In an opinion heretofore rendered to your Department under date of June 2, 1910, by Second Deputy Attorney General Hargest, (Official Opinions of the Attorney General, 1909-10, page 87), it is held that the words "original writ," as used in the above quoted section of the Act of 1830, are used to describe "the first process or judicial instrument by which the court commands something therein mentioned to be done." Upon all such writs a tax of fifty cents is fixed. Your present inquiry, however, relates more particularly to the provision fixing a tax of twenty-five cents on "every transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace or alderman," and the question now arising is, whether an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace or alderman is to be considered as included in the general description "every transcript of a judgment of a justice of the peace or alderman." By the 4th section of the Act of May 20, 1810, 5 Su. 164, it is provided that when an appeal is taken from the judgment of a justice of the peace, the whole proceeding "shall be certified to the prothonotary of the proper county, who shall enter the same on his docket; and the suit shall from thence take grade with and be subject to the same rules as other actions where the parties are considered to be in court," and it is further provided in said section that the party appellant "shall file the transcrip of the record of the justice in the prothonotary's office on or before the first day of the next term of the court of common pleas of the proper county, etc." In addition to this provision for the filing of a transcript of the record of the magistrate upon an appeal from his judgment, provision is made by the 10th section of said act of 1810, 5 Sm. 166, for the entering by prothonotaries on their dockets of "transcripts. of judgments obtained before justices of the peace of their proper counties," for the purpose of obtaining a lien upon the real estate of the defendant or defendants in said judgments, and to the end that further proceedings may be had thereon. These last mentioned transcripts are clearly within the class of transcripts referred to in the said Act of 1830, and for the filing of which a State tax of twenty-five cents is therein fixed. In view of the provision of the said Act of 1910 that when an appeal has been taken from the judgment of a justice of the peace, and the appellant has filed a transcript of the record of the justice in the prothonotary's office of the proper county, "the suit shall from thence. take grade with and be subject to the same rules as other actions. where the parties are considered to be in court," it is clear that the paper certified by the magistrate and filed in the office of the prothonotary, is not an original writ within the meaning of the said act of 1830, as construed in the opinion herein referred to. In a proceeding of this character nothing is issued out of the court of common pleas. The affect of the filing of the paper is to place a suit upon the records of the court of common pleas in which suit the parties are "considered to be in court." The filing of this paper within the time specified by law perfects the appeal. The Act of 1810 describes the paper required to be filed by the appellant as "the transcript of the record of the justice." You are accordingly advised that such transcripts filed for the purpose of appealing from the judgments entered by justices of the peace or aldermen, are "transcripts of a judgment of a justice of the peace or alderman," within the meaning of the 3rd section of the Act of 1830, and that a State tax of twenty-five cents is to be charged and collected upon each transcript of this character, as well as upon transcripts filed for the purpose of securing a lien upon real estate. Very truly yours, JOHN C. BELL, APPROPRIATIONS—UNEXPENDED BALANCE. The appropriation of 14th June, 1911, to the Panama-Pacific International Exposition Commission did not lapse by May 31, 1913. Office of the Attorney General, Harrisburg, Pa., February 19th, 1914. Hon. A. W. Powell, Auditor General, Harrisburg, Pa. Sir: This Department is in receipt of your letter of February 13th, 1914, asking to be advised whether your Department may lawfully charge against the appropriation of $50,000, made to defray the expenses of the Panama Pacific International Exposition, by the joint resolution of 14th June, 1911, P. L., 950, a requisition from that Commission now presented to you. The Joint Resolution of 14th June, 1911, P. L., 950, was passed to provide for the proper representation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at an exposition which, as recited in the act, is to be held in San Francisco in the year 1915, and the proper representation referred to in the act is stated to include "the erection of a suitable State building, and aiding exhibitors as in their judgment shall be proper in order to secure exhibits on the part of the Commonwealth." The sum of $50,000 was appropriated to defray the expenses of the Commission. By the Act approved 25th July, 1913, P. L. 1863, $150,000, was appropriated, "for the purpose of further carrying out the provisions of a joint resolution approved the 14th day of June, 1911." The question which you ask is whether the unexpended balance of the appropriation made by the Joint Resolution of 1911 lapsed into the State Treasury on May 31, 1913, the end of the fiscal period for appropriations made by the Legislature of 1911. The rule in cases of this kind is stated in our opinion to you under date of January 27, 1914, in reference to the unexpended balance from an appropriation made to the Commission to investigate and report upon the needed requirements for the proper and safe construction of buildings within the Commonwealth, as follows: "The general principle may be stated to be that unless the act making the appropriation is of such a nature that it could not reasonably have been expected or intended that the sum appropriated would be expended or its expenditure actually contracted for by the end of the two fiscal years succeeding the meeting of the Legislature, the balance not expended or actually contracted to be expended, will be deemed to revert to the State Treasury at the end of the said two years.” Applying that test to the present inquiry, it is clear that the act making the appropriation, viz., the act of 14th June, 1911, was not of such a nature that it could have expected or intended that the sum appropriated would be expended, or its expenditure actually contracted for by May 31, 1913, because the purpose of the appropriation was to provide for the representation of the State at an exposition which would not be held unto two years after May 31, 1913, and the work of the Commission was evidently intended to extend quite up to the time that the exposition opened, if not beyond that time. It clearly was not intended, if indeed it was possible, to erect the State Building and arrange for the exhibits in it by May, 1913. You are therefore advised that the unexpended balance of the appropriation of 1911 did not lapse, but that that balance, together with the apropriation made by the Act of 1913, is available for the proper uses of the Commission, and that the requisition drawn against the appropriation of $50,000 should be honored by your Department. Very truly yours, JOHN C. BELL, INCOMPATIBLE OFFICES. The offices of Deputy State Fire Marshal and County Commissioners are not incompatible. Office of the Attorney General, Harrisburg, Pa., March 26th, 1914. C. P. Rogers, Jr. Esq., Chief Bureau of Accounts, Auditor General's Department, Harrisburg, Pa. Sir: This Department is in receipt of your letter of March 10, 1914, requesting an opinion as to the right of Thomas H. Ledden, who has been appointed a Deputy State Fire Marshal, to occupy that position during the period of his service as County Commissioner of Elk County. Article XII, Section 2, of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, prohibits the holding of paid State offices by Federal office holders, and concludes: "The General Assembly may, by law, declare what offices are incompatible." Pursuant to this provision, the Act of 15th May, 1874, P. L., 186, was passed, and by its sections certain designated offices were declared to be incompatible. The only reference in this act, or in any other legislation concerning the incompatibility of offices, to county commissioners, is Section 7 of the Act of 1874, which provides: "No county commissioner shall be eligible to serve as a member of the Board of Health or Director of the Public Schools during his continuance in office." You are advised that there is no incompatibility in the two offices, and that Mr. Ledden, therefore, is entitled to occupy the position of Deputy State Fire Marshal during his encumbency of the office of County Commissioner. Very truly yours, WM. N. TRINKLE, Third Deputy Attorney General. MOTHERS' PENSIONS. The expenses of trustees of Mothers' Pension Funds in attending a conference at Pittsburgh cannot be paid by the Auditor General. Office of the Attorney General, Harrisburg, Pa., June 16, 1914. Hon. A. W. Powell, Auditor General, Harrisburg, Pa. Sir: This Department is in receipt of your inquiry under date of May 1st asking, in substance, to be advised whether any part of the appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars made by the Act of April 29, 1913, P. L. 118, for the payment of the State's share of the Mothers' Pensions, provided for in said act, and for the payment of certain expenses of the trustees whose appointment is provided for therein, will be available for the payment of such expenses as may be incurred by the trustees of Mothers' Pension Funds appointed in the various counties of the Commonwealth while attending the contemplated general conference of trustees of Mothers' Pension Funds to be held at Pittsburgh in the County of Allegheny during the first week of June, 1914. I infer from your inquiry that it is proposed to hold a conference in Pittsburgh of all the trustees of Mothers' Pension Funds, who have been appointed and are now serving throughout the Commonwealth under the provisions of the above mentioned Act of Assembly, and you now desire to be advised whether you, as Auditor General, have authority in law to pay to the trustees of counties, other than the County of Allegheny, the traveling and hotel expenses which will be incurred by them in attending said conference. The purpose of the act in question, as expressed in its title, is to "Provide monthly payments as approved by the trustees to indigent, widowed or abandoned mothers for partial support of their children in their own homes." The act provides, inter alia, for the appointment by the Governor of not less than five nor more than seven women, residents of each county desiring to avail itself of the provisions of the act, to act as trustees, which trustees are authorized to recommend, after investigation, the payment of certain sums to certain mothers for the purpose of partially supporting their children in their own homes. It is provided by the second section of the act that: "The administration of this act shall lie solely in the hands of the trustees appointed annually by the Governor. They shall serve without pay; but shall be permitted to charge for traveling expenses, in making investigations of cases before a final recommendation is |