other provisions of the section which require an appointment or designation of two ballot clerks from their own number, from the two political parties polling respectively the largest and next largest number of votes.

This seems to me to be the most fair and reasonable construction which can be given to this provision of the section.

Eleventh question. It may be admitted in the beginning that there is no express provision, in the new ballot law, which requires the officers charged with the duty of making the appointments of inspectors to fill vacancies in new districts, to appoint from the different political parties; but it must be here observed that the new ballot law was not intended to provide in itself for the complete machinery for the conduct of elections.

It in fact amends section 21 of article 3, title 3, and also section 3 of article 1, title 4, of chapter 130, Laws 1842, so as to make this law conform to the provision in the new ballot law, which requires five inspectors, instead of three, showing clearly that it was not intended to repeal any of the provisions of existing laws, except those expressly repealed, or those manifestly inconsistent with its provisions.

The act of 1842, section 21, cited, provides for the election of two inspectors, and the appointment of one from the two persons in such election district who shall have the highest number of votes, next to the two inspectors so elected.

And section 3, above cited, provides for the appointment of two "clerks of the poll," one to be appointed by the elected inspectors, and the other by the appointed inspectors.

And if we refer to the registry act of last winter, we find by section a, that in case of the absence of one of the board of registry, the board shall appoint a "qualified elector of the district of the same political party as the absent member," etc. And further, that if two members fail to appear, then two qualified electors shall be appointed who shall " respectively belong to the same political parties as the absent members."

It is evident from even a casual reading of the new law that it was intended to preserve and continue the scheme provided by the law of 1842, and while increasing the number of inspectors to five, it in effect provides that only three of them shall belong to the same political party.

Therefore, in filling vacancies in the board or appointing an entirely new board in any election district, I think it is the duty of the local authorities making the appointment to see that the plain

That while it may

policy of the law in this respect is carried out. be true, as we have seen, that there is no express mandate that they shall do so, it seems to me that the spirit of the law requires it, and it is a familiar maxim of interpretation that a thing which is within the spirit of an act is within the statute, although not within the letter, and a thing within the letter is not within the statute unless within the intention.

And if the local authorities, in filling vacancies or in appointing an entirely new board will keep in view the evident intention of the law, and thus preserve the relative representation upon the board of the different political parties, there can be no serious difficulty or embarrassment in executing the law, so far as it relates to the constitution of the board of inspectors and the appointment of its clerks.

Twelfth question. The only point involved in this question, not already answered, is whether inspectors heretofore elected or appointed in pursuance of law, can be held to be legislated out of office by the alteration or division of election districts made necessary by the provisions of section 23 (supra), the new division placing them in election districts different to those from which they were elected or appointed.

Where officers are required for the administration of the law, and no new qualifications for holding the office are imposed, I think it may be safely laid down as a general rule that the Legislature did not intend to legislate the incumbent out of office unless it has clearly and unequivocally expressed such intention.

Especially is this the case where the only effect would be to thereby create a vacancy in the office to which the incumbents had been chosen by the people, in order that other persons might be appointed by town boards to the same office, and to perform exactly the same duties.

There is certainly nothing in this act which in terms indicates any such purpose on the part of the law-making power. On the contrary, there are expressions from which it may be fairly inferred that the Legislature intended that all the inspectors in office when the act took effect should be retained on the creation of new districts, or an alteration of the old ones; and exercise the functions of their office in the districts in which they might respectively reside after the new arrangement of districts.

In section 22, which relates to the appointment to fill vacancies, it is provided that "in each election district except a district in which all the inspectors of election are appointed, the number of

inspectors shall be five, and in every such district in which there shall be a less number than five, the balance of the five officers of inspectors of election in such district shall be deemed to be vacant, and shall be filled as vacancies in such offices as now provided by law."

This paragraph contemplates that there may be districts in which there will already be five inspectors after the new apportionment of districts, which could only happen by including in a new district portions of territory belonging to two or more old districts in which five inspectors resided, and it also indicates that it was expected that each inspector in office at the time of the creation of new districts should continue to be in office, and be regarded as inspector of the district which might be created by the provisions of the act, and where he resided.

The general rule laid down in several cases that where the office is not a constitutional one, or its territorial jurisdiction defined by the Constitution, the Legislature may enlarge or restrict its territorial jurisdiction, is in harmony with this view.

For in every case, according to this construction, each inspector would still be exercising the functions of his office within the same territory or a portion of it, for which he had been elected. Names and numbers of districts can count for nothing. The law has simply added to or taken away part of his territorial jurisdiction, as it unquestionably could if the Legislature so willed.

And it would, therefore, follow that inspectors are entitled to act as such in any district where they may reside which comprises a part of the territory of the original district for which they were elected or appointed; and where their residence is in such part of the original district which is included within the new district.

It must be admitted that this question is not free from doubt, but the solution suggested seems to be the most reasonable and the least embarrassing in its application. It is important, however, that the title of all election officers should be unclouded, and their right to act undisputed, and I would, therefore, recommend to the local authorities that in all cases where they alter or divide the districts of their town, so as to change the boundaries of existing election districts, that they should reappoint the inspectors in office on July first, to be inspectors for the districts in which they may severally reside. The title of the inspectors would then be beyond controversy.

Thirteenth question. While by section 38 of the new law certain of its provisions do apply to town and village elections, yet I

do not think it was the intention of the Legislature that village elections and town meetings should be held by election districts unless in some particular case they have been heretofore so held. I think this is manifest from the provisions of section 38 as to the officers who shall preside at these elections. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the statute requiring the division of towns and villages into election districts for the purposes of State elections so as not to contain more than three hundred voters have no application to village and town elections, and neither has the ballot law any application to 'special elections held for the purpose of raising money.

Fourteenth question. The ballot law does not make any provision for a box for the purpose of taking care of the "stubs" taken from the ballots, but section 27 does make express provision for their return to the County Clerk and for their identification. Therefore they should be carefully preserved in some manner to be determined upon by the election officers of each district.

Fifteenth question. There has been no change in the election law in regard to the compensation of election officers unless it be in the city of Brooklyn. The compensation is "two dollars per day for each day's service performed by each or either of them" (Chap. 242, Laws of 1870). Very respectfully,

CHARLES F. TABOR, Attorney General.

TIME TO COOL OFF.-In the year 1490 a farmer in Poland laid claim to the ownership of a piece of uncultivated and unused land, about fifty acres in extent, of which another farmer was in nominal possession. The dispute was taken before the court. There it remained, and the usual postponements and arguments took place. The original litigants died; their descendants inherited the suit and bequeathed it to their heirs. In the year 1889 it was still on the docket, undecided and apparently with no prospect of decision. The litigants, therefore, came to the conclusion to celebrate the four-hundredth anniversary of the suit by compromising it. "It's fortunate we agreed," said one of the parties, "because if we hadn't (both happened to be men of peaceable and accommodating dispositions), that lawsuit might have gone on for another four hundred years." "But why," said the other party, "couldn't our ancestors have settled it as easily in 1490 as we have in 1890 ?" "Because," replied the first, "they were angry. In the interval which has elapsed you and I have had time to cool off."-New York Star.

AN EXCITING CHASE.-A correspondent of the Newburyport Daily News writes to that paper from Grand Menan, N. B. :

The line between J. Bull and the United States is drawn between Eastport, Maine, and Campobello, running within one hundred yards of our shore. A buoy marks the line with a platform top about four feet square. Just over the line on the English side it is excellent fishing. The British government have a cutter stationed here to look out for our fishermen.

As I stood on the wharf to-day the following took place, as it does almost every day, and was witnessed by hundreds from the wharves on our side. There was a cluster of about twenty-five boats from our side that had gone over and were fishing for all they were worth, with one eye looking for the cutter. When no one seemed to be looking for her she sneaked around the end of the island under full steam, fairly flying.

The scene changed. Some one sighted the cutter and told the rest. At this stage of the scene it would remind you of a lot of boys in an apple orchard when the farmer quite suddenly appears. There was a strong south wind blowing, and these boats were good sailers.

In came the lines, up came the anchor and sail—and you talk about carrying sail, but this beats anything I ever saw. The cutter was about one and one-half mile from the boats and the boats about one-half of a mile from the line. On came the cutter at terrible speed. The boys stopped too long. The boats are very near to the line now, but the cutter will certainly get the hind boat. The cutter fired a shot across the bow of the boat to stop, but they did not heed, and still another shot was fired. She is coming so fast that she is all buried up in foam. Two men are standing in her bow with boat-hooks to catch the delinquent. The crowd on the wharves are cheering our boys on. Bang! goes another shot. But no stop. The keel of the fisherman can nearly be seen, and the boys are lying low. All the other boats are across but this one and she is only a few yards from the line. Great Scott! They have got her! No, the man in the stern of the boat has knocked the boat-hooks away from stern with an oar and they are safely across the line, amidst the uproar of cheers from the wharves. The boat goes up to the buoy, some of the crew jump out upon it, thumb their nose at the cutter and exchange pet names with the crew and go home. To fully appreciate the fish question or nuisance, you need to take a trip to the borders of Maine.