The act of 1899 intended to authorize old companies to reorganize and thereby obtain the benefit of the statute.

It is often the case that the duties to be performed by a public officer are of such a character that it would be unwise to have them performed by a deputy or an assistant, and it is for the legisla- ture to determine this question; and it may be that in the enact- ment of the law in question, in view of the technical knowledge required in the performance of the duties of your office, the legis- lature intended that the duties should only be performed by the state entomologist. Whatever its purpose was, the fact remains that it did not provide for the appointment of deputies or assist- ants, and hence, in my opinion, none may be appointed. The fact that it may be a physical impossibility for the state entomologist to examine all the nurseries in the state between January 1 and October 1, if brought to the attention of the law makers, might and probably would induce that body to provide an assistant, or extend the time in which such examinations may be made, but since it has not provided for such assistant, in my opinion you are not authorized to appoint or employ one and pay him out of the appropriation made. It is my opinion that you can legally examine nurseries before -Tune 1 and after October 1, in case you are unable to make all the examinations between these dates, and that the act requiring such examinations to be made between those dates is directory and not mandatory. INSURANCE-REORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN COMPAN- IES. June 20, 1907. Ilon. John C. Billheimer, Auditor of State, Indianapolis; Indiana: Dear Sir-You have requested my opinion upon the following question: Where a life insurance company organized under the act in force March 9, 1897 (Burns' Stats. 1901, Sees. 4914a-4914z) upon the assessment plan, afterwards reorganized as a mutual life insurance company under the act in force February 10, 1899 (Burns' Stats. 1901, Sees. 4894e-4894ol), can it again reorganize under the latter statute as a stock company? My opinion is that it can not. The act of 1899 intended to authorize old companies to reorganize and thereby obtain the benefit of that statute. The section permitting such reincorpora- tion reads as follows: "Any domestic corporation, association or society, or- ganized under any law of this state, transacting business 222 of life insurance, may be reincorporated or reorganized under the provisions of this act, under its existing corpor- ate name, by filing with the auditor of state a declaration of its desire to do so, signed and duly acknowledged by a majority of its board of directors, trustees or managers, with a statement in like manner, signed and acknowledged by them, that such corporation, association or society has insured the requisite number of lives as herein provided, or, if a stock company, that it has complied with the re- quirements of this act, concerning subscriptions to its capital stock, and provided also, they have deposited with the auditor of state securities herein provided for, where- upon the auditor of state shall file the same together with his certificate of such filing, with the secretary of state, who shall issue to such corporation, association or -society a certificate of such reincorporation or reorganization, un- der the seal of the state, and attach thereto copies of all papers so filed with the secretary of state, and the same shall be recorded in the office of the secretary of state, and copies thereof filed in the office of the auditor of state, and such corporation, association or society shall thereupon be deemed to be reincorporated or reorganized under the provisions of this act. Any such company having on de- posit with the auditor of state securities of the quality herein required, may use the same in whole or in part for making the deposits herein provided for." In Miller v. State Life Insurance Co., 27 Ind. App. 45, 53, the court in passing upon this statute say: It is plain from sections 27 and 28 of the act approved February 10, 1899, that it was not the intention of the legis- lature that there should be necessarily a new company formed, but that the old company, without changing itq corporate identity, or in any manner affecting its corpor- ate rights or liability, might, by complying with certain requirements, be authorized to do business in the future in accordance with the provisions contained in that act." The class of corporations which may reorganize is here de- clared to be "any domestic corporation 0 0 " organized under any law of this state, transacting business of life insurance." The word "law" thus used means any law other than the act in question. Had the general assembly intended to allow incorpora- tors to organize under the statute of 1899 and thereafter reor- ganize under the same statute, the language most naturally em- ployed would have been organized under this or any other law." A recognized rule of statutory interpretation is to construe descriptive language as referring to things as they exist at the time the law was passed. "A statute must be construed with reference to the time of the passage thereof, or with reference to its going into effect. That meaning must be given to words which they had at the date of the act and descriptive matter therein must refer to things as they existed at the time of its passage." (26 Amer. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 611). Accordingly, it would do no violence to the present statute to regard it as allowing reincorporation of only such companies as had been organized under previously existing laws at the time the act of 1899 was passed. This view is consonant with the evident pur- pose of the act above indicated; for it can scarcely be supposed the legislature intended to permit incorporators to experiment with the statute, and having failed to effect their purposes as a mutual company, to again appeal to its provisions and reincor- porate as a stock corporation. I am therefore of the opinion that your inquiry should be answered in the negative. CHEMIST (STATE)-STOCK FOODS, ETC. June 21, 1907. Hon. Arthur Goss, Indiana State Chemist, Lafayette, Indiana: Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your favor of June 15th, in which you submit certain wrappers used in the sale of so-called stock foods under the name of "Stock Conditioners." I infer you wish to inquire whether the above change in name will obviate the necessity on the part of the manufacturer, of complying with the stock food law, Acts 1907, Chap. 206. You further ask whether the following rule, adopted by you, is in conformity with. the above mentioned statute: "' Materials sold purely as medicines and so advertised, without any claim being made on the wrapper or adver- tising matter of nutritive properties, and which do not contain in the name the words food, feed or a word or t.erm meaning the same thing, will not have to be registered