Regarding the registration of motor vehicles.

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 added to the original act at the time of its adoption, and the two acts must be construed as one act. Walsh, Treas., et al. v. State ex rel. Soules, Auditor, 142 Ind. 357; Cain v. Allen, 79 N. E. 201. Keeping in view this rule, I find that section 6 of the act makes it the duty of every owner of a motor vehicle to file in your office a statement of his name and address, with a brief description of his vehicle written on a blank furnished him by you, and the filing fee to be paid by him is $1. Where this fee has once been paid by such owner, you cannot legally collect any other fee from him unless he becomes the owner of another vehicle. Your duties are plain under this law as it applies to future registrations, and I do not understand that you have asked me for any suggestions in reference thereto. The object of the act of 1907 referred to was undoubtedly to compel motor vehicles to be so marked with numbers that they could be readily identified by such numbers, whenever there was any occasion for such identification. There could be no object in having only the motor vehicle of the flture purchasers so iden- tified. It is therefore my opinion that this act should be so construed, if possible, as to cause all motor vehicles to be marked with num- bers as indicated in this act. Construing the act of 1905 and reading into same the amended sections contained in the act of 1907, section 6, among other things, provides that the owner shall file in the office of the secre- tary of state a statement of his name and address, with a brief description of the vehicle to be registered on a blank to be pre- pared and furnished by such secretary for that purpose. Section 3 of the new act, which amends section 7 of the old, provides, among other things, that the secretary of state shall thereupon file such statement in his office, register such m.otor vehicle in a book to be kept for that purpose, and assign it a num- ber in the order of filing. " This section of the new act refers to the statement required by section 6 of the old act. If, therefore, a statement has already been filed and a fee paid by the appli- cant under the old act, then the statement to be filed in the ab- sence of a new application is the one that was required and filed under section 6 of the old act, and the statement having been filed, it is my opinion that it is the duty of the secretary of state to proceed to assign numbers, and to do such other acts and things as are required by the new act with reference to such state- ments. If the law for any reason is impossible of execution as to the applications that have heretofore been made tinder section 6 of the old act, this will not prevent the carrying into effect this act as to new applications. I think it would not be improper for you to furnish to each person who had heretofore registered, a blank to be filled out with a new description, etc., as required by section 6 of the old act, and to promulgate the announcement that all motor vehicle owners should forward descriptions of their motor vehicles as required by said section 6, but no charge should be made to any one with reference to a motor vehicle for which a fee has already been paid, under section 6 of the old act. SIGNATURE-OF STATE OFFICER, LITHOGRAPHED. April 9, 1907. flon. Z. T. Sweeney, Commissioner Fisheries and Game, Colum- bus, Indiana: Dear Sir-There is no question but that you can adopt any signature you desire. If your signature is lithographed and you adopt it as your signature, it is the same in law as if you had per- sonally signed the same. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS-ACT OF MARCH 9, 1907, RE- LATING TO ADMISSION OF FOREIGN CORPORATIONS. April 9, 1907. Hon. Fred A. Sims, Secretary of State, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-You have requested my opinion upon the question whether the act of the general assembly approved \[arch 9, 1907, relating to the admission of foreign corporations to do business in the state of Indiana, and repealing a somewhat similar act passed in 1901, requires that foreign corporations which have heretofore complied with the act of 1901 shall also conform to that of 1907 and pay the fees therein specified, before such cor- porations shall be empowered to transact business within this state. I am of the opinion that the legislature has ample power to authorize the revocation of a license previously given to a for-