Governor, the Secretary of State, the Treasurer or Auditor, to prosecute and defend all suits relating to matters connected with their departments.”

1 Mills' Ann. Stats., Section 1784.

The following tabular statement will show the number of cases pending in the several courts of this state at the commencement of my official term of office on January 10, 1899; the number of cases filed since said date; the number of cases disposed of since said date, and the number of cases pending on November 15, 1900:

All but three of the cases pending in the two appellate courts have been briefed by this office, and these three cases will also be briefed before the close of my official term of office, provided that the plaintiffs in error shall, in the meantime, file their abstracts and briefs.*

DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS.

At the commencement of my official term of office there were pending in the Supreme Court seven petitions for the disbarment of members of the bar of this,

*[Note Of the eighteen cases pending in the Supreme Court, judgments were rendered in four on November 19, 1900, and three more have been argued and submitted.]

state. Since that date eleven additional petitions of the same character have been filed. Of this total number of eighteen, judgments of disbarment have been entered by the court in seven cases, and one of the respondents died pending the hearing of his cause. Ten cases are now pending and undisposed of.*

While the information in these disbarment proceedings have been filed by the Attorney General, upon the order and at the direction of the Supreme Court, the knowledge of the irregularities necessitating the filing of the same, and the petitions for disbarment have, in almost all of the instances, come from the Colorado Bar Association, through its officers and members of its grievance committees.

The thanks of the bench and bar and the people of the state are certainly due to this association and its officers and committees for efforts to rid the bar of this state of unworthy members. The association has furnished special counsel to assist in prosecuting these cases, and, following the precedent established by my immediate predecessor in office, the association, through its special counsel, has been accorded the privilege of actively managing these several proceedings, subject to the general supervision of this department.

IMPORTANT CASES.

The importance of the cases, or of some of the legal propositions therein announced by the Supreme Court, in the following cases, is sufficient to justify special mention:

In Ames, County Assessor, vs. The People ex rel. Temple, Auditor of State, 26 Colo., 83; 56 Pac., 656, the power of the State Board of Equalization to assess the property of railway, telegraph and telephone companies, was upheld.

*[Note-On November 19, 1900, judgments of disbarment were entered by the Supreme Court in two of said remaining ten cases.]

The case of Packer vs. The People, 26 Colo., 306; 57 Pac., 1087, was a writ of error to the District Court of Gunnison county, to review a judgment of conviction and sentence to serve a term of forty years in the state penitentiary for voluntary manslaughter. This was the fifth time that this case had been before the Supreme Court in some form, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed.

In People ex rel. Campbell, Attorney General, vs. The District Court of Arapahoe County (two cases), 26 Colo., 380; 58 Pac., 608, it was held that the county courts have power to pass upon the question of their own jurisdiction and their decisions upon the constitutionality of a law which purports to clothe them with jurisdiction in misdemeanor cases, cannot be reviewed by the District Court upon habeas corpus.

In the two cases of In re Morgan, 26 Colo., 415; 58 Pac., 1071, and In re Sweeney, 26 Colo., 451; 58 Pac., 1116, it was held that the act of the General Assembly (Session Laws of 1889, page 232), fixing the hours of employment at eight hours per day of working men in underground mines, smelters and other institutions for the reduction and refining of ores and metals, is unconstitutional and void.

In the three cases of The People vs. Ames, County Assessor, 27 Colo., ....; 60 Pac., 346; The People vs. Bell, County Assessor, 27 Colo., ....; 60 Pac., 1130, and The People vs. Laub, County Assessor, 27 Colo.,

.; 60 Pac., 1130, it was held that the State Board of Equalization has no power to equalize valuations between classes or kinds of property in the several counties of the state, and that in equalizing and adjusting valuations, the state board must deal with the respective valuations as returned by the county assessors as entireties.

In Caviness vs. The People, 27 Colo.,

...

; 60

Pac., 565, it was held that one convicted of a crime less than capital may have, as of course, but one writ of error.

SUIT UPON BOND OF STATE TREASURER.

On April 2, 1900, at the direction of your Excellency, and of the Honorable Auditor of State of the state of Colorado, I instituted suit in the District Court of Arapahoe county, Colorado, against Honorable George W. Kephart, ex-State Treasurer of the state of Colorado, and his bondsmen, on his official bond, to recover a balance due the state of Colorado, amounting to eleven thousand nine hundred and ninety-five dollars ($11,995.00), and interest from the tenth day of January, 1899, less the sum of four hundred and sixty-three dollars and thirty-four cents ($463.34) paid on the fifth day of July, A. D. 1899. On May 31, 1900, I received an official communication from the Honorable State Treasurer of the state of Colorado, informing me that the money due the state from the said Kephart had on that day been paid in full, and requesting me to dismiss the said suit. This request was complied with on June 12, 1900.

I may add that I am credibly informed that the failure of the said Kephart to turn over to his successor the said balance due the state at the expiration of his official term of office was due solely to the failure of a certain bank in which he, in his official capacity as State Treasurer, had deposited the above mentioned amount of the state moneys.

OFFICIAL OPINIONS.

The statutes of this state provide that the Attorney General, when requested, "shall give his opinion in writing upon all questions of law submitted to him by the General Assembly, or either house thereof, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Auditor, Secretary of State, Treasurer or Superintendent of Public Instruction."

1 Mills' Ann. Stats., Section 1785.

The statutes further provide that "he shall keep in proper books a record of all official opinions."

1 Mills' Ann. Stats., Section 1788.

During my official term of office this department has had occasion to counsel with and to give legal advice to the executive and other public officers of this state, their deputies, clerks and employes, the various state boards, their members, clerks and employes, as well as to the General Assembly, its committees and members of the two houses, upon hundreds of questions touching the proper discharge of their respective official duties. While the department has at all times freely counseled with the said officers touching the various matters upon which they have sought legal advice, yet opinions in writing have not been given unless the questions submitted were of sufficient importance to warrant their preservation in writing, or unless written opinions were specially requested. Impression copies of all official opinions rendered by this department are preserved in the official opinion book of the department, and copies are submitted herewith for publication in the appendix of this report.

This department is in constant and almost daily receipt of requests from county, municipal and other local public officers, as well as from the general public, for opinions upon various questions of both public and private concern. Being wholly without authority to render official opinions in such cases, and being, as a rule, without a knowledge of the facts and conditions upon which an opinion could be rendered, unless it be by an ex parte statement of the same, I have studiously refrained from rendering opinions in such

cases.

Inasmuch as most of the cities and towns employ a city attorney to advise the municipal officers, and the several counties employ county attorneys to advise the county officers, and the statutes of this state make