question submitted to the voters the cross or X should be placed after the answer which he desires to give."

Referring now to the certificate of these amendments sent out by you, I find that of the five amendments to be submitted to the action of the electors at the coming election only two of them have any word or words in the title thereof to sufficiently indicate to the elector their purport. These are in the order certified by you, Nos. 1 and 4, the other three being simply proposals to amend various sections of articles, or that additional section be added to a certain article. If the title of the proposal to amend only were printed upon the ballot in the case of these three mentioned it is entirely possible that any intelligent voter, who had made a study of the amendment and had decided how he expected to vote upon the same, would be in doubt, when in the election booth, with the ballot before him, as to which of these three amendments he wished to vote for and which he wished to vote against.

The law does not seem to require that the entire proposed amendment should be printed upon the ballot, but only that "it shall be printed upon the ballot in such manner as to enable the electors to vote upon the question. The difficulty above pointed out, it seems to me, may be obviated in a very simple manner.

The proper form for submission of these proposed amendments to the electorate would be by placing the words "shall amendment" before the title and the words "be approved" after the title, and in addition, where there is not in the title of the proposed amendments any indication of its purport, after the title and before the words "be approved, two or three words be inserted in parenthesis showing the same.

Below the title should appear the words "for the amendment" or "against the amendment"

I understand that it is your purpose to advise the County Clerks of this opinion, and therefore, in order to secure uniformity on the ballots throughout the State, I have taken the liberty of indicating what words, in my opinion, should be added after the title of the three amendments above referred to in order to indicate to the voter what they concern.

The first amendment shows in its title that it refers to the initiative and referendum and nothing more is necessary.

There is nothing in the title of the second amendment indicating in any way what it concerns, but upon reading the context, it is apparent that it relates to the "recall" I would therefore recommend that on printing the same upon the ballots, after the word "Nevada" in the title of the amendment and before the words "be approved, the words "(relating to the recall)" should be inserted.

There is nothing in the title of the third proposed amendment indicating its purport, but the text of the amendment shows that it is a proposal to amend the present provision in regard to the investment of public school moneys by permitting investments in the bonds of any county of the State of Nevada, I would therefore recommend that the words "(investment school moneys)" be similarly inserted after title of this amendment.

The fourth proposed amendment adds to presentment by indictment already provided in this State an information by the District Attorney or Attorney-General, and its purport sufficiently appears in the title.

There is nothing in the title of the fifth amendment showing its purport, but upon comparing it with the existing section of said article, it

appears that the amendment consists of adding the words "and Notary Public, thus providing that females who are qualified as therein provided shall be eligible to that office. In the case of this proposed amendment I would recommend that the words " (females eligible as Notary Public)" be added.

Respectfully submitted,

CLEVE H. BAKER, Attorney-General.

Public Schools-Superintendent of Public Instruction-Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, Appropriation for-Statutes, Repeal of, Construction Of.

The amount of money provided for Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, District No. 1, for traveling expenses is $1,000, as provided by Stats. 1911, p. 80, sec. 40, notwithstanding Stats. 1911, p. 189, sec. 13, provides "that not more than $800 shall be paid from the General Fund of the State in settlement of claims for such traveling expenses of any Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction during any one year."

CARSON CITY, October 17, 1912.

G. E. ANDERSON, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, Elko, Nevada. DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your favor of the 9th instant, asking opinion in regard to funds appropriated for your district by the Legislature at its last regular session, and in connection therewith you call my attention to certain statutes and decisions.

Referring to the provisions passed at said session by the Legislature for the support and maintenance of the Virginia School of Mines, let me say that this office has decided that the appropriation contained in section 39 of the General Appropriation Act (Stats. 1911, p. 80) for the support of said institution was repealed by the Act appearing on page 281 of said volume, chapter 139, and it was decided that the only provision made by the Legislature at said session was that contained in the last-named Act.

In the case of your office the Legislature apparently made two provisions therefor, namely, section 40 of the General Appropriation Act (p. 80), and section 13 of the Public School Act (p. 189). The first provides four thousand dollars for payment of your salary; one thousand dollars for traveling expenses, and six hundred and fifty dollars for the office expenses.

expenses

* * *

The second fixes a compensation of each Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction at two thousand dollars per annum and provides how it shall be paid. It further provides that "all claims for traveling shall be paid from the General Fund of the State; provided, that no more than eight hundred dollars shall be paid from the General Fund of the State in settlement of claims for such traveling expenses of any Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction during any one year, etc.

By your citation of the case of State, ex rel. Davis, v. Eggers, 29 Nev. 469, I take it that it is your contention that by the enactment of section 13 of the school law the Legislature appropriated the sum of sixteen. hundred dollars for your traveling expenses during the years 1911 and 1912. The statutes, however, are quite different. The one passed upon

by the court in the Eggers case may be found in the laws of 1907 on page 409, and provides as follows: "The chairman of said Commission shall receive as compensation for his services, to be paid out of the treasury of the State of Nevada, the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars per annum, payable in equal monthly installments upon the first day of each and every month? These, as you will see by the language of the above quotation, and by the decision of the court, constitute a direct appropriation for the payment of the salary of the Commissioner.

The language in section 13, supra, is "that not more than eight hundred dollars shall be paid, etc.

In the 1907 statute the court held that this was a direct appropriation of money for the payment of the salary of the Commissioner, while the language in section 13 of the school law clearly shows that the Legislature had no intention of making an appropriation, but merely imposed a limitation upon the amount that the Superintendent might spend in any one year.

I am therefore of opinion that the entire amount appropriated by the Legislature at said session for your office is fully expressed in section 40 of the General Appropriation Act, namely, four thousand dollars for salary, one thousand dollars for traveling expenses, and six hundred and fifty dollars for office expenses, and that when you have exhausted the one thousand dollars for traveling expenses, the Controller has no authority to draw warrants for any additional amount on account of said expenses.

Respectfully submitted,

By EDW. T. PATRICK, Deputy.

CLEVE H. BAKER, Attorney-General.

Elections-General Elections-Registration-Indians, Citizenship of, Right to Registration.

An Indian is not a citizen of the United States by birth, because not born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof. He cannot make himself a citizen without the consent and cooperation of the Government. An Indian not being a citizen of the United States, is not entitled to register and vote.

CARSON CITY, October 17, 1912.

HON. GEORGE BRODIGAN, Secretary of State, Carson City, Nevada.

DEAR SIR: Your inquiry this day as to whether or not a half-breed Indian is a citizen and therefore entitled to register and vote received, and in answer thereto permit me to say that article 14, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States (Rev. Laws, 185) provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Article 2, section 1 of the Nevada Constitution (Rev. Laws, 250), limits the right of suffrage to "every male citizen of the United States"

It has been a number of times decided that an Indian is not a citizen of the United States by birth, because not born "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" He cannot make himself a citizen without the consent and cooperation of the Government.

Wherefore, I am of opinion that the Indian in question, not being a citizen of the United States, is not entitled to register and vote.

Respectfully submitted,

By EDW. T. PATRICK, Deputy.

CLEVE H. BAKER, Attorney-General.

Fish and Game-Deer-Right to Sell Animals Killed.

Under sections 2092-2094, Revised Laws, one is permitted to sell deer, killed by himself, within the number therein limited, to actual consumers of the flesh thereof, but it is unlawful for the person so killing said deer to sell the same to anyone who will vend it out at retail to the consumer.

MR. V. S. BAXTER, Mina, Nevada.

CARSON CITY, October 23, 1912.

DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 7th instant, addressed to the Game and Fish Commissioner, and asking "if it is lawful to sell the two deer which the season permits or one deer which is permitted, has been handed to this office for reply.

Section 2093, Revised Laws, provides an open season for deer and antelope from September 15 until October 15 and limits the number to two for any one open season or year.

Section 2094 provides: "It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to sell or offer for sale or to trade or barter or offer to trade or barter any number of deer or antelope in excess of two between September 15 and November 1 of any year?

Section 2092 provides: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any person from selling game killed by himself, but it shall be unlawful for any person or persons, firm, company, corporation or association to purchase such game for the purpose of barter or sale, etc.

Section 2093 permits the killing of two deer or antelope in any one

season.

By implication, section 2094 permits the sale of the two deer or antelope during the period specified in one season.

Section 2092 makes it unlawful for any one to purchase such game for the purpose of barter or sale.

From a consideration of the above provisions of our statute I take it that it was the intention of the Legislature to permit any one to sell game, killed by himself within the limit of number aforesaid, to actual consumers of the flesh thereof, but that it was unlawful for the person so killing the game to sell the same to any purchaser of such game who would use it for the purpose of barter and sale; that is, to vend out the same at retail to the consumer.

Very truly yours,

CLEVE H. BAKER, Attorney-General.

State Militia, Officers of-Secretary of State, Fee for Military Commission.

Under section 3592, Revised Laws, the Secretary of State is entitled to charge the sum of $5 for the issuance of commissions to the officers of the state militia.

CARSON CITY, November 20, 1912.

HON. GEORGE BRODIGAN, Secretary of State, Carson City, Nevada.

DEAR SIR: I am in receipt of your inquiry of this date as to your right to charge a fee for the issuance of commission to officers of the state militia.

There are two statutes relating to this matter, which seem to be directly in conflict. Section 3952, Revised Laws, provides: "Each and every officer of this State, civil and military, except Commissioners of Deeds. and Notaries Public, shall, at the time of the issuance of his commission, and before entering upon the duties of his office, pay to the Secretary of State the sum of five dollars, etc.

This is section 7 of an Act entitled "An Act in relation to the State Library, which was approved February 14, 1865. This section was amended in 1907, which said amendment was approved March 29, 1907, and it appears on page 372 of the laws of that year.

Section 3967, Revised Laws, provides: "The Governor, as commanderin-chief of the militia of the State, shall issue commissions to all officers appointed or elected therein. The commissions shall be attested by the Secretary of State with the great seal, and also by the Adjutant-General with the seal of his office. No fee shall be charged for military commissions? This section is section 3 of "An Act relating to the National Guard and the enrolled militia, approved March 6, 1893.

Although the Act in relation to the State Library was enacted in 1865, and the Act in relation to the National Guard was enacted in 1893, still the Legislature of 1907, having reenacted with some slight change section 7 of the Library Act, and having retained in said section 7 the express provision that military officers should pay a fee to the Secretary of State upon issuance of the commission as therein provided, I am of opinion that you are entitled to charge the sum of five dollars upon issuance of such commissions, such appearing to be the latest expression of the legislative will.

Respectfully submitted,

CLEVE H. BAKER, Attorney-General.

Bureau of Industry, Agriculture and Irrigation-Commissioner of Bureau, Salary of, Appropriation For.

The payment of the salary of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Industry, Agriculture and Irrigation is one of the "disbursements" which the law contemplated would be paid out of the $25,000 appropriation provided in section 7, Statutes of 1911, page 75.

CARSON CITY, November 20, 1912. HON. C. A. NORCROSS, Commissioner of the Bureau of Industry, Agriculture and Irrigation.

DEAR SIR: Your favor of the 15th ultimo received, requesting the opinion of this office upon certain matters therein stated which are in substance as follows:

First-Whether that certain Act creating the Bureau of Industry, Agriculture and Irrigation, approved March 17, 1911, and making an appropriation therefor, contemplated that the salary of the Commissioner should be paid out of the said $25,000 appropriation.