time said loan was made, and the voters of the school district at their meeting are vested with ample authority to vote the same as a tax upon the district. Yours respectfully, HORACE M. OREN, Attorney General. Fish ladders in dams in certain rivers and their tributaries. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, } January 25, 1899. J. N. SAMPSON, Esq., Prosecuting Attorney, Adrian, Mich.: MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of January 19, received and considered, whereby you submit for my consideration several questions relative to the proper construction to be placed upon act number 288 of the Public Acts of 1897, relative to the construction and maintenance of fish ladders in dams in certain rivers and their tributaries in certain counties of this State. Under this act you say several fish ladders were put in, in Lenawee county, and the principal question is, whether or not the board of supervisors is compelled to audit the bills for such expense. From a careful examination of the act, I do not see how any other construction could be placed upon it than that the board of supervisors is compelled to audit such bills, when they have been properly certified by the game and fish warden or his deputies, and the same should be paid out of the general fund of the county not otherwise appropriated. From an examination of the Journals of the House and Senate, I find that several bills were introduced on this subject pertaining to individual counties, and that the committee on fisheries in the House recommended this act as a substitute, and the only amendment made to the bill after its introduction was the insertion of the words "and maintenance" after the word "construction" in line 2 of Section 1. If it was the intent of the Legislature to authorize the board of supervisors to spread the amount of such expense upon the tax roll of the county, it certainly does not so appear. Neither does it appear from the proceedings of the House and Senate, that any mistake was made, and therefore we must take this act as it is, and proceed accordingly. The act provides for the payment of the expense of construction and maintenance by the county, and in answer to your question relative to whether or not the board of supervisors should audit the per diem and expenses of the deputy game and fish warden, I do not think the act is broad enough to cover such items of expense. Under the general laws of the State, the deputy game and fish wardens are to receive from the State $3.00 per day, and their expenses while discharging the duties pertaining to their office, and I am of the opinion that the board would not be compelled to audit items for such services and expenses. Yours respectfully, HORACE M. OREN, Insurance law-Policy written by agent of foreign company upon Michigan property, who leaves State before process can be served on him. HON. MILO D. CAMPBELL, Commissioner of Insurance, Lansing, Michigan: MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of 23, inst., received and considered. The questions which you submit therein are as follows: First, If a foreign corporation sends an agent into this State and writes a policy of insurance upon Michigan property, and leaves the State before process can be served upon him here, can criminal proceedings be commenced against such agent, and requisition be had upon the state where he may be found, for his extradition? This presupposes that the foreign corporation is not authorized or licensed to do business in this State. Second, Can such unauthorized corporation be reached in any other way, or its officers? In answer to the first question I would say that under the insurance laws of this State, it would be a misdemeanor for an agent to solicit of write a policy of insurance upon Michigan property under circumstances as stated by you. Article 4, Section 2, of the Federal Constitution, provides that: "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.” The question depends upon whether or not a misdemeanor under the laws of the State of Michigan is a crime within the meaning of this provi sion of the Federal Constitution. Nearly all the authorities hold that crime is synonymous with misde meanor. The correct interpretation of the word "crime" in this clause of the constitution, as laid down by Moore on Extradition, Section 527, is that it "Embraces every act forbidden and made punishable by the laws of a state, and the right of a state to demand the surrender of fugitives from justice extends to all cases of the violation of its criminal law. Felonies and misdemeanors, offenses by statute and at common law, are alike within the constitutional provision; and the obligation to surren der the fugitive for an act which is made criminal by the law of the demanding state, but which is not criminal in the state upon which the demand is made, is the same as if the alleged act was a crime by the law of both." It would therefore seem clear that the offense designated is extraditable. I can see no way whereby the officers of such a corporation could be reached by criminal prosecution for the issuance of such a policy. Some of the statutes in force, with reference to foreign insurance companies, provide that where a policy is issued in this way by an unauthorized company, a certain fine shall be imposed by the commissioner of insurance, and that no such company shall be licensed or permitted to do business in this State until such fine has been paid, but it is, I believe, impossible to reach them by criminal proceedings for an act done outside of the State, which is not covered by the laws of this State. Yours respectfully, HORACE M. OREN, Attorney General. County road system-Election of commissioners. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, FERMAN E. DUTCHER, ESQ., Prosecuting Attorney, Newberry, Mich. : MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of January 28, received and considered, whereby you submit for my consideration the following: "The county road system was adopted in this county in 1896, and the first election thereunder was held in April of 1897, at which election three commissioners were elected as follows: A, for one year; the term expiring in 1898. B, for two years; the term expiring in 1899. C, for three years; the term expiring in 1900-died in 1897. D, elected in 1898 to fill vacancy. E, elected in 1898; term expires when?" The first regular election of commissioners under Section 7, Act No. 251 of the Public Acts of 1897, will occur next April. B's term of office will expire this spring, and E was elected to succeed A, whose term of office expired in 1898; but this not being the regular year for electing road commissioiners, I am of the opinion that successors to B and E should be elected next April, under said section 7, one for four years and one for six years. The only remaining question is with reference to D, who is elected to fill vacancy. In the natural course of events, his term of office expires in 1900. Under said Section 7,no regular election could be held in that year, as the Legislature does not convene in regular session. However, ample provisions are made in Section 8 of Act No. 149 of the Public Acts of 1893, for the appointment of commissioners to fill vacancy. The board of supervisors could appoint to fill vacancy existing in this office, until the regular election of 1901, at which time a successor thereto should be elected for a period of six years. This would place your county squarely within the provisions of section seven, above referred to,-and, I believe, is the correct course for the county to pursue. Yours respectfully, HORACE M. OREN, School Law-Holder of first-grade certificate not endorsed by Superintendent of Public Instruction Commissioner of schools, eligibility. MR. F. N. WEYANT, Walkerville, Mich. : ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, } DEAR SIR-Your letter of January 26, received and considered, whereby you submit for my consideration the following questions: First, "In a county having more than 50 school districts, is a person holding a first-grade certificate without indorsement of the State Superintendent, and whose examination papers have not been sent to the State Superintendent, eligible to the office of Commissioner of Schools?" Second, "If I hold a first-grade certificate, properly indorsed and am elected Commissioner of Schools, and that certificate expires during the term of office, will it have any effect on the eligibility or right to hold the office?" Section 128 of the General School Laws, in defining the qualification of persons entitled to hold the office of Commissioner of Schools, under the law, provides that they "must be a graduate of the literary department of some reputable college, university, or State Normal School, having a course of at least three years, or hold a State teachers' certificate, or be the holder of a first-grade certificate; but said first-grade certificate shall only qualify the holder thereof to hold the office of commissioner in the county where such certificate was granted.” These provisions apply to counties having 50 or more school districts subject to the supervision of the county commissioner. A person holding a first-grade certificate containing the endorsement of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is entitled to teach in any of the counties of this State for the period of four years from the date of such certificate, but would only be eligible to hold the office of county commissioner of schools in the county where such certificate was issued. Such a certificate would be good in the county where issued without such endorsement, either for the purposes of teaching school, or making the holder thereof, eligible to the office of county commissioner of schools. In answer to your second question, I would say that in my opinion. where a county commissioner was eligible under the law to hold the office at the time of his election and qualification thereto, the fact that his certificate expired during his term of office would not create a vacancy in the office, and he could hold the same and discharge the duties pertaining thereto until the expiration of his term. Yours respectfully, HORACE M. OREN, State Board of Education—Authority to change name of Institution known as State Normal College-Certificates issued in name of State Normal School, whether should be recalled and changed. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, HON. JASON E, HAMMOND, Secretary State Board Education, Capitol, Lansing: MY DEAR SIR-Your letter of 31, ult., calling my attention to Act number one hundred seventy-five of the Public Acts of 1897, and submitting certain questions in relation thereto, received and considered. The questions you ask are as follows: 1. "Has the State Board of Education the authority under this law to change the name of the institution so that it may be known to the people of the State as the State Normal College, without conflicting with any provision of the constitution?" 2. "Should the certificate, granted in 1898, in the name of the State Normal School be recalled and certificate issued in the name of the State Normal College?" 3. "If you find that the law is defective, and the action of the State Board of Education was hasty and ill-advised, will you please advise our board as to the best course to pursue with the present legislation to bring about the changes contemplated by the framer of the law?" The act referred to in your communication is somewhat peculiar. It seems to provide that on the granting to undergraduates of certificates equivalent to a second and first-grade teachers' certificate, the State Board of Education shall grant the same through the State Normal School at Ypsilanti. Certificates which evidence a completed course at Ypsilanti, however, the board is empowered to grant by the name of the Michigan State Normal College. The purpose of the act seems to combine in the one institution the two organizations, viz., school and college. The act seems to authorize the use by the Board of Education in case it sees fit so to do, of the name State Normal College. My reply to the first question is that the Board of Education has no authority to change the name of the institution except as granted authority so to do by legislative enactment. Act number one hundred seventy-five of laws of 1897 grants this anthority, so far as relates to the conferring of life certificates and diplomas evidencing a completed course. As to the constitutionality of this act, I believe it is within the powers of the legislature to authorize the change of the name of this institution. To the second question my answer is that until the Board of Education shall officially declare or designate the institution as the State Normal College, for the purpose of conferring the higher degrees or certificates, it retains the name State Normal School. If the board did not do so prior to the last commencement, I see no reason why the certificate granted in 1898 should be recalled and new ones issued. I think from the above your third question is sufficiently answered. |