ceiving instruction at either the School for the Blind or the School for the Deaf. Accordingly the names of such children should be included in the census lists of the various districts in which their parents or guardians reside. Ca-pi-O Respectfully yours, SCHOOL LAW. Office of Supervisor and member of school board are not incompatible in a district organized under the general school law. (2) A person must be a resident of the school district in order to be entitled to vote at a school meeting in that district. Glee W. Wickett, Elmira, Michigan: July 20, 1914. Dear Sir-In your letter of the 15th inst. you ask the following questions: "Can a Supervisor of a Township hold a school district office? Can a man living in a school district vote at their meeting if he holds land in another school district?" You do not state whether or not your school district is incorporated under the general school law or under the Township Unit System. If the district is incorporated under the general school law, then the office of Supervisor of the Township and the member of the School Board would not be incompatible, but if organized under the Township Unit System these offices would be incompatible. In answer to your second question, I would call your attention to Section 4662 C. L. 1897 which reads, in part, as follows: "In all school elections every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years who owns property which is assessed for school taxes in the district, or who is the parent or legal guardian of any child of school age included in the school census of said district and who has resided in said district three months next preceding such election, shall be a qualified voter. On the question of voting school taxes, every citizen of the United States of the age of twenty-one years who owns property which is assessed for school taxes in the district and who has resided in the district as above stated shall be a qualified voter." You will see that the statute expressly provides that a person must be a resident of the District in which he votes in addition to having the other qualifications prescribed by this Act. Respectfully yours, R-pi-O GRANT FELLOWS, LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS. ALTERATION OF BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. The board of supervisors of the county may take action only following a valid reapportionment act of the State legisla ture. Mr. E. G. Hackney, Clio, Michigan: July 21, 1914. Dear Sir-Your letter of the 16th instant requesting an opinion from this Department upon the propositions of law therein raised has been received. It appears from your statement that Genesee County under the representative apportionment Act of 1913, as well as under the previous apportionment act, is entitled to two representatives in the State Legislature. Pursuant to the constitutional provisions and the statute the board of supervisors at their October meeting last fall proceeded to redistrict the county. Material changes were made in the boundaries of the districts. The constitutionality of Act 336 has been attacked in a proceeding instituted for that purpose which is now pending before the Supreme Court of this State. If said act is held to be invalid, the question will arise in your county as to the validity of the action of the board of supervisors taken last fall in redistricting the county. Stated generally, the question is whether or not a board of supervisors may take action with reference to the division of the county into representative districts following the taking and publication of the federal census without an intervening valid representative apportionment act having been duly enacted by the legislature of the State, such action of the board of supervisors not being in any way in contravention of the apportionment act in force but rather consistent therewith. The constitutional provisions with reference to the apportionment of representatives and the division of counties into representative district in certain cases are found in Sections 3 and 4 of Article V of the present State Constitution. Section 3, insofar as it is material in the determination of the instant case, reads as follows:: "In every county entitled to more than one representative, the board of supervisors shall assemble at such time and place as shall be prescribed by law, divide the same into representative districts equal to the number of representatives to which such county is entitled by law, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the Secretary of State and clerk of such county a description of such representative districts, specifying the number of each district and population thereof according to the last preceding enumeration." Section 4 provides that "At the session of 1913, and each tenth year thereafter, the legislature shall by law rearrange the senatorial districts and apportion anew the representatives among the counties and districts according to the number of inhabitants, using as a basis for such apportionment the last preceding United States Census of this: State. Each apportionment so made, and the division of any county into representative districts by its board of supervisors, made thereunder, shall not be altered until the tenth year thereafter." These provisions are substantially identical with corresponding portions of the Constitution of 1850 except that provision for the taking of a State census is omitted. An examination of the constitutional debates does not indicate that it was the intention of the framers of he present constitution to change the requirements with reference to the apportionment of State representatives and the division of counties into districts except as incidental to the abolishment of the State census. It will be noted that Section 3, above quoted, directs that the board of supervisors shall assemble as "shall be prescribed by law." Pursuant to a similar requirement of the Constitution of 1850, Section 13 of Act 156 of the Session Laws of 1851 was enacted, said section now standing as Section 2486 of the Compiled Laws of 1897. It reads as follows: "The said respective boards of supervisors in each county, entitled to more than one representative in the State legislature, shall have power, and it shall be their duty at their annual meeting in the year 1851 and at their annual meeting next after each subsequent apportionment of such representatives by the legislature, to divide their respective counties into representative districts, equal in number to the number of representatives to which such county is entitled, in accordance with Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution of this State; and they shall cause to be filed in the office of the Secretary of State and in the office of the clerk of such county, within thirty days after such division, a description of such representative districts, specifying the num ber of each district and the population thereof, according to the last preceding enumeration." It appears from this statute that it was the legislative intent that the authority conferred upon the board of supervisors of the county should be exercised only following the enactment of a valid legislative reapportionment act. The county board has, of course, no jurisdiction in the premises other than as granted by the Constitution and the statute. It is, I believe, a cardinal rule of construction under such circumstances that a power so granted may be exercised only in the manner and form authorized. In the formation and alteration of representative districts, the constitution clearly contemplates that legislative action shall be necessary on the part of the State legislature, and also of the boards of supervisors in such counties as are entitled to more than one representative. The legislative function is thus divided, a portion being vested in the local board. I am impressed, however, that such portion is wholly subservient to valid action on the part of the State legislature and that in consequence, the county board may take valid action only following a constitutional reapportionment act duly enacted by the law-making body of the State. The language of Section 4 of Article V of the present Constitution bears out this view. It is therein specifically declared that the legisla tive apportionment and the division of a county by the board of supervisors "made thereunder" may not be changed until the tenth year thereafter. The conclusion seems unavoidable from this provision that action on the part of the boards of supervisors depends entirely upon prior valid action by the State legislature, and that in consequence where the districts in a particular county are duly established by the local board pursuant to an apportionment act enacted as contemplated by the Constitution, the boundaries of the districts may not be altered until another enumeration is had and the legislature makes a new apportionment of the State representatives. The requirement of Section 4 that the districts shall not be altered until the tenth year thereafter raises, I believe, an insurmountable objection to any other construction than the one suggested above. If the action of the board of supervisors taken subsequent to the enumeration under federal authority and before a valid reapportionment act becomes operative, were deemed to be valid a peculiar situation might arise in several counties of the State. Undoubtedly the legislature will, pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution, pass the required act. Quite probably the number of representatives to which several counties of the State are at present entitled will, be changed. If, however, the board of supervisors had proceeded to change the boundaries of the districts within any such county, the constitutional requirement would seem to prevent further action within the ten-year period so as to make the districts of the county conform with the new apportionment act. This would obviously lead to a situation that cannot be presumed to have been con templated by the framers of the constitution. Viewed from any standpoint, it seems to be the intent of that instrument that the board of supervisors may take action after each census only following a valid reapportionment act. If Act 336 of 1913 is held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the situation will, of course, be precisely the same as if no such enactment had been contemplated. In reply to your specific question, I would say, therefore, that in my opinion the action of the board of supervisors of Genesee County cannot be deemed to be valid unless the legislative apportionment act of 1913 is sustained. In reply to your second inquiry, I would say that the nominating petitions of a candidate in either district of your county should specify the number of the district. It would seem that such number is a necessary part of the designation of the district and consequently of the office. The provisions of the primary law require in my judgment, that such number should appear on the nominating petition. Trusting that these suggestions will indicate my views upon the inquiry submitted by you, I am, Ca-v-O Respectfully yours, GRANT FELLOWS, ADVERTISING LAW. Procedure discussed. Act 276 P. A. 1913. July 21, 1914. Mr. G. L. Willman, Detroit Board of Commerce, Detroit, Michigan: Dear Sir I have your communication of the 15th instant requesting opinion relative to the operation of the advertising law of this State. While you do not state so positively, I assume you refer to Act 276 of the Public Acts of 1913 entitled, "An Act to regulate and prohibit false, deceptive, fraudulent and misleading advertising in newspapers, periodicals or other publications, or by circulars or hand-bills." This Act consists of one section as follows: "Any person, firm, corporation or association, or the agent or manager of any such firm, corporation or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation or association, directly or indirectly, to the public for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or an interest therein, knowingly makes, publishes, disseminates, circulars, or places before the public, or knowingly causes directly or indirectly to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public in this State, in a newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, circular, pamphlet, or letter, or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or anything so offered to the public, which advertisement contains any assertion, representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court: Provided, That the publisher or printer of any newspaper or other periodical shall not be liable under this act for publishing deceptive advertising received from any other person: Provided further, That said printer or publisher is not aware of the deceptive character of the advertising so received." You desire to know what constitutes a violation of this statute. I might say that the act is its own measure of what is right and wrong and is fairly definite as to the description of the offense which it seeks to punish. The advertising must relate to merchandise, securities, service or anything offered to the public for sale or distribution or the increase in the consumption thereof, etc. The advertising must be published, that is, placed before the public. This may be done in a newspaper or other publication or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, |