A school board cannot maintain a "cadet system" in which inexperienced teachers are employed at the reduced rate of $35 per month, and a school board is not liable on an implied contract to the "cadets" who have been paid the amounts contracted for.

CORPORATIONS-CHARGES ON CAPITALIZATION, ETC., OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF CORPORATIONS. April 5, 1907. Honorable Fred A. Sims, Secretary of State, Indianapolis, Indi- ana: Dear Sir-You have submitted to me the question whether the act of 1907, found on page 324 of the session laws (Senate Bill 253), is of general application, or is elective with corporations desiring to avail themselves of its provision. This act relates to the change in the capitalization, term of existence and objects of certain classes of corporations. Section 1 states that corporations "may" reduce or "may" increase their capital stock; "may" define, shorten or extend the period of its corporate existence; or "may" define the objects. Section 2 reads: "Any corporation desiring to take advantage of any of the provisions of this act shall, in its resolutions so to be filed declare that it accepts all of the terms of this statute, and that its action in changing its capital stock or in de- fining or changing the period or duration of its corporate existence, or in defining, limiting or enlarging its corpor- ate objects, is taken in pursuance of this act." It is evident, from the foregoing, that the legislature did not intend to repeal statutes existing when the above law was enacted, and relating to the same subjects covered by it. The legislature has not said that the changes shall be made in the manner pro- vided in the act of 1907 "and not otherwise"; nor has it indi- cated, expressly or impliedly, that prior laws are repealed. Re- peals by implication are not favored, and I am therefore of the opinion that the law of 1907 is elective with corporations and not compulsory upon them, but they may, at their option, act under prior statutes as if the act of 1907 had not been enacted. SCHOOL BOARD-" CADET SYSTEM" FOR TEACHERS. April 5, 1907. Honorable Fassett A. Cotton, Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-You have referred to me two questions presented to you by the school board of Evansville, Indiana. These are as follows: 1. "Can a school board maintain a "cadet system" by which licensed teachers of small experience are assigned to school work, for stated periods; and thereafter em- ployed as 'teaching cadets,' at a compensation of $35 per month ?" 2. "Would the fact that such a cadet had accepted a contract for a less compensation than the mimimum wage law recognizes, and had received such salary for the full year without protest, invalidate all her claims for com- pensation for that year?" Replying to the first question, I am of the opinion that such a system, however praiseworthy its object, is not authorized by the laws of the state. All teachers must have a license, issued by the proper state or county authority ; and such, at least in theory is evidence of the competency of the instructor. (Jackson School Tp. v. Farlow, 75 Ind. 118, 119; Harrison Tp. v. Conrad, 26 Ind. 337). The local school trustees can not inject into the law a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to adopt, or pre- scribe a system wholly unrecognized by statute; since their powers are defined by law and they possess no others. (Lee v. York Tp., 163 Ind. 339, 340; Taylor v. School Town, 33 Ind. App. 675, 68.1; First Bank v. Adams Tp., 17 Ind. App. 375, 380). Es- pecially would it be beyond the scope of their authority to con- tract -with a licensed teacher for less than the minimum com- pensation fixed by the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 528), for the rule i% uubeunding, that a contract between the, school authorities and a teacher must not conflict with the law. I am therefore of the opinion that the system, referred to by you, is illegal. Answering your second question, my view of that while the facts therein mentioned would not necessarily render invalid the claim of the teacher for compensation in addition to the salary already paid, an insuperable obstacle to any action on her part would be the act of 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 173), reading as follows: "All contracts hereafter made by and between teachers and school corporations of the state of Indiana shall be in writing, signed by the parties to be charged thereby, and uo action shall be brought upon any contract not made in conformity to the provisions of this act." If the contract were in writing and called for $35 per month., and clearly that amount had been paid, no recovery could be had. If suit were brought upon a quantum mernit for the value of the 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