St. 1907, c. 563, § 13, provides for a penalty of not more than $1,000 for the neglect or refusal by an executor, administrator or trustee to file an inventory and appraisal in the probate court or with the Tax Commissioner. The purpose of this provision is to require that the information necessary for the computation of the tax be furnished for the use of the Tax Commissioner. The force of the statute is to a considerable degree lost if there is no effectual method for the collection of this penalty. I therefore recommend legislation which shall authorize collection by information substantially as provided for the collection of penalties and forfeitures imposed by the corporation law.

DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR THE COM

MONWEALTH.

In my report of last year I directed the attention of the Legislature to the conditions then existing with reference to the official publication in the Massachusetts reports of the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth, and recommended additional legislation to secure the prompt and seasonable publication of such decisions, and to provide the reporter of decisions with adequate means in the premises. Under St. 1908, c. 358, which was passed in consequence of this recommendation, I am advised that the reporter of decisions has fully complied with the requirements of said statute, and at this date has furnished for publication all of the opinions available for that purpose. In order to insure a continuance of efficiency in this respect, I recommend an additional appropriation of $500, for clerk hire and incidental expenses, which I am informed is needed by the reporter of decisions for such purpose.

UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS IN SAVINGS BANKS.

In my report for the year 1906 I suggested the passage of a law that unclaimed deposits in savings banks, where the depositor could not be found, be paid to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, subject to be repaid to the person having and establishing a lawful claim thereto. In accord

ance with this suggestion, St. 1907, c. 340, which appears in the codification of the savings bank law as St. 1908, c. 590, §§ 56 and 57, was passed. This statute provides that the probate court shall on the application of the Attorney-General order that amounts of money deposited with a savings bank "to the credit of depositors who have not made a deposit on said account or withdrawn any part thereof or the interest, or on whose pass books the interest has not been added, which shall have remained unclaimed for more than thirty years after the date of such last deposit, withdrawal of any part of principal or interest, or adding of interest on the pass book, and for which no claimant is known or the depositor of it cannot be found, shall, with the increase and proceeds thereof, be paid to the treasurer and receiver general, to be held and used by him according to law, subject to be repaid to the person having and establishing a lawful right thereto, with interest at the rate of three per cent per annum from the time when it was so paid to said treasurer to the time when it is paid over by him to such person."

On May 5, 1908, an application was filed in the probate court of the county of Suffolk for an order that The Provident Institution for Savings in the Town of Boston pay to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth the unclaimed deposits held by it. The bank objected to the making of the order, on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional, as impairing the obligation of the contract contained in its charter and as depriving it and the depositors of property without due process of law. The case was argued before the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court at its November sitting, and a decision was rendered Jan. 12, 1909, to the effect that the act was constitutional, and that the decree of the probate court, ordering that the unclaimed deposits be paid to the Treasurer, should be affirmed. This case involves $114,729.14. Unless it should be carried to the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of error, the Attorney-General will be in a position to file other applications under this statute. The applications now filed and ripe for filing will, it is estimated, result in the payments of about $500,000 to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth.

ORDERS FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE PRICE OF Gas.

The case of Haverhill Gas Light Company v. Barker and others is still pending in the Circuit Court of the United States. This is a bill in equity to restrain the Board of Gas and Electric Light Commissioners and the AttorneyGeneral from enforcing an order of the commissioners fixing the price at which gas should be sold by the Haverhill Gas Light Company at 80 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. The company attacks the order on the ground that it is unconstitutional, in that it requires the sale of gas at so low a rate as to deprive the company of its property without due process of law. The case has been referred to a special master, to find the facts and report thereon to the court. As many of the issues involved in this case were involved in the case of the Consolidated Gas Company v. City of New York et al., which has been pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, no hearings have been had before the master. A decision has recently been rendered in the New York case, though the full text of the opinion has not been made public. This decision sustained the order of the New York Gas Commission, requiring the company to sell gas at 80 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. It is expected that the decision, when the grounds of it have been made known, will be decisive of many of the questions raised in the case brought by the Haverhill Gas Light Company.

In May of the present year a bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States by the Salem Gas Light Company, to restrain the Board of Gas and Electric Light Commissioners and the Attorney-General from enforcing a similar order fixing the price at which gas should be sold by this company at $1.10 per 1,000 cubic feet. The issues involved in this case are similar to those involved in the case brought by the Haverhill Gas Light Company, and, though this case is practically ripe for hearing, no hearings have been had pending the decision of the case of the Consolidated Gas Light Company v. City of New York et al., already referred to.

CHAPTER 86 oF THE RESOLVES OF 1908.

By Resolves of 1908, chapter 86, the Attorney-General was authorized to inquire and determine to what extent, if any, the sovereignty of the Commonwealth had been violated by the Berkshire Power Company, a Connecticut corporation, which has erected and is now maintaining a dam across the Housatonic River in the State of Connecticut, and is alleged to have overflowed lands and highways in the town of Sheffield in this Commonwealth. In pursuance of this indication of the desire of the Legislature, I have personally inspected the territory affected, and further investigation upon the question involved is now in progress.

GRADE CROSSINGS.

At my suggestion, the Legislature, by St. 1908, c. 372, authorized the Attorney-General to employ a competent engineer, at an expense not exceeding $5,000 in one year, to examine under his direction the plans submitted to commissioners for the abolition of grade crossings, the actual work of construction and the accounts of expenditures submitted to auditors therein; and on June 4, 1908, I appointed Mr. Henry W. Hayes of Arlington as engineer of grade crossings for the Commonwealth. Mr. Hayes, beside being a competentcivil engineer, had had a long experience and training in the work of railroad construction, and was thoroughly familiar with methods of railroad accounting, and he has proved of the greatest assistance in the work required of this department in connection with the abolition of grade crossings. There being no room available in the State House, an office was established for him at Room 35, No. 8 Beacon Street, where it is intended to have filed copies of the reports of the special commissions for the abolition of grade crossings, with all plans and other papers relating to such cases; and a card index has been almost completed, which is designed to show the essential points in the history of each case.

The total number of hearings on grade crossing matters at which the Commonwealth has been represented during the year was 65, and in several instances plans and estimates

have been prepared and submitted to commissions on behalf of the Commonwealth. The engineer of grade crossings has inspected work of construction in progress at crossings in Boston (Dudley Street), East Boston, Worcester (west of South Worcester station), New Bedford, Belmont, Hyde Park (Fairmount), Barnstable, Williamstown and Somerville (Somerville Avenue); and a careful examination has been made of numerous statements of expenditures presented to auditors. In many cases objections have been made in behalf of the Commonwealth to what were deemed extravagant or unwarranted schemes for the elimination of crossings at grade presented to special commissions, and also to items which the Commonwealth deemed to have been improperly included in statements presented to auditors, objections which I believe have already resulted and will result in considerable saving to the Commonwealth. The saving resulting by reason of the employment of the engineer will, in my opinion, be much greater than the expenditure for his salary and expenses.

MASTERS IN CHANCERY.

By chapter 187 of the Acts of 1906 it was provided that masters in chancery should thereafter have jurisdiction and • the right to act in any county.

Under this law Suffolk masters have taken bail in counties removed from their places of residence. In some cases the sureties have been found worthless.

This act should be amended so that the interests of the Commonwealth will be more securely guarded in bail cases, either by a provision for notice to the district attorney, or a limitation on the right to act on such cases.

CAPITAL TRIALS.

My attention has been called to a recommendation made by two of my predecessors, that section 8 of chapter 157 of the Revised Laws be so amended that capital trials may be conducted by one or more justices of the Superior Court, rather than by two or more, as is now required. I am informed by the court that the change is desired because the detail