working within this commonwealth, in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contractor shall be requested or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, and every such contract which does not contain this stipulation shall be null and void. The laws of a State have no extra-territorial effect. The labor laws of California will govern as to the hours of labor that may be required of men in that State. The Legislature evidently considered this phase of the question in enacting sections 1 and 2 of chapter 494 of the Acts of 1911 above quoted. Section 2 expressly provides that "every contract, excluding contracts for the purchase of material or supplies, to which the commonwealth is a party which may involve the employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no laborer, workman or mechanic working within this commonwealth shall be required," etc., clearly limiting the provisions of this section to work done or to be done in this Commonwealth. If your Board contracts to have any work done in this Commonwealth, of course all the statutes above quoted will certainly apply to all such contracts. Very truly yours, THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General. Board of Registration in Pharmacy - Registered Pharmacists Hospitals. Under St. 1913, c. 705, the Board of Registration in Pharmacy should pass on each application for a permit to do drug business, and may not adopt a set of rules to govern generally. Hospitals and dispensaries need not have registered pharmacists when in charge of competent physicians. FEB. 14, 1914. Mr. ALBERT J. BRUNELLE, Secretary, Board of Registration in Pharmacy. DEAR SIR: You request my opinion upon two questions: 1. Whether, under chapter 705 of the Acts of 1913, the Board of Registration in Pharmacy has the right to adopt rules specifying what kind of persons, firms and corporations they may deem qualified to conduct a drug store; and if they do not deem a person, firm or corporation qualified to conduct a drug store can the Board refuse th permit designated in said act? 2. Does chapter 76 of the Revised Laws make it necessary for ho pitals and dispensaries to have registered pharmacists in charge their drug dispensing departments? Taking up your second question first, I have to say tha in my opinion chapter 76 of the Revised Laws does not mal it necessary for hospitals and dispensaries to have registere pharmacists in charge of their drug-dispensing department The purpose of the law was to place the dispensing of dru and medicines in the hands of persons skilled in that kind business, so that it might at all times be intelligently ar safely done. In dispensaries and hospitals this part of th business is always in the hands of a competent physicia and the need of a registered pharmacist does not exist. Referring now to your first question, section 3 of chapt 705 of the Acts of 1913 reads as follows: The board of registration in pharmacy shall, upon application, iss a permit to keep open a store for the transaction of the retail dr business to such persons, firms and corporations as the board m deem qualified to conduct such a store. The application for such permit shall be made in such manner and in such form as the boa shall determine. A permit issued as herein provided shall be expos in a conspicuous place in the store for which the permit is issued a shall expire on the first day of January following the date of its issu The fee for the permit shall be one dollar. Section 4 of the same chapter provides that No such permit shall be issued for a corporation to keep open a sto for the transaction of the retail drug business, unless it shall appe to the satisfaction of the said board that the management of the dr business in such store is in the hands of a registered pharmacist. The two sections above quoted place upon the Board Registration in Pharmacy the duty of passing upon each a plication for a permit. The statute indicates that the Boa may establish rules as to the form and manner in which a plication for a permit shall be made. As a practical matt it would be very difficult to establish rules which should det mine whether an applicant should have a permit or not. is my opinion that the statute requires the Board to act up each application, and does not authorize the Board to make a set of rules to stand in the place of its judgment. You further ask: "Can the Board refuse the permit designated in said act?" To that I have to say that in my opinion it is the duty of the Board to refuse a permit to all persons, firms or corporations who in the judgment of the Board are not qualified to conduct such a store. Very truly yours, THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General. Insurance Commissioner - Insurance Companies - Investments. The words "funded indebtedness," as used in St. 1907, c. 576, § 37, cl. 3, are not synonymous with "contingent liability," and investments by insurance companies in railroad mortgage bonds are lawful where the capital stock of such railroad corporation equals at least one-third of its funded indebtedness. Hon. FRANK H. HARDISON, Insurance Commissioner. FEB. 16, 1914. DEAR SIR: You request my opinion as to the right of domestic insurance companies to invest in the mortgage bonds of the Michigan Central Railroad Company under conditions which you state as follows: "The last published balance sheet of said railroad showed capital stock of $18,738,000 and funded debt, including debentures and equipment certificates, of $43,316,174. This latter figure, however, does not include $14,000,000 Detroit River Tunnel Company first mortgage bonds, which are guaranteed principal and interest by the Michigan Central Railroad, nor does this amount appear in the balance sheet of the Michigan Central Railroad." You further state that in practical effect these bonds of the Detroit River Tunnel Company are an obligation of the Michigan Central Railroad, since that is the only company that operates the tunnel, and all payments of interest and principal must come eventually from it. I am further informed by your office that the property of the Detroit River Tunnel Company has been leased to the Michigan Central Railroad Company for nine hundred and ninety-nine years. You do not state, however, and I do not know, whether the Detroit River Tunnel Company still keeps up its corporate existence or has surrendered its charter. I assume that this company is still in existence, that it pursues its rights under the lease and collects and receives its rentals from the Michigan Centr Railroad Company, and that it is a real corporate entity. Clause 3 of section 37 of chapter 576 of the Acts of 190 quoted in your letter, provides that domestic insurance con panies may under certain circumstances invest In the bonds or notes of any railroad or street railway corporati incorporated or located wholly or in part in Massachusetts, or in t mortgage bonds of any railroad corporation located wholly or in pa in any state of the United States whose capital stock equals at lea one third of its funded indebtedness, which has paid regularly for t five years next preceding the date of such investment all intere charges on said funded indebtedness, and which has paid for su period regularly dividends of at least four per cent per annum up all its issues of capital stock, or in the mortgage bonds of any railroa railway or terminal corporation which have been, both as to princip and interest, assumed or guaranteed by any such railroad or railw corporation. This leads, first, to the inquiry, What is funded indebte ness? The word "funded" has been defined as, Existing in the form of bonds bearing regular interest; constituti or forming part of the permanent debt of a government or corporati at a fixed rate of interest. (Century Dictionary.) The term "funded debt," "even in common parlance, never made use of to describe an ordinary debt growing o of a transaction with one individual and represented by single instrument. It is essential to the idea of a funded de even under the broadest use of the term, that the debt shou be divided into three parts or shares, represented by differe instruments, so that such parts or shares may be read transferable." Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 356. Taking these definitions of the word "funded" in conn tion with the word "indebtedness," it becomes evident th funded indebtedness is a very different thing from continge liability. In the question you submit there appears to nothing more than a contingent liability of the Michig Central Railroad Company so far as the bonds of the Detr River Tunnel Company are concerned; that is, the railro company will have to pay if the tunnel company fails meet its obligation. So far as we are informed, the Detr River Tunnel Company is still in existence, and the rent reserved to it in the lease of its property are regularly paid, and may be supposed to be sufficient to provide for the payment of its liabilities. It is my opinion, upon the information at hand, that the bonds of the Detroit River Tunnel Company are not a part of the funded indebtedness of the Michigan Central Railroad Company, and that within the limitations fixed by our statutes insurance companies may invest in the mortgage bonds of the Michigan Central Railroad Company. Very truly yours, THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General. State Board of Health Local Boards of Health Inspectors of Slaughtering. A local board of health cannot lawfully nominate one of its own members as inspector of slaughtering, and the State Board of Health is within its rights in refusing to approve a nomination so made. FEB. 17, 1914. MARK W. RICHARDSON, M.D., Secretary, State Board of Health. In accordance with chapters 297 and 534 of the Acts of 1911, the board of health of a certain town has nominated as inspector of slaughtering one of its own members. In other words, two members of the local board of health have voted for the third to fill this office as inspector of slaughtering. In this position, the nominee has been a party to his own appointment to a position in which he will have to pass upon the character of his own work and upon the amount of the compensation which he is to derive from it. The question at issue is, can such an appointment be considered legal by this Board? The statute conferring authority upon your Board in regard to the approval of nominations of inspectors of slaughtering is to be found in section 2 of chapter 534 of the Acts of 1911, which provides as follows: For the purposes of this act inspectors shall be appointed, shall be compensated, and may be removed in accordance with the provisions of law relating to inspectors of animals. The first appointments under this act shall be made within thirty days after its passage. |