having a location in this Commonwealth by railroad corporations operating steam railroads in this Commonwealth." Section 1 of the bill in terms forbids the purchase by a railroad corporation operating a steam railroad within the Commonwealth of the stock of any street railway company having a location therein. It is, however, to be observed that in the case of a railroad corporation chartered by this Commonwealth such acquisition of stock is already prohibited by the provision of R. L., c. 111, § 77, that: No railroad corporation, unless authorized by the general court or by the provisions of the following five sections, shall directly or indirectly subscribe for, take or hold the stock or bonds of or guarantee the bonds or dividends of any other corporation; but it is doubtful if either of these statutes can effectually prevent a transaction of the character described when such transaction is the act of a corporation chartered in another State, and done in and under the lawful authority of that State. If, therefore, House Bill No. 1358 is to be construed as applicable as well to corporations chartered elsewhere as to those chartered by the Commonwealth, in my opinion it is ineffective to prevent the purchase of the stock of a domestic street railway company by a railroad corporation chartered in another State and duly authorized thereto by the laws of that State. To the second inquiry of the honorable House of Representatives, "whether the bill annexed is legally sufficient to prevent the leasing of the franchise of street railways having a location in any city or town in this Commonwealth by railroad corporations operating steam railroads in this Commonwealth," I reply that the bill prohibits the leasing of the franchises of domestic street railways by railroad corporations operating steam railroads within the Commonwealth, but I ought to say that the leasing of the franchise of a domestic street railway company by a railroad corporation is now, in my opinion, without authority in law. In the third inquiry of the honorable House of Representatives my opinion is sought upon the question "whether the bill annexed prevents the control, directly or indirectly, of street railways having a location in any city or town in this Commonwealth by railroad corporations operating steam railroads in this Commonwealth." I am of opinion that by reason of the provisions contained in sections 3 and 4, providing for the dissolution of a domestic street railway corporation whenever the stock of such corporation or any part thereof shall be found to be directly or indirectly owned or controlled by a railroad corporation operating a steam railroad within the Commonwealth, the proposed bill would prevent such ownership and control. The fourth inquiry is as follows: "If in the opinion of the Attorney-General the bill annexed fails to prevent the ownership of the stock of said street railway companies, or the leasing of the franchise of said street railway companies, and, in short, the control, directly or indirectly, of said street railway companies by railroad corporations operating street railways in this Commonwealth, what amendments he would suggest to accomplish the end which this bill is intended to accomplish." As already pointed out, House Bill No. 1358, if passed, would probably prevent the ownership of the stock of street railway companies, but the form of the same can be improved, and I have the honor to advise the honorable House of Representatives that in my opinion the substance and purpose of the same can be accomplished so far as may be by the passage of an act in substance as follows: If a foreign corporation acquires, owns or controls, directly or indirectly, capital stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of any domestic street railway company having a location in any city or town in this Commonwealth, unless authorized so to do by the laws of this Commonwealth, the supreme judicial court shall have jurisdiction in equity in its discretion to dissolve such domestic street railway company, and the attorney-general shall institute proceedings for such dissolution and for the proper disposition of the assets of such company. CITIES OR TOWNS MASSACHUSETTS HOSPITAL FOR FEEBLE- MINDED NOTICE. R. L., c. 85, § 20, providing that "a city or town in which an inmate of the state hospital is found to have a legal settlement shall be liable to the commonwealth in like manner as one town is liable to another in like cases," does not limit the liability of such city or town to a period of three months next preceding the date of notice, as is the case between towns under R. L., c. 81, § 17, and such liability is not affected by want of notice. intendent of of State Adult the Poor. 1906 July 18. You request my opinion upon the claim made by the Com- To the Supermonwealth against the town of Winthrop for the support Catherine F. Ryan, who was committed to the School for Feeble-minded on March 12, 1905, by a Suffolk court. You say that there was some difficulty in obtaining her history, and that you were not justified in claiming settlement in the town of Winthrop until Nov. 22, 1905. Denial of settlement was made December 4, and, later, settlement was acknowledged and the school sent a bill to the town, which covered the whole period from the date of commitment, March 12, 1905. The town of Winthrop has taken the position that, under R. L., c. 85, § 20, it is not responsible for the charges for a period more than three months prior to the first notice given to it, which was on Nov. 22, 1905. The question is whether this contention of the town is sound. The provision under which towns are liable for the support of settled inmates of the Massachusetts School for the Feeble-minded is found in R. L., c. 87, § 120, which provides as follows: The charges for the support of each inmate in the custodial department of said school shall be three dollars and twenty-five cents a week, and shall be paid quarterly. Such charges for those not having known settlements in the commonwealth shall, after approval by the state board of insanity, be paid by the commonwealth, and may afterward be recovered by the treasurer and receiver general of such inmates, if of sufficient ability, or of any person or kindred bound by law to maintain them, or of the place of their settlement, if subsequently ascertained... The facts of this case bring it directly within this provision of law. This is in effect similar to the section for the recovery of the charges for the support of insane persons in the various insane hospitals, which is found in R. L., c. 87, § 78. In neither of these sections is there any suggestion that the provision of R. L., c. 81, § 17, that as between towns the time for which recovery may be had is limited to three months next preceding the date of notice, are applicable to the Commonwealth. The section upon which the town relies is R. L., c. 85, § 20, which is as follows: A city or town in which an inmate of the state hospital is found to have a legal settlement shall be liable to the commonwealth for his support in like manner as one town is liable to another in like cases; and, in such case, the state board of charity shall adopt such measures relative to notice, removal of a pauper and recovery of expenses as are prescribed for towns in like cases. This provision refers to the charges for the support of paupers at the State hospitals, and has no reference whatsoever to the charges for the support at the insane hospitals or at the school for the feeble-minded. The case of Adams v. The Inhabitants of Ipswich, 116 Mass. 570, is conclusive of the present question. That was a case in which the Treasurer of the Commonwealth brought suit for the support of an insane pauper committed to the Northampton Lunatic Hospital. The town set up the defence that there had been no notice to it under the statute. The court said: The right of recovery in behalf of the commonwealth is not governed by the provisions regulating claims between different towns. It is not limited by reason of want of notice. At this time the provisions of G. S., c. 71, § 49, were in force, and were in effect the same as R. L., c. 85, § 20, upon which the town of Winthrop relies now. Consequently, there can be no question but that the town is liable for the full amount claimed from the date of commitment. MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY COMMISSION TELEGRAPH, TELE- ORIGINAL LOCATIONS. The Massachusetts Highway Commission have no jurisdiction to grant original locations for telephone, telegraph or electric light poles independently of the local board, which, under the provisions of St. 1906, c. 117, are constituted the tribunals for that purpose. Massachusetts The Massachusetts Highway Commission request my opinion To the upon the question of their jurisdiction in the matter of granting Highway locations for lines of telephone, telegraph or electric light poles on State highways. R. L., c. 122, § 2, as amended by Acts of 1903, c. 237, and Acts of 1906, c. 117, is as follows: The mayor and aldermen of a city or the selectmen of a town through which the lines of a company are to pass shall give the company a writing specifying where the poles may be located, the kind of poles, the height at which, and the places where, the wires may run. Any company, except street railway companies, desiring permission to erect poles, piers, abutments or other fixtures upon or along any public way shall, in writing, petition the said mayor and aldermen or selectmen therefor. A public hearing shall be held on such petition, and written notices of the time and place at which such hearing will be held shall be mailed at least three days before said hearing, by the clerk of the city or the selectmen of the town in which the petition for locations has been made, to the owners of real estate along the ways or parts of ways upon which it is proposed to construct said line, as determined by the last preceding assessment for taxation. The clerk of the city or the selectmen of the town shall endorse upon the order or specification of locations granted, his or their certificate that notices were sent and a hearing held as herein provided, and no such order or specification shall be valid without such certificate. After the erection of the lines the mayor and aldermen or selectmen may, after giving the company or its agents an opportunity to be heard, or upon petition of the company without hearing or notice, direct any alteration in the location or erection of the poles, piers or abutments, and in the height of the wires; and no permit shall be required for renewing, repairing or replacing poles, piers, abutments or other fixtures once erected under the provisions of law. Such certificates, specifications and decisions shall be recorded in the records of the city or town. R. L., c. 47, which relates to State highways, contains no specific provision dealing with the location of telegraph, telephone Commission. 1906 July 18. |