Regarding an application for a veterinarian's license.

The language of that portion of the section of the statute re- ferred to in your letter, and of section 2 of the same act, which is pertinent, reads as follows: Section 1. "Any number of persons not less than nine who shall be engaged in the same class of manufacture, trade or business may associate themselves together for the purpose of a mutual insurance of their respective classes of property against loss or damage by fire," etc. Sec. 2. "Every company organized under the provi- sions of the preceding section shall indicate in its title or name the trade and class of property which it shall be or- ganized to insure, and no such company shall insure any property of any other trade or class." Then following these provisions of seetion 2, it provides penal- ties for a violation of any of the provisions of the act. . The lan- guage of this section makes it clear that the class of property to be insured is to be considered, and any trade classification-which would include many different classes of property, and, in fact, al- most all classes of property such as the retail trade-would be entirely too general and'beyond the scope of this statute. VETERINARIAN-J. K. HUGHES CASE. July 23, 1907. Dr. C. L. Boor, Secretary Indiana State Board of Veterinary Med- ical Examiners, Muncie, Indiana: Dear Sir-Your favor of July 20th is at hand presenting the following facts, in the matter of the application for a veterinar- ian's license by J. K. Hughes: In June, 1901, J. K. Hughes had in his possession an affidavit, signed and sworn to by five residents of his county, who certified to their personal acquaintance with him, his professional ability in the practice of veterinary medicine and surgery, and that he had practiced the same for five years last preceding the execution of the affidavit. On applying to Hon. Ed V. Fitzpatrick, clerk of Jay county, in June, 1901, for a license, under the act of 1901, page 421, he was informed that the license blanks had not been received, and therefore no license was issued to him at that time. When mak- ing said application Hughes had with him the original affidavit above referred to. 262 Within ninety days after Hughes applied as aforesaid the blank licenses were received by the clerk of Jay county, but no license was issued to Hughes until December 7, 1906. After the act of 1905 (Acts 1905, p. 165) went into effect, Hughes appeared before the state board and demanded a license from them upon the strength of a diploma which he then pre- sented. The board refusing to recognize the diploma, he then offered to take an examination, but has never done so; whether he has been given an opportunity to do so does not appear. On December 7, 1907, Francis L. Crowe, clerk of Jay county, purported to issue to Hughes a formal license under the act of 1901, certifying as follows: "This is to certify that this certificate is issued upon written evidence showing competency of J. K. Hughes and filed in this office on the 7th day of June, 1901, under the provisions of the act of the legislature approved March 11, 1901." The body of the license stated: "In accordance with an act of the legislature approved by the governor of the state of Indi- ana on March 11, 190.1, and the presentation of evidence of ful- fillment of the requirements of said act, I hereby issue certificate to J. K. Hughes to practice veterinary medicine or surgery by any branch thereof in the state of Indiana." Relying upon this license, Hughes has demanded that the state board recognize him as qualified to practice his profession. Your communication states that Hughes did not leave his affi- davits with the county clerk when he first made his application. The certificate of the clerk is to the contrary, assuming that the 'written evidence'' referred to in his certificate consisted of the affidavits above mentioned. If, in June, 1901, Hughes left his proof with the clerk for fil- ing, and intended to do all that the statutes then demanded of him in order to receive a license, the mere fact that no certificate Was actually issued to him would not necessarily deprive him of the right to practice veterinary medicine or surgery. He ought not to be prejudiced by any delay for which he was not respon- sible. But if he did not leave or present his proof for filing, but wholly failed to perform the acts which he was required to per- form before he could put himself in the way of receiving a li- cense when the blanks arrived, he could not secure such certifi- cate after the act of 1901 ceased to exist, as it did in 1905 (see Acts 1905, p. 170). Whether he made his proof in June, 1901, is a disputed ques- tion of fact which the board has jurisdiction to determine, under §8 of the act of 1905, page 168. In your deliberations you will probably consider the weight which should attach to the official certificate of the clerk of Jay county, stating that proof was filed in his office on the 7th day of June, 1901; and you will give due consideration to the fact that official acts are presumed (though not conclusively) to have been properly performed, and that pub- lic officials do their duty. On the contrary, you will also give regard to the fact, if it be a fact, that Mr. Hughes delayed for many years to take advantage of the law of 1901 while it was in force; that after its repeal he applied to the state board for license, not relying upon his rights under the act of 1901, but bas- ing his application upon a diploma; and that he afterwards of- fered to take examination at the hands of the board. Upon this conflicting proof your duty as a board will be to arrive at such a conclusion as the facts seem, in your sound dis- cretion to justify. MINES-SIZE OF DRILL HOLES, PENALTY, ETC. July 24, 1907. Hon. James Epperson, Inspector of Mines, City: Dear Sir-I have your favor of July 20th, in which you in- close a letter from the president and secretary of District No. 8, United Mine Workers of America, asking the following ques- tions: "Is there any provision in the mining law of 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 347) regulating the size of drill holes in the block coal field?" "Whether the only penalty provided in the act is for the use of an unlawfully sized drill bit ?" The portion of the act in question (§2). reads as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person a to pre- pare any drill bit more than two and one-half inches in di- ameter to be used in boring holes for the purpose of pre- paring any shot." This is the only provision in the statute of 1907 bearing upon these questions. While. the object of the law was undoubtedly to preserve the safety of persons employed in coal mines, as indicated by its title, the methods by which this end was to be attained were within the legislative discretion,