The recitals contained in Senate Enrolled Act No. 273 are correct so far as they relate to any claim or title possessed by the State of Indiana.

entitled to have expended upon him his pro rata share of the school funds for educational purposes, and wherever the child goes, the money or funds for his education goes also, so long as he does not remove from the territory in which he was enumerated, and, under these authorities, it is perfectly plain that the city annexing the territory would be entitled to its pro rata of all tuition funds based on the enumeration of the children in the annexed territory. When the territory was annexed the township would be no longer liable, in my opinion, to pay the transfer fees, but, if there remained in the hands of the trustees any funds unexpended for school purposes for the annexed territory at the time when such territory was annexed, then such school city would be entitled to its proportionate share of such unexpended fund, based upon the pu- pils who had been transferred and were not accommodated in the township school in the annexed territory; and that such city is entitled to its pro rata share of the tnition funds, both local and general, for school purposes, beginning with the beginning of the school year in September, 1906, based upon the last preceding enumeration for such annexed territory, and if these funds have been received by the township trustee the city school board should first demand of such trustee such funds, and, upon his refusal to pay same over to such school board, or the treasurer thereof, pro- ceedings in mandamus should be instituted and the board of trus- tees of such city are the proper relators in such mandamus pro- ceedings. I cite the cases of Johnson et al., School Trustee, v. Smith, School Trustee, supra, and Hlalm v. State ex rel. Hottel et al., supra, for mode of procedure in securing such funds. SWAMP LANDS-ST. JOSEPH AND STARKE COUNTIES. March 4, 1907. Hon. J. Frank Ianly, Governor of the State of Indiana: Dear Sir-You have submitted to me Senate Enrolled Act No. 273 relating to swamp lands in St. Joseph and Starke counties, and have asked whether the same is correct in its recitals respecting the title and claim of the state to said land. Upon investigation I find that on the 29th day of June, 1906, Attorney-General Charles W. Miller rendered an opinion to Hon. Warren Bigler, auditor of state, in which he held that the state has no claim to lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in section 36, township 37 north, range 1 west, but that the present holders have a right to hold the same, free from all rights on behalf of the state. In this opinion I con- cur. As to section 14, township 33 north, range 3 west, the records of the auditor of state's office show that this land was sold on the 10th day of December, 1904, pursuant to the act of 1899, found o- page 398 of the session laws of that year, to one Darrow, for the sum of $10,080, and a deed for said land was duly executed by the auditor of state to said purchaser. I am of the opinion that the recitals contained in Enrolled Act No. 273, Senate, are correct so far as they relate to any claim or title possessed by the state of Indiana to the land involved. BILLS-GOVERNOR ENTITLED TO THREE FULL DAYS h\ WHICH TO CONSIDER. March 5, 1907. Ion. J. Frank Hanly, Governor of Indiana: Dear Sir-You presented to me the question, Within what time after a bill is presented to you you are required to return the same under section 140 Burns' Statutes 1901.? The portion of this section which calls for construction reads as follows: "If any bill shall not be returned by the governor within three days, Sundays excepted, after it shall have been pre- sented to him, it shall be a law without his signature unless the general adjournment shall prevent its return, in which case it shall be a law unless the. governor within five days next after such adjournment shall file such bill with his ob- jections thereto in the office of the secretary of state, and shall lay the same before the general assembly at its next session in like manner as if it had been returned by the gov- ernor. But no bills shall be presented to the governor with- in two days next previous to the final adjournment of the general assembly." The rule which is supported by a great weight of authority i; that in computing the three days mentioned in the above section the day of presentation is to be excluded and the last day included. This construction affords the executive three full days after the day of presentation in which to consider the measure. See 26 Am. and Eng. Encyc. Law, page 551; Endlich on Interpretation of Stats., sec. 392;