The subject statute allows for the State Auditor to delegate examination of officers for purposes of testimony relative business and management of an insurance company.

comes the trustee for school purposes of all school property exist- ing within its boundaries, and the virtual owner thereof. See Board v. Center Township, 143 Ind. 391; Maumee School Tp. v. School Town of Shirley City, 159 Ind. 423. INSURANCE-STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. February 2, 1907. Hon. John C. Billheimer, Auditor of State: Dear Sir-in answer to your request for my official opinion as to whether under §13 of the act of 1899, and the notice given by you, bearing date January 22, 1907, to the president, vice-president, treasurer and cashier of the State Life Insurance Company, of Indianapolis, Indiana, to appear at the office of the anditor of state, at Indianapolis, Indiana, on Monday, January 28, 1907, at ten o'clock a. m., and then and there testify under oath relative to the business and management of the State Life Insurance Com- pany (which examination has been delayed and continued from day to day since said 28th day of January, 1907, subject to certain negotiations pending between yourself and the officers of said company), you could legally have such examination of such offi- cers conducted by any person whom you might select, under your direct and personal supervision. I beg to advise that said section above referred to authorizes you, at any time, to make such examination, either in person or by some other suitable person; and, it is my opinion that the language of the statute referred to means, and will be construed to mean, such person as shall be suitable to you. It is also my opinion that, under said section, you may proceed to examine the officers of such company before examining the books, papers, etc., or conduct such examination in such order as to you seems best and even though you should examine the books, papers and securities of the company first, by persons other than yourself, I do not believe you would be concluded from conducting an exam- ination of the officers, under oath, thereafter, in person or with the aid of some other person, even though such person should not be one who examined or aided in the examination of the books, papers and securities. It is also my opinion that any one selected by you to make the examination of such officers, under oath, would have the power and authority to do so, under this statute, regardless of whether such person had participated in any manner in the examination of the books, papers and securities of such company, and regardless of whether you intend that such person conducting such examination of such officers shall examine the books, papers and securities of such company, further than will be necessary to the proper conduct of such examination of such officers, under oath. EX-CLERKS OF SUPREME AND APPELLATE COURTS- REQUIRED TO TURN OVER FEES TO THEIR SUCCES- SORS IN OFFICE. February 4, 1907. Edward V. Fitzpatrick, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Indianapolis, Indian a : Dear Sir-Under the law it is clearly the duty of the outgoing clerk to turn over to the incoming clerk all fees and moneys of every kind and character not belonging to such outgoing clerk, which have been received by him in his official capacity, and there is no possible way by which the title to any fees collected by the clerk of the supreme court, for and on behalf of officers other than himself, can ever vest in such clerk. It is my opinion that these fees in the hands of the clerk remain the property of the officers in whose favor they were taxed, and that there ought to be a law enacted whereby these fees would escheat to the state after a rea- sonable length of time, say two years from the date when the same were paid, and it ought to be made the duty of the clerk to notify by mail all persons in whose favor such fees are taxed and collected that such fees have been paid in. MORTON iVONUMENT-USE OF FUND FOR REPAIRING MORTON PLAZA. February 6, 1907. Dr. Warren R. King, Greenfield, Indiana: Dear Sir-You have requested my opinion upon the questions whether any portion of the Oliver P. Mforton Monument Fund can be used in repairing the Morton Plaza, and for the ceremonies ac- companying the unveiling of the M\Iorton Statue. You state that the commission has on hand the $35,000 appropriated by the Gen- eral Assembly in 1905, and from $1,500 to $2,000 collected from private donations.