railroad laws affecting the questions submitted. These schedules are at the service of the House of Representatives, or of such committees of the Legislature as may desire to use them, and for that purpose are herewith transmitted. To the Trustees The appropriation of $25,000, under St. 1897, c. 205, for the use of the trustees of the Medfield Insane Asylum in completing the asylum, is not governed by the statutes relating to annual appropriations, providing that if not expended within two years such appropriation shall lapse. A reservation of $2,000, inade by the trustees and not by the Legislature, becomes, when the purposes for which it was reserved are accomplished, available for use in accordance with the original purposes of the appropriation. I have your letter of the 29th, stating that after settling all possible claims for land damages, $2,000 of the appropriation granted your commission under St. 1897, c. 205, which had been reserved to pay such damages, is now available; and requiring my opinion upon the question whether it can be used for extending the water system of the asylum and supplying the stock barn. The statute in question appropriated the sum of $25,000 for the use of the trustees in completing the asylum. There is nothing in the act which requires you to set aside any balance for land damages, although, of course, it was your duty to see that they were paid from the appropriation. The reservation of $2,000 therefore, being voluntary and not made by the Legislature, becomes, when the purposes for which you have reserved it are accomplished, available for use in accordance with the original purposes of the appropriation, and may be so expended. This appropriation is not governed by the statutes relating to annual appropriations, providing that they shall be expended within two years, and if not so expended shall lapse. BOSTON, CAPE COD & NEW YORK CANAL COMPANY ISSUE A bill to amend the charter of the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company, instead of providing for the authorization of stock and bonds from time to time, as the needs of construction require, and for the expenditure of the proceeds only in such construction, requires the joint board provided for in the charter to ascertain in advance the entire cost of the canal, and to authorize the issuance of the whole amount of stock and bonds needed to cover the cost so ascertained. If the actual cost of construction should be less than such estimate by the joint board, the balance of stock not required for purposes of construction would become the property of the corporation, and, in so far as it did not stand for nor represent capital actually invested, would be "watered stock." 1900 I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a copy of the To the Senate. order adopted by the Honorable Senate April 5, requiring the April 6. opinion of the Attorney-General upon the following question, to wit: "Would the enactment of House Bill No. 976, being an act relative to the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company, as amended by the House and by the Senate on April 4, 1900, afford to the Boston, Cape Cod & New York Canal Company under any circumstances the opportunity in the issue of their securities to practice what is commonly known as stock watering?" Inasmuch as the original charter of the company (St. 1899, c. 448) provides that the stock and bonds authorized therein shall be issued under the provisions of St. 1894, c. 462 (being what is commonly called the anti-stock-watering act relating to steam and street railways), I assume that the purpose of the question submitted is practically to require the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral on the question whether the amendment excepting the company from certain of the provisions of that act so far modifies the act as to make it possible for the company to issue stock not representing capital actually invested. I understand stock watering to be the issuance of stock not based upon capital actually invested. The anti-stock-watering act, to which I refer (St. 1894, c. 462), is intended to prevent the possibility of such over-issuance. It provides, in substance, that railroad and street railway companies shall "hereafter issue only such amounts of stock and bonds as may from time to time, upon investigation by the board of railroad commissioners, be deemed and be voted by them to be reasonably requisite for the purposes for which such issue of stock or bonds has been authorized." The act further provides that the "vote of the board approving such issue shall specify the respective amounts of stock and bonds authorized to be issued for the respective purposes to which the proceeds thereof are to be applied." And to make it certain that such stock and bonds shall represent only expenditures actually incurred, the act further provides that "no company included in the terms of this act shall apply the proceeds of such stock or bonds to any purpose not specified in such certificate." The present bill amends the original charter by modifying certain of the provisions of the anti-stock-watering act in their application to this company. Instead of providing for the authorization of stock and bonds from time to time, and only as needs of construction require, and providing that the proceeds shall be expended only in such construction, it requires the joint board to ascertain in advance the entire cost of the canal and its equipment, and to authorize, in the first instance, the issuance of the whole amount of stock and bonds which will be needed to cover the cost so ascertained. It contains no provision for cancellation of any stock which shall prove not to be required, in case it shall turn out that the estimate of the joint board was in excess of the actual cost. If the joint board is able to ascertain definitely the cost of construction and equipment of the canal, there appears to be no more liability to stock watering in the present bill, as amended, than in the original charter. If, however, the actual cost of construction shall prove to be less than the estimate so fixed in advance by the joint board, the balance of stock in the hands of the State Treasurer not required for the purposes of construction will become the property of the corporation, and, in so far as it does not stand for nor represent the cost of construction, will be, as I understand the term, watered stock. In this aspect of the case, the question, therefore, is one of fact rather than of law. In case the board shall be able to estimate correctly the cost of the canal, and shall authorize the issuance of only so much stock and so many bonds as are equivalent to such cost, there will apparently be no opportunity for stock watering. But, if, on the other hand, the board overestimates the cost, there being no provision for cancellation of stock and bonds which prove to be not actually needed for the purpose of construction, the issuance of the whole stock having been authorized in advance, the result will be that the surplus stock and bonds to which the company may so become entitled will be stock not representing capital actually invested, and will come within the definition of what I understand to be watered stock. A contract of reinsurance is not a contract of insurance "on property" within the meaning of St. 1894, c. 522, § 60, and such contracts entered into by insurance companies need not be in the standard form required by that section. ance Com. 1900 Your letter of April 3 requires the opinion of the Attorney- To the InsurGeneral upon the question whether contracts of reinsurance en- missioner. tered into by insurance companies must be in the standard form April 6. provided by St. 1894, c. 522, § 60. The section in question provides that insurance companies making contracts of insurance "on property" must issue them in the standard form. A contract of reinsurance, however, is not a contract of insurance on property, within the meaning of that section. The original policy is such an insurance upon property, but reinsurance is merely a contract between two companies that the reinsuring company will assume the whole or a portion of the risk taken by the original company. There is no statute, therefore, requiring the contract of reinsurance to be in the standard form, or in any other particular form. The law requiring contracts of insurance to be made in the standard form is for the benefit of insured who might otherwise not easily understand all the provisions contained in the policy which they receive. Contracts of reinsurance, however, are entered into between insurance companies who are able to protect themselves, and may therefore make such contracts as they see fit. PAUPER MARRIED WOMAN DOMICILE SETTLEMENT. To the Super- 1900 April 6. In Pub. Sts., c. 83, § 1, cl. 7, which provides that only such married women as have Your letter of January 11 requires the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral as to the settlement of a female, upon the facts stated in a history annexed to the letter, which is substantially as follows: The female in question was born in Northampton, in 1847. She was married in 1868 to a man who had a military settlement in Shutesbury. This husband died in 1869. In 1871 she was married a second time, and removed with her husband in 1873 to Worcester, where she has since resided. She had aid in 1886 for her child by her first husband. This aid was furnished by Worcester, and for it Worcester was reimbursed by Shutesbury. Her second husband abandoned his family in Worcester in 1875. "He has not lived with his wife since, and has done nothing for her support. He has resided most of the time since leaving her in New York and Washington, D. C. He has made occasional visits to Massachusetts, but never to remain over two or three weeks. His wife saw him in Amherst, on the street, in 1896. He has gained no settlement in his own right." The woman in question acquired a settlement in Shutesbury through the military settlement of her first husband in that place. |