or fidelity in her employees through the hope of speculative rewards; nor does she need to confess misgivings as to the validity of a claim through hesitation to make the legitimate expenditures necessary for its presentation. In summing up, I have the honor to respectfully advise the committee of the Council that, in my opinion, the contract as outlined in the communication of Mr. Tolford, transmitted to me, cannot lawfully be entered into by the Governor and Council; and that, if a contract should be drafted in accordance with the limitations of authority prescribed by the statutes, even then I am of opinion that it would be inconsistent with the interests of the Commonwealth, and wholly at variance with that public policy manifest in legislation, that commits to the law officer of the Commonwealth the responsible charge over litigation in which her interests are involved. Though it appears that the satisfaction of the accounts and claims of this State for expenditures in the Spanish war has been long delayed, I have not been advised by the Governor that such delay required any specific action by this department. Immediately upon receipt of such request, it would have had my immediate attention; and, if it became advisable or necessary to secure legal assistance for the presentation and prosecution of the claim, I would at once seek the approval of the Governor and Council for the appointment of such assistant. Indeed, I respectfully suggest that, if there be occasion for such special legal assistance, it would be, in my judgment, best secured by the employment of an attorney to give attention to the interests of the State at Washington, either upon the basis of an annual salary, or upon some fixed rate of compensation for services rendered. In this manner every detail of legal attention that a claim of the Commonwealth might require would be in charge of a competent attorney, acting under and responsible to the law department of this Commonwealth, and constantly reporting upon all matters of which the officers of this Commonwealth should be advised. CAUCUS PRECEDENCE OF Two POLITICAL PARTIES — - CALL A communication from the chairman of a State committee of a political party, stating that, at a meeting of the executive committee of such State committee, it was voted to hold caucuses of such party upon a specified date throughout the Commonwealth, does not comply with the requirements of R. L., c. 11, § 88, providing that no two political parties shall hold caucuses upon the same day, and that the first filing with the Secretary of the Commonwealth a copy of the call, as provided for in § 87, shall be entitled to precedence on the day named, if it appears that no record was made of any vote to issue a call for caucuses, and that no copy of any such call was transmitted to the Secretary, or that no such call was in fact ever issued. Secretary. I have the honor to acknowledge your communication of July To the 24, with copies of the communications therein referred to. You 1905 July 26. inquire, first, "as to what constitutes a call within the meaning of § 87 of c. 11 of the Revised Laws;" and second, "Which of the two political parties, Democratic or Republican, is entitled to the date mentioned, - September 26 ?" R. L., c. 11, § 87, provides: All caucuses of political parties, except for special elections, for the choice of delegates to political conventions which nominate candidates to be voted for at the annual state election, and for the nomination of candidates to be voted for at such election, shall be held throughout the commonwealth on a day designated by the state committee of the political party for which said caucuses are held; and all of said delegates shall be elected, and all of said candidates shall be nominated, at one caucus. Such caucuses shall be held at the call of the state committee of the political party whose caucuses are to be held, and the chairman and secretary of the state committee of each political party shall, at least twenty-one days before the date on which the caucuses are to be held, forward a copy of the call, with designation of date, to the chairman and secretary of each city and town committee of their party. Section 88 provides: No two political parties shall hold such caucuses on the same day. The party first filing with the secretary of the commonwealth the copy of the call as above provided shall be entitled to precedence on the days named. Section 87 provides that all caucuses of political parties, except for special elections, for the choice of delegates to political conventions which nominate candidates to be voted for at the annual State election, and for the nomination of candidates to be voted for at such election, shall be held throughout the Commonwealth on a day designated by the State committee of the political party for which said caucuses are held. It is further provided that such caucuses shall be held at the call of the State committee of the political party whose caucuses are to be held. Section 88 provides that no two political parties shall hold such caucuses on the same day, and that the party first filing with the Secretary of the Commonwealth the copy of the call as above provided shall be entitled to precedence on the day named. The call for such caucuses must be made by the respective State committees. The legal designation of the days for such caucuses can be made only by filing with the Secretary of the Commonwealth the copy of the call for such caucuses as above specified; and the party first filing such copy of the call is entitled to precedence on the day named therein, to the exclusion of the designation of such day by any subsequent filing. It appears, from the copies of communications transmitted to me, that a notice signed "Arthur Lyman, Chairman of the Democratic State Committee," bearing date May 23, was received at the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth on the 27th of May. This communication states that, at a meeting of the executive committee of the Democratic State committee, it was voted to hold Democratic caucuses throughout the Commonwealth on Tuesday, September 26, 1905. It appears that no record was made of any vote of such committee to issue a call for caucuses, nor was there any copy of any such call transmitted or communicated to your department, nor does it appear that any such call was ever, in fact, issued. I am of opinion, therefore, that the communication of May 23 does not comply with the requirements of § 88, and does not, therefore, make any designation of the date therein referred to which could be held to have any lawful precedence as against the lawful designation of such date thereafter certified to you by another political party. The copies of the communications from the chairman of the Republican State committee and of the certified call for Republican caucuses do appear to me to strictly comply with the requirements of the statute; and I am of opinion that the filing of such copy of the call and of the notice accompanying the same constitutes the first filing of the designation of a day for caucuses, as contemplated by § 88; and that the date, September 26, therein designated, excludes the designation of the same date by another political party. It follows, therefore, that in my opinion the designation of a date as specified in the communication from the Republican State committee does give precedence to that party in the matter of assigning that date; and that the communication from the Democratic State committee in the premises cannot give any right to that party to hold its caucuses upon the twenty-sixth day of September; and that for the purposes of your consideration and action the communication of Mr. Lyman, chairman of the Democratic State committee, must be held to be inoperative. I have advised the officers of the two political parties interested in your inquiry of its pendency, and have given such representatives opportunity to offer such considerations as they might desire before rendering my official opinion; and I am in receipt of a communication from the chairman of the executive committee of the Democratic State committee, in which he advises me that "the Democratic State committee does not desire to press its claim for the date for which it gave notice to the Honorable Secretary, the date not appearing to it to be material. As I am informed the Republican party desires September 26, we will waive our claim and fix another date." It would thus seem that the notice heretofore filed in your department by the chairman of the Democratic State committee may, at his suggestion, be considered as withdrawn and no longer in issue. To the State Health. July 26. FOOD ADULTERATION INDICATION OF ANTISEPTIC OR PRE SERVATIVE SUBSTANCES - BEER AND MALT BEVERAGES. R. L., c. 75, § 18, providing that food as defined by the statute shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains any added antiseptic or preservative substance except those therein enumerated, "but the provisions of this definition shall not apply to any such article if it bears a label on which the presence and the percentage of every such antiseptic or preservative substance are clearly indicated," is applicable to beer and other malt beverages, whether sold for consumption upon the premises or for removal for consumption elsewhere. The secretary of the State Board of Health requests the opinion of the Attorney-General upon the question whether, under the provisions of c. 75 of the Revised Laws, it is permissible to sell beer and other malt beverages containing added antiseptic substances, without marking the can, glass or other vessel in which the said articles are sold, either for consumption on the premises or to be taken away for consumption elsewhere. Section 16 of c. 75 provides that: No person shall manufacture, offer for sale or sell, within this commonwealth, any drug or article of food which is adulterated within the meaning of section eighteen. Section 17 defines the term "food" as including – all articles, simple, mixed or compound, used in food or drink by man. Section 18 provides that food shall be deemed to be adulterated if it contains any added antiseptic or preservative substance, except common table salt, saltpetre, cane sugar, alcohol, vinegar, spices, or, in smoked food, the natural products of the smoking process; but the provisions of this definition shall not apply to any such article if it bears a label on which the presence and the percentage of every such antiseptic or preservative substance are clearly indicated, . Beer and other malt beverages are clearly "food," within the meaning of the word as above defined. There is therefore nothing in the nature or character of beer and malt beverages to exclude them from the application of the statute. It is equally clear that the sale of beer and other malt beverages is a sale |