In conclusion, I beg to say to your Excellency, that your official communication and the inquiries therein contained, have received my most thoughtful consideration, to the exclusion of all other official business for several days past, and the amount of time and labor involved in the preparation of this opinion has rendered impossible an earlier reply. Respectfully submitted, D. M. CAMPBELL, By CALVIN E. REED, TO HON. CHARLES S. THOMAS, IN RE NATIONAL GUARD. Term of enlistment. Re-enlistment within thirty days after discharge should be for term of one year. All other enlistments should be for a term of three years. State of Colorado, Attorney General's Office. Denver, Colorado, March 31, 1900. HON. J. C. OVERMYER, Adjutant General of Colorado, Denver, Colorado: Dear Sir-I have your communication of the 23rd instant, in reference to terms of enlistment in the National Guard of Colorado. Section 30 of Article III, of the act of 1897, relative to the National Guard, provides that every enlisted man shall be held to service for a term of three years unless he be properly discharged. Section 32, of the same article, provides that all re-enlistments shall be for a term of one year. The act referred to authorizes the Military Board to adopt a Code of Regulations, and further provides that such Code, when adopted, shall be a part of the law. A Code has been adopted, and section 36 thereof provides that, in order to obtain continuous service, re-enlistment must be made within thirty days from the date of discharge. In my opinion, a re-enlistment made within thirty days after the date of discharge would properly be termed a re-enlistment, whether the discharge was based upon the expiration of the term of service, or upon some other legal ground. And such enlistments should in all cases be for a term of one year. All other enlistments, whether the party enlisting was ever before in the service or not, should be for a term of three years. Very truly yours, D. M. CAMPBELL, Attorney General. By DAN B. CAREY, Assistant. IN RE AUTREFOIS ATTAINT. A convict who commits an offense while under sentence for another offense, may be indicted and tried therefor in the same manner as if he were not under sentence. State of Colorado, Attorney General's Office. Denver, Colorado, April 11, 1900. HON. CHARLES S. THOMAS, Governor of the State of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your favor of April 7th, in which you state that you are informed that indictments have been, or will be, at once returned against Wallace and Woode, two convicts now in the penitentiary at Canon City, for the murder of Night Captain Rooney; also, that you are informed that a paroled convict has recently been taken in the commission of an offense at Florence and is now in the city jail at Canon City awaiting the action of the county authorities. You ask my official opinion upon the question contained in the following paragraph which I quote from your letter: "Will you kindly give me your opinion at once upon the question whether a convict who, during the service of his term, commits a crime can be indicted, tried and punished prior to the expiration of his sentence, and whether in such event the Warden of the State Penitentiary is justified in refusing to deliver the custody of the prisoner to the county authorities." You also state that the warden fears that if the said Wallace and Woode are delivered to the sheriff, said sheriff may be unable to protect them from lynching. In reply to your inquiry I have the honor to state as follows: Under the old common law the plea of autrefois attaint might be interposed where a convict was indicted for a crime committed while under sentence for another crime. This doctrine, however, has not now, and probably never has had, any place in American jurisprudence. Walker's American Law (6th Ed.), 722. Thomas vs. People, 67 N. Y., 218, 225. It therefore appears quite clear to me, under the authorities, that a convict who, while undergoing sentence, commits an offense, whether within or without the prison, may properly be tried in exactly the same manner as he would be if he were not under sentence. Very truly yours, DAVID M. CAMPBELL, By DAN B. CAREY, Assistant. IN RE FOREIGN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Foreign Fire Insurance Companies are required, by the Act of 1899, to have all insurance policies upon property situated in this State, countersigned by the resident agent, and any company violating said Act shall have its license revoked, which revocation shall continue for at least one year. State of Colorado, Attorney General's Office. Denver, Colorado, May 19, 1900. Sir—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your official communication, under date of April 25, 1900, from which I quote as follows: "Some while since this department decided not to renew the license of the German Fire Insurance Company of Peoria, Illinois, because of a violation of the resident agency and re-insurance law. Of this action by the department the company and its agents heretofore licensed to do business in this state were duly advised and cautioned against the transaction of further business. This company through its general agent has given notice to the department that it will apply for readmission, and other things being equal, its papers being in proper form, the question has presented itself to my mind whether or not the company have not been sufficiently punished and the dignity of the law sufficiently upheld by their suspension of business for the time that has transpired since the decision referred to above was rendered by this department. Against the possibility of the department taking such action I am in receipt to-day of a protest, copy enclosed, signed by a number of citizens of this state, wherein is raised the question in the third paragraph thereof as to the ability of the department to renew this license for the period of at least one year, and citation is made to the law of 1899, Section 5, pages 50 and 51, of the insurance laws of the state as issued by the department. Does a decision by this de |