printed and be open for inspection the requisite number of secular days before the election. Where the ticket is certified in the manner provided by law, the board has no right or power to look back of the certificate and inquire into the regularity of the caucus; but it is then the duty of the board to print the same. STATE OF MICHIGAN, "UNION TICKET." 66 Supervisor-John H. Rowe Clerk--William E. Haugh Treasurer-Henry E. Nye Commissioner of Highways-William W. Muttun Justice of the Peace, full term-Lester L. Burton Constables Hiram H. Hills, William N. Brophy, Jerry A. Hill, John Budd." IRA T. SAYRE, Esq., Flushing, Mich.: DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiries, concerning the above ticket which has been filed with the board of election commissioners of the township of Flushing of the county of Genesee, to which is attached no certificate, and which is claimed to have been nominated by a caucus at which the officers were not sworn as provided by the primary election law, to wit: First, Would the board have a right to print the ticket without any certificate being attached? Second, Has the board the right to waive the time and permit the officers of the organization to certify to the ticket, provided that it is done so that the ticket may be printed and had for examination two clear secular days before election? Third, Can the board take into consideration the question of whether or not the officers of the caucus at which the ticket was nominated were sworn as provided by the primary election law? (1.) In my opinion, the board would have no authority to print this ticket as a part of the official ballot of the township, unless it is certified by the officers of the association or caucus as provided by the election law. (2.) It is my opinion that the board would have a right to waive the time and permit the officers to certify to the ticket, provided it could be done so that the ticket can be printed and be open for inspection two clear secular days before election. (3.) The law known as the primary election law was passed for the purpose of protecting people who were assembled together in caueuses from interference by those who were not authorized to vote at such caucuses. If a person was nominated at a caucus where the officers were not sworn, and afterwards elected, it is my opinion that the election would be good. The law provides that the ticket shall be certified in order to authorize the board of election commissioners to print the same, and when that is done, I do not believe they have any right to look back of the certificate and inquire into the regularity of the caucus. When the ticket is certified in the manner provided by law, it is then the duty of the board to print the same. Respectfully, Attorney General. Election law-Nomination of aldermen by electors outside of his ward-Power of election commissioners to go behind certificate. A person not placed in nomination by the electors of his election district is not entitled to have his name printed on the ticket. It is the duty of the board of election commissioners to print all tickets duly certified by the secretary and chairman of the committee of the several political organizations. The danger of a false certification is guarded by the penal provision of the law. STATE OF MICHIGAN, HON. SHERMAN BOYCE, Grand Haven, Mich. : DEAR SIR-In reply to your inquiry concerning the printing of the names of certain ward candidates on a ticket, lately nominated in the city of Grand Haven, and from which statement, when considered in connection with the statement made to me yesterday, I discover there is a dispute about the facts. I would say that it is my opinion still, as expressed in the circular issued from this office, that: "Any person who is not nominated, or who is placed in nomination by persons who reside outside of his election district, would not be entitled to have his name printed on the ticket." But the question arises, who is to decide concerning the facts in the case, and can a board of election commissioners legally refuse to print the ticket; or should such questions be left for a decision by the courts? It has been my opinion, and I still hold to that opinion, that where the ticket is properly certified by the chairman and secretary of the organization, the committee should print the ticket. My reason for coming to this conclusion is this: Section 10 of Act No. 190 of the Public Acts of 1891 provides: "The board of election commissioners shall cause to be printed on the ballot the names of the candidates nominated by the regularly called conventions of any party. * * * All the names of parties so nominated shall be certified to by the chairman and secretary of the respective committees." When the ticket is received, properly certified, if the board can go behind the certification and test the regularity or legality of any caucus or convention, they would be vested with judicial functions, which, under the constitution of this State, must be vested in some court. And this board of election commissioners is not a court in any sense of the word. As above stated, it is the duty of the chairman and secretary to certify to the names of the "parties so nominated." These words relate back to the words "regularly called convention." The object of this provision clearly was that no names should be certified by the chairman and secretary to be nominated unless they were regularly nominated, and in order that any person who should certify names not properly nominated might be restrained from such a course of conduct and punished if he did so certify, it is provided in section fortyfive: "Any person who shall knowingly violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof shall be punished, etc." With this restraining provision in the law, which seems to me broad enough to cover any false certification, I believe that the rights of the people would be fully protected if it is held, as I think it should be, that the board should print all tickets duly certified by the secretary and chairman of the committees of the several political organizations. Respectfully, Consolidation of corporations-Formation of new corporations-Franchise fee. Two corporations consolidating under the provisions of Act 197 of the Public Acts of 1891, form a new corporation, such consolidation amounting to the surrender of the old charters of the companies, and therefore such new corporation should be required, before the evidence of its formation is filed with the Secretary of State, to pay the franchise fee fixed by Act 182 of the Public Acts of 1891. STATE OF MICHIGAN, HON. ROBERT R. BLACKER, Secretary of State, Lansing, Mich.: The "Menominee Electric Light, Railway and Power Company formed under and by virture of Act No. 197 of the Public Acts of 1891, entitled, "An act to authorize the consolidation of street railway and electric light companies," by a consolidation between the "Menominee Electric Railway and Power Company" and the "Menominee Electric Light Company," two corporations organized under the laws of this State. Section 1 of said Act No. 197 provides among other things, "That any street railway company may consolidate with any company organized and in operation under chapter one hundred and twenty-seven of said statutes, entitled,Electric Light Companies,' where such companies are located and carry on business in the same town, city or village, and may form a single corporation. And for this purpose the directors of said two corporations may enter into an agreement under the corporate seal of each, for the consolidation of the said two corporations, prescribing the terms and conditions thereof, the mode of carrying the same into effect, the name of the new corporation, the number of directors thereof, and the names of those who shall be the first directors, which shall be deemed and taken to be the first election of the directors of the consolidated company, which number shall not be less than three, nor more than seven, the time and place of holding the first election of directors after the consolidation," etc. Section 2 provides, "Upon making the agreement mentioned in the preceding section, in the manner required therein, and filing a duplicate thereof in the office of the Secretary of State, the said two corporations mentioned or referred to in this section shall be merged into the new corporation provided for in such agreement, to be known by the corporate name therein mentioned, and the details of such agreement shall be carried into effect as provided therein." The consolidation of two corporations can take place only by the consent of the Legislature. When such consolidation does take place, it amounts to the surrender of the old charters by the companies and the formation of a new corporation. Lanmon vs. Lebanon C. R. R. Co., 33 Pa. St. 42. State vs. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46 (79 Am. Dec. 410). Section 1 of Act No. 182 of the Public Acts of 1891 provides "That every corporation or association hereafter incorporated by or under any general or special law of this State shall pay to the Secretary of State a franchise fee of one-half of one mill upon each dollar of the authorized capital stock of such corporation or association," etc. The consolidation of these two companies was in law and in fact, in my opinion, the formation of a new corporation under the laws of this State, and such new corporation should be required, before the evidence of its formation is filed with the Secretary of State, to pay the franchise fee fixed by said Act No. 182 of the Public Acts of 1891. Respectfully, Officers, legislative, executive and judicial-Supervisors are legislative officers— Bribery. A supervisor in the exercise of his duty as a member of the Board of Supervisors, comes within the term "legislative officer," and would be liable to punishment under section 9242 of Howell's Statutes, for corruptly accepting a bribe. STATE OF MICHIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Lansing, April 7, 1892. FARRIN C. CUMMINS, ESQ., Prosecuting Attorney, Omer, Mich.: DEAR SIR-In reply to your favor of the 22d ult., requesting my opinion as to whether the term "executive, legislative, or judicial officer" in sec tion 9242 of Howell's Statutes, applies to supervisors or only to members of the Legislature, I would say: Said section makes it unlawful for any such officer to corruptly receive or accept a gift or gratuity, etc., with the understanding that his vote shall be given in any particular manner, or upon a particular side of any question, etc., which is, or may be by law brought before him in his official capacity. Our government is divided into three departments, executive, legislative and judicial, and all officers either belong to the executive, legislative or judicial department of the government. A supervisor when acting with other supervisors upon the board exercises legislative functions and duties. Greenman vs. Shiawassee Supervisors, 38 Mich., 642, Campbell, Ch. J., in speaking of the terms "executive, legislative and judicial" as used in this statute, says: "The words apply, in our opinion, just as well to local as to State functionaries, the character of whose duties falls within any of these definitions. Under our system of local selfgovernment, there is no public corporation that has not an organic connection with the State, or which does not require guarding to promote the interest of the whole body politic. * * A construction which would take cities and other public corporations out of the protection of these laws would be a dangerous and not a natural one." People vs. Swift, 59 Mich., 544. It necessarily follows that a supervisor in the exercise of his duty as a member of the Board of Supervisors, falls within the term "legislative officer" and would be liable to punishment, under section 9242 of Howell's Statutes, for corruptly accepting a bribe. Respectfully, Attorney General. Practice Return of subpœna on Sunday, not void. A subpoena in a tax proceeding was made returnable on the 20th day of March which was Sunday, and objection being made that the process was void, or that it should be abated for that reason, Held, That as nothing was required to be done upon the return day, and there being no possible danger of any one being misled, for that reason the subpoenas were not void, and the Circuit Judge should overrule the motion to dismiss the proceedings and permit the persons who had filed objections, to appear and file any other objection against the validity of the tax, other than to the return day of the writ. STATE OF MICHIGAN, CYRUS A. HOVEY, Esq., Prosecuting Attorney, Port Huron, Mich.: DEAR SIR-Your favor of April 5th stating that: "About five hundred subpoenas have been issued by the County Clerk and made returnable on the 20th day of March, which is Sunday. The objection is made that this |