working within this commonwealth, in the employ of the contractor, sub-contractor or other person doing or contracting to do the whole or a part of the work contemplated by the contractor shall be requested or required to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day, and every such contract which does not contain this stipulation shall be null and void.

The laws of a State have no extra-territorial effect. The labor laws of California will govern as to the hours of labor that may be required of men in that State. The Legislature evidently considered this phase of the question in enacting sections 1 and 2 of chapter 494 of the Acts of 1911 above quoted. Section 2 expressly provides that "every contract, excluding contracts for the purchase of material or supplies, to which the commonwealth . . is a party which may involve the employment of laborers, workmen or mechanics shall contain a stipulation that no laborer, workman or mechanic working within this commonwealth shall be required," etc., clearly limiting the provisions of this section to work done or to be done in this Commonwealth. If your Board contracts to have any work done in this Commonwealth, of course all the statutes above quoted will certainly apply to all such

Under St. 1913, c. 705, the Board of Registration in Pharmacy should pass on each application for a permit to do drug business, and may not adopt a set of rules to govern generally.

Hospitals and dispensaries need not have registered pharmacists when in charge of competent physicians.

FEB. 14, 1914.

Mr. ALBERT J. BRUNELLE, Secretary, Board of Registration in Pharmacy. DEAR SIR: You request my opinion upon two questions:

1. Whether, under chapter 705 of the Acts of 1913, the Board of Registration in Pharmacy has the right to adopt rules specifying what kind of persons, firms and corporations they may deem qualified to conduct a drug store; and if they do not deem a person, firm or cor

poration qualified to conduct a drug store can the Board refuse the permit designated in said act?

2. Does chapter 76 of the Revised Laws make it necessary for hospitals and dispensaries to have registered pharmacists in charge of their drug dispensing departments?

Taking up your second question first, I have to say that in my opinion chapter 76 of the Revised Laws does not make it necessary for hospitals and dispensaries to have registered pharmacists in charge of their drug-dispensing departments. The purpose of the law was to place the dispensing of drugs and medicines in the hands of persons skilled in that kind of business, so that it might at all times be intelligently and safely done. In dispensaries and hospitals this part of the business is always in the hands of a competent physician and the need of a registered pharmacist does not exist.

Referring now to your first question, section 3 of chapter 705 of the Acts of 1913 reads as follows:

The board of registration in pharmacy shall, upon application, issue a permit to keep open a store for the transaction of the retail drug business to such persons, firms and corporations as the board may deem qualified to conduct such a store. The application for such a permit shall be made in such manner and in such form as the board shall determine. A permit issued as herein provided shall be exposed in a conspicuous place in the store for which the permit is issued and shall expire on the first day of January following the date of its issue. The fee for the permit shall be one dollar.

No such permit shall be issued for a corporation to keep open a store for the transaction of the retail drug business, unless it shall appear to the satisfaction of the said board that the management of the drug business in such store is in the hands of a registered pharmacist.

The two sections above quoted place upon the Board of Registration in Pharmacy the duty of passing upon each application for a permit. The statute indicates that the Board may establish rules as to the form and manner in which application for a permit shall be made. As a practical matter it would be very difficult to establish rules which should determine whether an applicant should have a permit or not. It is my opinion that the statute requires the Board to act upon

each application, and does not authorize the Board to make a set of rules to stand in the place of its judgment.

You further ask: "Can the Board refuse the permit designated in said act?" To that I have to say that in my opinion it is the duty of the Board to refuse a permit to all persons, firms or corporations who in the judgment of the Board are not qualified to conduct such a store.

Very truly yours,

THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General.

Insurance Commissioner - Insurance Companies — Investments. The words "funded indebtedness," as used in St. 1907, c. 576, § 37, cl. 3, are not synonymous with "contingent liability," and investments by insurance companies in railroad mortgage bonds are lawful where the capital stock of such railroad corporation equals at least one-third of its funded indebtedness.

Hon. FRANK H. HARDISON, Insurance Commissioner.

FEB. 16, 1914.

DEAR SIR: You request my opinion as to the right of domestic insurance companies to invest in the mortgage bonds. of the Michigan Central Railroad Company under conditions which you state as follows: "The last published balance sheet of said railroad showed capital stock of $18,738,000 and funded debt, including debentures and equipment certificates, of $43,316,174. This latter figure, however, does not include $14,000,000 Detroit River Tunnel Company first mortgage bonds, which are guaranteed principal and interest by the Michigan Central Railroad, nor does this amount appear in the balance sheet of the Michigan Central Railroad." You further state that in practical effect these bonds of the Detroit River Tunnel Company are an obligation of the Michigan Central Railroad, since that is the only company that operates the tunnel, and all payments of interest and principal must come eventually from it. I am further informed by your office that the property of the Detroit River Tunnel Company has been leased to the Michigan Central Railroad Company for nine hundred and ninety-nine years. You do not state, however, and I do not know, whether the Detroit River Tunnel Company still keeps up its corporate existence or has surrendered its charter. I assume that this company is still in existence, that it pursues its rights under the lease and

collects and receives its rentals from the Michigan Central Railroad Company, and that it is a real corporate entity.

Clause 3 of section 37 of chapter 576 of the Acts of 1907, quoted in your letter, provides that domestic insurance companies may under certain circumstances invest

In the bonds or notes of any railroad or street railway corporation incorporated or located wholly or in part in Massachusetts, or in the mortgage bonds of any railroad corporation located wholly or in part in any state of the United States whose capital stock equals at least one third of its funded indebtedness, which has paid regularly for the five years next preceding the date of such investment all interest charges on said funded indebtedness, and which has paid for such period regularly dividends of at least four per cent per annum upon all its issues of capital stock, or in the mortgage bonds of any railroad, railway or terminal corporation which have been, both as to principal and interest, assumed or guaranteed by any such railroad or railway corporation.

This leads, first, to the inquiry, What is funded indebtedness? The word "funded" has been defined as,

Existing in the form of bonds bearing regular interest; constituting or forming part of the permanent debt of a government or corporation at a fixed rate of interest. (Century Dictionary.)

66

The term "funded debt," even in common parlance, is never made use of to describe an ordinary debt growing out of a transaction with one individual and represented by a single instrument. It is essential to the idea of a funded debt, even under the broadest use of the term, that the debt should be divided into three parts or shares, represented by different instruments, so that such parts or shares may be readily transferable." Ketchum v. City of Buffalo, 14 N. Y. 356.

Taking these definitions of the word "funded" in connection with the word "indebtedness," it becomes evident that funded indebtedness is a very different thing from contingent liability. In the question you submit there appears to be nothing more than a contingent liability of the Michigan Central Railroad Company so far as the bonds of the Detroit River Tunnel Company are concerned; that is, the railroad company will have to pay if the tunnel company fails to meet its obligation. So far as we are informed, the Detroit River Tunnel Company is still in existence, and the rentals

reserved to it in the lease of its property are regularly paid, and may be supposed to be sufficient to provide for the payment of its liabilities. It is my opinion, upon the information at hand, that the bonds of the Detroit River Tunnel Company are not a part of the funded indebtedness of the Michigan Central Railroad Company, and that within the limitations fixed by our statutes insurance companies may invest in the mortgage bonds of the Michigan Central Railroad Company. Very truly yours,

THOMAS J. BOYNTON, Attorney-General.

State Board of Health Local Boards of Health Inspectors of Slaughtering.

A local board of health cannot lawfully nominate one of its own members as inspector of slaughtering, and the State Board of Health is within its rights in refusing to approve a nomination so made.

FEB. 17, 1914.

MARK W. RICHARDSON, M.D., Secretary, State Board of Health.
DEAR SIR: You ask my opinion upon certain facts which
in your communication to this department under date of
Oct. 28, 1911, you stated as follows:

In accordance with chapters 297 and 534 of the Acts of 1911, the board of health of a certain town has nominated as inspector of slaughtering one of its own members. In other words, two members of the local board of health have voted for the third to fill this office as inspector of slaughtering. In this position, the nominee has been a party to his own appointment to a position in which he will have to pass upon the character of his own work and upon the amount of the compensation which he is to derive from it.

The question at issue is, can such an appointment be considered legal by this Board?

The statute conferring authority upon your Board in regard to the approval of nominations of inspectors of slaughtering is to be found in section 2 of chapter 534 of the Acts of 1911, which provides as follows:

For the purposes of this act inspectors shall be appointed, shall be compensated, and may be removed in accordance with the provisions of law relating to inspectors of animals. The first appointments under this act shall be made within thirty days after its passage.