whether members of said association or not, who may be injured in the performance of their duty at a fire or in going to or returning from the same, and for the relief of the widows and children of firemen killed in the performance of such duty, in the manner and to the amount determined by a board of five persons, three of whom, not members of said association, shall be appointed by the governor, and two of whom shall be appointed by said association." "Section 74. Officers and members in active service in all incorporated protective departments cooperating with fire departments, and any person performing the duties of a fireman in a town having no organized fire department, shall be entitled to the benefits thereof." "Section 77. If a fireman in a regularly organized fire department of a city or town, or any officer or member in active service of any incorporated protective department acting in concert with fire departments, or a person doing fire duty at the request or by the order of the authorities of a town which has no organized fire department, or a person performing the duties of a fireman in such town, is killed, or dies within sixty days from injuries received while in the performance of his duties, and his death is certified by the city or town clerk and the attending physician or medical examiner to the treasurer and receiver-general, he shall pay to the executor or administrator of such fireman, out of the money received from taxes on fire insurance companies doing business in this Commonwealth, the sum of one thousand dollars for the use equally of his widow and minor children; or if there are minor children but no widow, to their use; or if there is no minor child, to the use of the widow; and if there is no widow or minor child, to the use of the next of kin if dependent on such deceased fireman for support. A child of full age dependent upon such fireman for support shall be regarded as a minor child." The original statute establishing this fund (Acts of 1892, c. 177) does not materially differ from §§ 71 to 76 of the Revised Laws, c. 32; and the provisions of § 77, originally enacted in St. 1893, c. 401, were almost identical with those of said § 77. It appears, therefore, that the Legislature has contemplated two distinct sources of relief for firemen injured, or to the families of those killed, in the service: (1) from the firemen's relief fund, a sum not exceeding in the aggregate $10,000, annually set apart; (2) in cases where firemen are killed or fatally injured, from money in the custody of the Treasurer of the Commonwealth; the source of income in both cases being taxation levied upon fire insurance companies doing business in this Commonwealth. I am of opinion that § 77 does not conclusively limit or restrict the action of the Board provided for in § 73, in relation to relief for firemen who may be injured in the performance of their duties at a fire, or in going to or returning from the same, and for the relief of widows and children of firemen killed in the performance of such duties, in the manner and to the amount to be determined by such Board. It might be held that § 77 acted as a repeal of so much of the preceding sections as related to firemen killed or fatally injured in the performance of their duties; but I do not think this conclusion necessary or inevitable, in view of the fact that the preceding sections were amended by St. 1902, c. 108, which in effect increased the annual appropriation for the firemen's relief fund from $10,000 to $12,000, and showing the apparent intent of the Legislature to continue the relief from the fund, as distributed by the Board. I therefore conclude that the Board of Commissioners of the Firemen's Relief Fund have the same powers and duties which they had previous to the enactment of § 77 in its original form; and that they may, though they are not required to, vote relief to widows and children of firemen if they deem it proper, notwithstanding the provisions in § 77 for the payment of the specific sum of $1,000 in cases of death or fatal injury. Your question is, whether it is obligatory to pay to the widows of deceased firemen killed in the service anything in addition to the amount granted to the minor children; that is to say, whether you are required to pay, in addition to the sum of $1,000, the allowance of $400 made before the enactment of the law providing for the payment of $1,000. It does not appear that formerly it was obligatory upon the Board to grant any specific amount to the widows or children of firemen killed in the service, under § 73, the amount so to be paid being left to the discretion of the Board. I am of opinion that the question of amount of payment, and whether there shall be any payment in addition to the sum of $1,000, is still discretionary with the Board. In other words, I am of opinion that the specific payment of $1,000 upon a death claim is not an exclusive substitute for the former allowance of $400; but I am led to conclude that your Board may well consider this specific payment of $1,000 to be an adequate and reasonable provision, in substitution of the former allowance, and the Legislature may have so intended. At all events, it seems perfectly clear to me that, in the exercise of a wise discretion, and having regard to accomplishing the greatest good from the funds under your control, you may well discontinue the former allowance of $400, especially as I assume that there are more cases calling for relief where there is a disability, than cases arising where a fireman had suffered death in the performance of his duty. I therefore advise you that your Board is authorized, under the present statutory provisions, to discontinue the former allowance of $400, considering the payment of $1,000, specifically provided for, as in lieu of and in substitution for the purpose then not definitely specified in legislation, but now, by the provisions of § 77, designated and established. To the Massachusetts Highway Commis sion. 1902 November 7. MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY COMMISSION-STATE HIGHWAY — The Massachusetts Highway Commission, in removing poles which were erected company. The Massachusetts Highway Commission desires the opinion of the Attorney-General upon the following question: "Along the State highway in the town of Grafton, poles which have in the past been used by the Massachusetts Telephone Company are located. These poles are not now in use; many of them are in bad condition, and the division engineer reports that in his opinion they are a menace to the public travel. The commission has endeavored to have the company (which we understand is now out of existence) remove these poles, and now feel disposed to take the matter in hand and have the poles cut down without further communication with the owners of the poles. Before doing this, however, the commission desires advice . . on the matter." Public-service corporations, which maintain by license pipes, wires or other structures in or under a highway, are not in general regarded as having acquired a property right, such as would entitle them to recover damages, where the recovery was limited to persons whose abutting property is injured by improvement of the highway. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corporation v. Brookline, 121 Mass. 5. It seems to be the rule that such corporations hold their rights and privileges in the street subject to the liability of making changes in the structures which they have erected in the way, whenever public necessity or convenience require changes of location or grade in the highway. See Matter of Deering, 93 N. Y. 361; Natick Gas Light Company v. Natick, 175 Mass. 246, 252. Since the right to maintain telegraph or telephone poles in a highway is subject to the liability of removing or altering the location of such structures whenever public necessity or convenience may require it, it would seem that the companies maintaining such structures would be also subject to the liability to have them removed in cases where they became a public nuisance, because they were a menace to the proper use and enjoyment of the way. Ordinarily, the company would be under a duty to keep such structures in safe and proper condition, and the liability for damages occasioned by their neglect to do so would be sufficient safeguard; but where the company is out of existence, and has abandoned the poles, I am of opinion that the authorities who control the way may properly remove any structures which are dangerous to the safety of the public in using the way, with out thereby incurring any liability to the company. In this instance the State Highway Commission is charged with the care and maintenance of the State highway, where the poles in question are situated (R. L., c. 47, § 6), and the ultimate liability for injuries to persons using the way rests upon the Commonwealth (R. L., c. 47, § 13). It seems to me, therefore, that, if the poles erected along the way have become a menace to the public by reason of decay or neglect, and proper notice of that fact, together with notice that, unless it shall forthwith take adequate measures to ensure safety of existing poles or to substitute new ones, such poles will be removed by the commission, has been given to the company, and a reasonable time allowed for proper action, the State Highway Commission would incur no liability to the company by removing them if it neglects to make such removal. STATE BOARD OF PUBLICATION DOCUMENTS APPROVAL OF To the State November 11. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. The word "documents," as used in St. 1902, c. 438, § 2, extends to and includes a compilation by a State officer of laws relating to the department under his charge, and also a publication by a State Board, containing certain information useful in the schools of the Commonwealth, and such publications must be approved by the State Board of Publication. Your letter of October 27 requires my opinion as to the scope of the authority of the State Board of Publication, under the provisions of St. 1902, c. 438. You state that the question arises upon an application of a State officer for authority to print a compilation of the laws relating to the department under his charge, and upon a request of a State Board for authority to publish certain information useful in the schools of the Commonwealth; and the specific question submitted by you is, whether or not publications of the kind indicated are included within the words "other documents," as used in § 2. St. 1902, c. 438, § 1, establishes a State Board of Publication. Section 2 (the section in question) provides that it shall be the duty of such Board "to examine the annual reports and all spe |