or any valuable consideration or inducement whatever not specified in the policy contract of insurance. The penalty for violating this section shall be a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars; and the superintendent of insurance shall revoke the certificate of authority of any agent convicted of the violation of this act, and shall not grant the agent so convicted a license as agent for the term of three years thereafter."

1 M. A. S., Section 2232.

Opinions of Attorney General Carr, 18971898, page 238.

The agents of life insurance companies doing business in this state may violate the above statute in many ways, as by discriminating in favor of individuals, or by offering valuable considerations or inducements to the insured, which are not specified in the policy contract of insurance.

In my judgment, the said "Special Adviser's Contract" is an instrument which may be used by agents as one of the many ways of violating the said section of our statutes, and if, as a matter of fact, any of the agents of The State Life Insurance Company are making use of said contract for the purpose of discriminating in favor of individuals, or as a means of offering valuable considerations or inducements to the insured, or for the purpose of allowing a rebate of premiums payable upon policies of insurance, or for any of the other purposes forbidden by said statute, then such use of said contract is, in my judgment, a violation of the laws of this state.

IN RE

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.

Domestic joint stock life insurance companies are required to have a capital of $100,000.00 fully paid in in cash or in some one or more of the classes of securities in which such companies are by law authorized to invest. Promissory notes cannot be counted as any part of such capital.

State of Colorado,

Attorney General's Office.

Denver, Colorado, August 1, 1899.

HON. H. H. EDDY,

Députy Superintendent of Insurance,

Denver, Colorado.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of recent date, in which you call attention to the requirements of section 2226, 1 M. A. S., which provides for the issuance of a certificate by the Superintendent of Insurance, to insurance companies, upon compliance by said companies with certain conditions, among others that of having a capital stock of $100,000, for companies such as the one referred to in your letter, "fully paid in."

You further state as follows:

"Citizens of Colorado desiring to organize a stock life insurance company have asked this department whether a capital stock in an amount required by law with $50,000 paid in in cash and $50,000 paid in in unquestionable notes would be a substantial meeting of this requirement."

The question to be determined here is, whether or not the provision of the statute referred to, which requires insurance companies to have a certain amount

of stock "fully paid in," is satisfied by a part payment in cash and part payment in good notes. It may be observed that, if this requirement can be satisfied by having $50,000 in cash and $50,000 in good notes, it would be satisfied by any smaller amount of cash supplemented by an amount in notes sufficient to aggregate $100,000, and, indeed, if notes are sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute as any part of such capital stock, there is no reason to say that the whole amount might not be paid in good notes.

Section 2220, 3 M. A. S., is in part as follows:

"No joint stock fire or life insurance company shall be permitted to do any business in this state unless it is possessed of an actual paid up cash capital as follows: fire insurance companies of not less than two hundred thousand dollars, and life insurance companies, not less than one hundred thousand (100,000) dollars. No joint stock insurance company organized for any purpose other than fire or life insurance shall be permitted to do any business in this state unless possessed of an actual paid up cash capital of not less than one hundred thousand dollars."

Section 2226, 1 M. A. S., is in part as follows:

"Whenever such capital stock has been subscribed, and not less than the amount required by this act shall have been fully paid in, they shall notify the superintendent of insurance, who shall cause an examination to be made, either by himself or some disinterested person especially appointed by him for the purpose, who shall certify under oath that the provisions of this act have been complied with by said company as far as applicable thereto."

In your letter you state that it is contended that section 2220, above quoted in part, refers only to foreign companies. In this I cannot agree. The language itself directly negatives such an application. The language is, "No joint stock fire insurance company," etc.

Even if it were true that said section was intended to apply only to foreign companies, it seems to

me that the language of section 2226, 1 M. A. S., can only be satisfied by a payment in cash, or in some one or more of the classes of securities which such companies are authorized to invest in, as provided by section 2221, 1 M. A. S. It is needless to say that these securities do not include unquestionable promissory notes.

The question here is substantially the same as that presented to the Supreme Court of Nebraska by the Auditor of that state. The law in that state, as in this, requires insurance companies to be possessed of a certain amount of capital. In reply to the Auditor's question as to whether or not bankable notes could be counted as part of such capital, the court, after enumerating the securities in which such companies are by law authorized to invest, concludes that as bankable notes are not included, no part of such capital stock can legally consist of such notes.

In re Babcock, 21 Neb., 500, 502.

Very truly yours,

D. M. CAMPBELL,

Attorney General.

By DAN B. CAREY,

Assistant.

IN RE

SCALP BOUNTIES.

The appropriation, for the years 1895 and 1896, for the payment of scalp bounties has been exhausted.

The legislature made no appropriation for the payment of scalp bounties for the years 1897 and 1898, or for the years 1899 and 1900.

State of Colorado,

Attorney General's Office.

Denver, Colorado, August 2, 1899.

Dear Sir-I have the honor to submit this opinion upon the following questions, submitted by you during our interview on Monday last:

First-Is the Auditor of State authorized by law to draw warrants, in payment of bounties, against the fund provided by section 17 of H. B. No. 95, passed at the twelfth session of the General Assembly of the state of Colorado? (Session Laws of 1899, page 193.) And,

Second-If so, is he authorized to draw warrants upon said fund accruing during the fiscal years 1899 and 1900 in payment of bounties earned during the fiscal years 1895, 1896, 1897 and 1898?

The Ninth General Assembly of the state of Colorado passed an act "To provide for the destruction of wolves, coyotes and mountain lions, and to provide a premium therefor, and to make an appropriation to pay the same, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith," approved April 8, 1893.

Session Laws of 1893, page 68.

Section 1 of said act provides a premium of one, two and three dollars respectively for each coyote,