The provision in R. L, c. 79, § 18, excepting from the benefits of "soldiers' aid " a person, otherwise eligible, who has become poor and unable to support himself by reason of his own criminal or wilful misconduct, is limited in application to veterans; and, in the case of the widow or other dependent relative of a soldier who was himself entitled to receive such aid, the fact that poverty was the result of insanity, caused by intemperance, is not material.

J. F. LEWIS, M.D., Superintendent, State Adult Poor.

JAN. 13, 1903.

DEAR SIR: You require my opinion upon the question of the right of an inmate of the Worcester Insane Hospital to receive "soldiers' aid," under the provisions of R. L., c. 79, § 18.

It appears that the inmate in question is the widow of a soldier who had a settlement in the city of Boston, and who served in the army of the United States during the war of the rebellion and received an honorable discharge from all enlistments therein; and it is alleged that she is in need of the assistance afforded by the statute by reason of insanity, caused by intemperance.

R. L., c. 79, § 18, provides in part that "if a person who served in the army or navy of the United States in the war of the rebellion and received an honorable discharge from all enlistments therein, and who has a legal settlement in a city or town in the commonwealth, becomes, from any cause except his own criminal or wilful misconduct, poor and entirely or partially unable to provide maintenance for himself, his wife and minor children under the age of sixteen years, or for a dependent father or mother; or if such person dies leaving a widow or such minor children or a dependent father or mother without proper means of support, he or they shall receive such support as may be necessary by the city or town in which they or either of them have a legal settlement."

The Commissioner of Soldiers' Relief for the city of Boston has raised the question whether the exclusion from the benefits of the statute of a soldier who has become poor and entirely or partially unable to provide maintenance for himself and his family through his own criminal or wilful misconduct, may be extended to the following provision with regard to the widow or minor children or the other dependent relatives named of a soldier who was himself within the qualifications of the statute.

It is admitted that there was no express exception in the case of the widow or other dependents named in the statute; but it is contended that it is the spirit of the law that its benefits should not be extended to persons who become poor by reason of their own criminal or wilful misconduct.

While there is much force in this contention, I am of opinion that the exception referred to in the case of the soldier himself should not be construed to include his widow, minor children or dependent father or mother. The purpose of the act was undoubtedly to insure the proper maintenance of worthy veterans and their families, and the aid to be furnished to the widow or other relatives of the soldier himself was in the nature of a reward to him, and an assurance that those dependent upon him should be provided for; and this ought not to be held contingent upon their conduct, especially since it might be a perplexing and difficult problem to determine whether the insanity was due wholly to wilful fault, or to misfortune.

It seems more consistent with the true intent of the act to hold that the provision excepting a soldier reduced to poverty by his own wilful or criminal conduct from the benefit of the statute does not extend to the widow or other dependent relatives of a worthy veteran; and that the alleged fact that the person in question became insane through intemperance is not material.

Very truly yours,

HERBERT PARKER, Attorney-General.

Civil Service Chief Superintendent

Officers appointed by the

Board of Public Works in the City of Woburn.

Under the provisions of St. 1897, c. 172, amending the charter of the city of Woburn, and creating in section 32 a board of public works, whose affairs are divided into four administrative bureaus, namely, sewers, highways, water and water supply, and public buildings and grounds, officers appointed by such board and designated respectively superintendent of sewers, superintendent of highways, superintendent of water, and superintendent of public buildings and grounds, are not "chief superintendents of departments," within the exemption in Rule VII., Schedule B, Class 12, of the civil service rules, and must be appointed in accordance with such rules.

JAN. 28, 1903.

Hon. CHARLES T. RUSSELL, Chairman, Civil Service Commission.

DEAR SIR: You have requested my opinion upon the following facts. St. 1897, c. 172, amended the city charter of Woburn, and authorized, in section 32, the establishment of a board of public works, to consist of the mayor and four other persons. Section 34 provides that the four members in addition and the mayor shall be elected one in each year, to serve for a term of four years. Section 35 provides as follows:

The affairs of said department of public works shall be divided by the board between four administrative bureaus, as follows:

First.

A bureau of sewers, the chief officer of which shall be known

as the commissioner of sewers.

Second.

- A bureau of highways, the chief officer of which shall be known as the commissioner of streets.

Third.

A bureau of water and water supply, the chief officer of which shall be known as the commissioner of water and water supply. Fourth. A bureau of public buildings and grounds, the chief officer of which shall be known as the commissioner of public buildings and grounds.

The said four commissioners shall receive an annual salary of two hundred and fifty dollars each. The duties of the several bureaus shall be such as may be referred thereto from time to time by the board of public works; the mayor shall designate each member of said board as commissioner of one of said bureaus, who shall discharge the duties thereof under the direction of the board and the supervision of the mayor. In case of a vacancy in the office of the chief of any of said bureaus, or of the absence or disability of any of them, the mayor may assign the duties of such bureau, during such vacancy, absence or disability, to any other member of the board, who shall thereupon assume the duties thereof. The mayor may transfer any member of the board from the administration of the duties of one bureau to those of another.

Under the provisions of this section, the mayor of Woburn has designated the four members of the board of public works, elected as commissioners of sewers, streets, water and water supply, and public buildings and grounds, respectively.

It is further stated that the board of public works of Woburn, without requisition upon or certification from the Civil Service Commissioners, has appointed the following officers: the superintendent of sewers, at a salary of $600; the superintendent of highways, at a salary of $1,000; the superintendent of water, at a salary of $1,100; and a superintendent of public buildings and grounds, whose salary is not stated; and it is contended that these officers are exempt from the operation of the civil service rules, as being chief superintendents, within the exception provided by Civil Service Rule VII., Schedule B, Class 12, which is as follows: :

Superintendents, assistant superintendents, deputies and persons, other than the chief superintendents of departments, performing any of the duties of a superintendent in the service of any city of the Commonwealth.

It is now well established that a chief superintendent must be an officer acting under a distinct department of the city government, who is authorized to act for and represent that department throughout the whole of its jurisdiction. See Attorney-General v. Trehey, 178 Mass. 186. Attorney-General's Report, 1901, p. 31. Attorney-General's Report, 1902, p. 25.

I am of opinion that, under this construction, no one of the specified appointments of officers by the board of public works is exempt from the operation of the civil service rules, and that such appointments were in violation of the provisions of law relating to the civil service and the rules established thereunder by your commission.

Very truly yours,

Militia - Governor

HERBERT PARKER, Attorney-General.

Transfer of Company of Militia from One City or Town to Another.

The Governor, as Commander-in-Chief of the volunteer militia of the Commonwealth, has no authority to order the transfer of a company of militia from the city or town where such company is lawfully established and located to some other city or town.

To His Excellency JOHN L. BATES, Governor.

FEB. 18, 1903.

SIR: Your Excellency has required my opinion whether the Governor, as Commander-in-Chief of the militia, has authority to transfer a company of the militia established and lawfully located in one city or town to another.

The general authority of the Commander-in-Chief is to be found in R. L., c. 16, §§ 24 and 25, which are as follows:

SECTION 24. The commander-in-chief shall arrange the infantry, artillery and cavalry into regiments, battalions, and, when necessary, into unattached companies, and into not more than two brigades. There shall not be more than six regiments of infantry, one regiment or more of which, at the discretion of the governor, may be changed to heavy artillery and uniformed and instructed as such.

SECTION 25. Petitions for organizing volunteer companies, accompanied by the approval of the mayor and aldermen of cities or the selectmen of towns in which a majority of the petitioners reside, may be granted by the commander-in-chief, due regard being had to a proper distribution of the force throughout the commonwealth; but no new company shall be organized except as provided in section eleven, if thereby the whole number of companies shall exceed the number established in this chapter.

Section 33 provides that the Commander-in-Chief may disband any company of the volunteer militia falling below the required standard of efficiency.

Assuming the company now under consideration to have been regularly organized and established, upon petitions of persons as prescribed in section 25 above quoted, in the city or town within which it is now quartered, and that it is maintained in accordance

with the required standards of efficiency, I am of opinion that the Commander-in-Chief is not authorized to transfer, by his own order, such company to another city or town. It is evident, I think, that the militia law of this Commonwealth looks to an organization local in its nature, the company units of which are established at the desire of the inhabitants of any city or town, and are to consist in large part of such inhabitants. In other words, it appears to be the intention of the law that the company shall be composed of persons resident in or near the town where it is quartered, such conditions manifestly tending to maintain interest and activity in the service. In a lesser degree the same idea prevails with regard to the larger divisions of the service. To transfer a company from one city or town to another, by the order of the Commander-in-Chief, would be contrary to the evident theory of the militia law, because necessarily it would remove the place of service of the members so transferred to a locality more or less distant from their homes, and thereby either interfere with the efficiency of the company or at least add greatly to the burden of the service. Such transfer by the Commander-inChief, if he had the power, might be without a petition by the inhabitants of the city or town to which the company should be transferred, since petitions for the location of militia companies are required only for the organization of new companies.

Such transfers by the Commander-in-Chief might further result in the imposition of serious burdens upon the city or town to which such transfer was made, and this even against the wishes of the citizens thereof, the law requiring the city or town in which a company is located to maintain, at its own expense, a suitable armory and suitable places for parade, drill and target practice. See R. L., c. 16, § 105.

The question Your Excellency submits to me is not entirely free from difficulty. A strained construction of the sections of the statute above referred to might confer this power of transfer or removal upon the Commander-in-Chief; but I am of opinion that the law should be construed strictly, and that, in the absence of direct and specific authority conferred upon the Commander-inChief, it is more consonant with the spirit and intent of the law as it exists to hold that such transfer, as suggested by Your Excellency's inquiry, does not lie within the express power of the Commander-in-Chief.

The provisions of section 115 of said chapter, relating to the location of an armory by a majority of the members of a company formed from different places, which location shall be subject to the approval of the Adjutant-General, further confirm this view,