An annual $1,000 license fee must be paid by each railroad company; an annual $1,000 fee must be paid for the sale of liquors in dining and buffet cars; the fees must be paid by June 10th each year.

services, over and above the amount paid, no recovery could be had, because the contract, for such additional compensation, was not in writing. If suit were brought upon the theory that the teacher was entitled to the minimum wage, this also would fail, because no particular amount of compensation is fixed by the statute, and the school trustees may contract for any sum, pro- vided it does not fall below the minimum stated therein. But no presumption would arise, that the parties tacitly agreed upon the minimum statutory wage, where they entered into an express contract for a less amount, namely,,thirty-five dollars per month. I am therefore of the opinion that the school board are not liable in any sum whatsoever on an implied contract to the "cadet teachers" who have been paid the amounts contracted for. RAILROADS-$1,000 LICENSE FEE. April 5, 1907. Hon. John C. Billheimer, Auditor of State, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-The questions have been submitted to me- (1) Whether Senate Bill No. 541, concerning the $1,000 license fee exacted from railroad and railway companies, applies to the company as a whole, or whether a license must be paid for every branch, division or road constituting a part of a single system. (2) Whether such licensee must pay $1,000 for every buffet or dining car which it rins within the state, and on which intoxicating liquors are sold. (3) When companies, now running said dining or buffet care, must pay the license fee. Replying to these in order- I am of the opinion that each company, whether consisting of one or many branches, divisions or constituent companies, shall pay an annual license of $1,000. The language of the act is- "Every railroad and railway company doing business," etc. The title of the act refers to "certain railroad and railway companies." Clearly, these terms were inserted as inclusive of the different names "Railway Company" and "Railroad Com- pany," used by this class of corporations, and not as distinguish- ing a "railroad," from a "railroad or railway company." I am further of the opinion that there is nothing in the act which requires more than one license fee to be paid by any com- pany during each year. The act does not expressly exact a sepa- rate fee for every car, but refers to one license "for the sale of " 0liquors upon dining and buffet cars," (see title). This permit covers all such cars on which the liquor is sold. The payment of license is to be made "on or before the 10th of June of each year hereafter," and is to be made "annually." The statute has an emergency clause, and went into effect March 12, 1907. My view is, that each company is under the necessity of paying this fee on or prior to June 10 of each year, including 1907 ; and that the year referred to by the act is a calendar year, beginning January 1, and not June 10. Section 240 (fifth) Burns' Stats. 1901, provides that where the word "year" is employed in a statute, it shall be construed to mean a calendar year, unless otherwise expressed; and inasmuch as the law went into effect March 12, 1907, it must have been the intention of the legisla- ture to require a license for sales occurring between that date and June 10, 1907. I should therefore read the act thus: "Which sum shall be paid on or before the 10th day of June hereafter, of each year." Accordingly, all companies falling within the terms of this enactment should pay $1,000 as license fee, on or prior to June 10 of each succeeding year; the license running from January 1 to December 31 of each calendar year. The license for the current year, if paid prior to June 10, 1907, will protect the licensee for all sales made between March 12, 1907, and December 31, 1907. Sales made prior to March 12, 1907, are not within the purview of the law: for a statute is never to be given a retrospective operation, except where such is clearly indicated by its language. MOTOR VEHICLES-PROPER LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF ACT CONCERNING. April 6, 1907. Hon. Fred A. Sims, Secretary of State, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-Pursuant to your verbal request for my opinion as to the proper legal construction to be placed on the present motor vehicles law, and what are your duties thereunder, I have to say that the act of 1907 amending sections 2, 5, 7, 10 and 13 of the act of 1905 as to matters occurring after the amendatory act takes effect, operates precisely as if the amendatory act had been