its inhabitants with water, in incurring debt therefor must comply with the provisions of R. L., c. 27, § 8, requiring a two-thirds vote in order that it may incur debt for such purpose.

You request my opinion as to "whether a town which accepts, by a majority vote, an act authorizing it to supply itself and inhabitants with water may incur debt therefor without being required to comply with the provisions of section 8 of chapter 27 of the Revised Laws, which makes necessary a two-thirds vote in order that it may incur debt for such a purpose." I infer that your inquiry is made with especial reference to the town of West Brookfield, which town, by chapter 373 of the acts of this year, is authorized to supply itself and its inhabitants with water. Section 5 of this act is as follows:

Said town, for the purpose of paying the necessary expenses and liabilities incurred under the provisions of this act, may issue from time to time bonds, notes or scrip to an amount not exceeding thirty thousand dollars. Such bonds, notes or scrip shall bear on their face the words, Town of West Brookfield Water Loan, Act of 1911; shall be payable at the expiration of periods not exceeding thirty years from the dates of issue; shall bear interest, payable semi-annually, at a rate not exceeding four and one half per cent per annum; and shall be signed by the treasurer of the town and countersigned by the water commissioners hereinafter provided for. Said town may sell such securities at public or private sale, upon such terms and conditions as it may deem proper. provided, that the securities shall not be sold for less than their par value.

Section 10 is as follows:

This act shall take effect upon its acceptance by a majority vote of the legal voters of the town of West Brookfield present and voting thereon at a legal meeting called for the purpose within three years after its passage; but it shall become void unless the town of West Brookfield shall begin to distribute water to consumers in said town within three years after the date of the acceptance of this act as aforesaid. For the purpose of being submitted to the voters as aforesaid this act shall take effect upon its passage.

As appears from the section last quoted, the general provisions of the act do not take effect until "its acceptance by a majority vote of the legal voters of the town of West Brookfield present and voting thereon at a legal meeting called for the purpose within three years after its passage." If the act is so accepted, the town is authorized to issue "bonds, notes or scrip to an amount not exceeding thirty thousand dollars." Such bonds, notes or scrip, however, if issued, must be issued in accordance with a vote of the town. There is nothing in the act from which it is to be implied that the vote by which the act is accepted is also a vote to issue bonds, notes or scrip. In voting to issue bonds, notes or scrip the town must, of course, follow the statutory requirements. So far as the special act prescribes the details of such issue it is to be followed; in other respects the general law controls. Cf. 1 Op. Atty.-Gen. 263. The special act does not state whether the vote to issue bonds, notes or scrip shall be a majority or a two-thirds vote. The general law (R. L., c. 27, § 8) requires, in the case of a town, "a vote of two thirds of the voters present and voting at a town meeting," and, in the case of a city, "of two thirds of all the members of each branch of the city council." It follows that "a vote of two thirds of the voters present and voting" is required to authorize the issue of bonds, notes or scrip under authority of the act here in question. The correctness of this view appears from the fact that it is expressly provided by general law (R. L., c. 27, § 21) that where a city accepts by a vote of two thirds of the legal voters an act to supply it with water, "a vote of the majority of the members of each branch of the city council" is sufficient to authorize the issue of bonds. By this statute it is recognized that in cases not within this exception a vote "of two thirds of all the members of each branch of the city council" or "of two thirds of the voters present and voting at a town meeting," as the case may be, is necessary. Cf. St. 1876, c. 19.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL- DUTIES LIMIT OF TIME CONSTITU-
MATTER OF LOCAL SELF-

TIONAL LAW

REFERENDUM

GOVERNMENT.

To the Senate. 1911 July 13.

The senate has no authority to fix a limit of time within which the Attorney-General is to perform his duties or any of them.

A provision in a proposed bill that "this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the Commonwealth at the next State election, in answer to the question, Shall a law enacted by the General Court of the year 1911 relative to the development of the Port of Boston and authorizing the expenditure of $9,000,000 for that purpose, be accepted' . . ." does not fall within the exception permitting a referendum in matters of local self-government, and would, therefore, be unconstitutional.

I have the honor to transmit herewith my opinion in response to the following order to the Honorable Senate, dated July 12, 1911:

Ordered, That the Attorney-General be requested to furnish to the Senate forthwith his opinion on the following question: Whether the following pending amendment of the Senate Bill relative to the development of the port of Boston (printed as Senate, No. 570), referring the measure by referendum to the voters of the Commonwealth, is constitutional, to wit: striking out section 19 and inserting in place thereof the following new section:- "Section 19. This act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the commonwealth at the next state election in answer to the question 'Shall a law enacted by the general court of the year nineteen hundred and eleven relative to the development of the port of Boston and authorizing the expenditure of nine million dollars for that purpose be accepted?' If a majority of the voters voting thereon vote in the affirmative, this act shall thereupon take effect; otherwise it shall be null and void."

YES.
NO.

The form of the order compels me to respectfully remind the Honorable Senate that it has no authority to fix the limit of time within which the Attorney-General shall perform his duties or any of them. Therefore, so much of the order as requires my opinion forthwith I respectfully disregard. My desire, however, to assist the Honorable Senate in the performance of its duties, as well as the deference I owe that honorable body, has caused me to give attention to the question submitted as early as I could consistently with the other duties of my office.