OPINIONS. MEMBER OF STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION To His Excellency, HARTFORD, January 5, 1911. SIMEON E. BALDWIN, Governor. Dear Sir: Your inquiry of this date is here, in which you call my attention to the following facts: "On Monday, October 5th, 1909, Governor Weeks appointed Howell Cheney, Esq., of Manchester, to be a member of the State Board of Education, to fill the vacancy until the third Wednesday of January of the next session of the General Assembly, and signed his commission. Chapter 217 of the Acts of 1909 provides how the State Board of Education shall be constituted; and how vacancies shall be filled. Chapter 238 provides that the acts of 1909 shall take effect October 1st, 1909." and ask "Under the law does the Governor still have the power to appoint one member of said board, or does the vacancy which will be created on January 18th, have to be filled by the General Assembly? وو I am of the opinion that inasmuch as the vacancy referred to will arise during a regular session of the General Assembly, it should be filled by appointment by the General Assembly; but the act of filling this vacancy on the part of the General Assembly will not deprive the Governor of the right given him under Chapter 217, of the Public Acts of 1909, to appoint one member of said board during the present regular session of the General Assembly, for a term of two years, from the first day of July next. At the time Governor Weeks appointed Howell Cheney, Esq., he overlooked the fact that Chapter 233 of the Public Acts of 1907 had been repealed by Chapter 217 of the Public Acts of 1909, so far as the appointment in question was concerned. Respectfully submitted, JNO. H. LIGHT, 19 THE AMERICAN SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF GOVERNOR'S APPROVAL OF BILL PRESENTED. HARTFORD, January 12, 1911. To His Excellency, SIMEON E. BALDWIN, Governor. Dear Sir: I have your inquiry of the 10th inst. asking whether, in my opinion, it is proper for you to approve a bill presented by The American School for the Deaf for several thousand dollars for board of pupils in the Asylum. It is quite clear from what you say that the duties imposed upon the Governor by the Resolution of the General Assembly of 1843 have not been performed according to the requirements of the statute. I believe, that the reason for such failure may be due to the fact that each Governor has followed the practice of the office, rather than the requirements of the statute. I infer that the bill now before you was incurred under the practice which has apparently obtained for many years, and, therefore, it may work injustice not to approve of it. I am of the opinion, therefore, that you should approve of the present bill, but, with the distinct understanding that, hereafter, you will perform strictly the duties imposed upon the Governor by said Resolution of 1843. Respectfully submitted, JNO. H. LIGHT, Attorney-General. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 1911 IS THAT "HELD NEXT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE UNITED STATES CENSUS OF 1910." To His Excellency, HARTFORD, January 23d, 1911. SIMEON E. BALDWIN, Governor. Dear Sir: ·- In your favor of the 21st inst. you ask my opinion as to whether the present session of the General Assembly is, within the meaning of Article Thirty-one of the Amendments to the Constitution of this State, that "held next after the completion of the next census of the United States." 66 In the case of the City of Huntington v. Cast, 149, Ind. 255, it was held that a census " is the official registration of the number of the people; an official enumeration of the inhabitants of a state, etc. Any census of the United States, therefore, may be said to be completed when the last name has been enumerated and registered. I am informed that this was done before January 1st, 1911. So the needed information is obtainable by the present General Assembly, and it is not necessary to wait till the material has been put into book form and published. It appears that nine volumes of the census of 1900 were not published till 1902. It would be unreasonable to assume that said census was not available for constitutional purposes before that time. I am of the opinion that the present session of the General Assembly is, within the meaning of Article Thirty-one in question, that held next after the completion of the census of 1910. Respectfully submitted, JNO. H. LIGHT, Attorney-General. DIRECT PRIMARIES COMMISSION IS DISSOLVED. HON. RICHARD J. DWYER, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE, Hartford, Conn. HARTFORD, January 31, 1911. Dear Sir: You ask my opinion as to whether or not the Commission on Laws Relating to Direct Primaries is still in existence. I find that the Commission in question was appointed by the General Assembly of 1905, and made a report to the General Assembly of 1907, at its January Session, at which session the following resolution was passed: "That so much of the report made to this assembly by the commission appointed under the provisions of a resolution approved July 19, 1905, as relates to primaries and contains recommendations for a law upon that subject be and the same is hereby continued and referred to the next general assembly, and the said commission is hereby continued in existence and instructed to ascertain what legislation is had upon the subject of primaries in the other states during the years 1907 and 1908, and to report the result of their investigations to the general assembly of 1909, together with recommendations for such legislation upon that subject for this state as may seem to them wise." You see by the foregoing resolution that the said commission was expressly continued in existence, and instructed to ascertain certain facts and make their report to the General Assembly of 1909. The Commission performed the duties required of it and reported to the General Assembly of 1909. This report, by resolution, was continued to the present session of the General Assembly. The question is well settled in parliamentary law that whenever a commission is appointed for special work and it performs such work, and makes a report of its doings to the General Assembly, the commission is necessarily discharged, but it may be again revived by referring the report back to said commission with or without further instructions. The resolution passed by the last General Assembly did not serve to continue the commission, and I am therefore of the opinion that it is dissolved. Respectfully submitted, JNO. H. LIGHT, ISRAEL PUTNAM COMMISSION POWER OF TO ENGAGE A KEEPER. HON. WILLIAM H. BURR, HARTFORD, February 15, 1911. PRESIDENT ISRAEL PUTNAM MEMORIAL CAMP COMMISSION. My Dear Sir:- You ask my opinion as to whether your Commission has the power to engage a keeper or superintendent for the Israel Putnam Memorial Camp for the term of one year from date. In view of the fact that the respective terms of all the menbers of your Commission will expire on July 1st, 1911, I am of the opinion that you should not engage such keeper or superintendent for any term extending beyond your own. The new commission should have a free hand in the management of the Camp, and be permitted to appoint a keeper or superintendent to carry out its own plans and policies. Hence, I advise you to engage someone to fill the office in question during the pleasure of the Commission. If the man you place in charge shall make good he will doubtless be continued by the new Commission. Respectfully submitted, JNO. H. LIGHT. Attorney-General. Gentlemen: You ask for my interpretation of the law concerning investments by savings banks in railroad bonds, being section 3428 of the General Statutes, as amended by Chapter 231 of the Public Acts of 1905, which reads as follows: "in the bonds of any railroad company organized under the laws of any of the states mentioned in this section, and which bonds are secured by a first mortgage as the only mortgage security given by such railroad company issuing such bonds upon some portion of the railroad owned by it." The particular question you desire me to answer is "whether or not the bonds of a railroad company, secured by a mortgage on a portion of its railroad, say a mile, that is unencumbered, although there may be several other underlying liens on other portions of its road securing the same bonds, would be permissible investments, always providing that the other requirements of the law have been complied with." In the construction of all statutes in this state words and phrases shall be construed according to the commonly approved usage of the language. General Statutes, Section 1. Hallenbeck v. Getz, 63 Conn., 388. When the language used is not only plain but admits of but one meaning, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. We must assume that the legislature intended to mean what it has plainly expressed, consequently there is no room for construction. The need for interpretation arises only when the words used by the legislature give rise to some ambiguity. Then the courts will construe the language in order to give effect to what they believe to be the real intention of the law makers. Where the legislature uses clear and unequivocal language, capable of only one meaning, it must be enforced, even though it be absurd and mischievous. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, Section 4. It is incorrect to speak of the meaning or intent of a statute as a thing separate and distinct from the meaning of the language. The courts will not construe the intention of an act, except from the words in which it is expressed, applied to the facts as they |