The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-12-27
FOREIGN cos.
 CANNOT INSURE
 IF UNADMITTED Attorney General Light Clears Obscurity in Work mems Compensation Act DUTY OF INSURANCE
 COMMISSIONER Compensation Commission Must Not Consider Insur- ance Police or Guaranty

ance Police or Guaranty
 Hartford, Dec. 27-Attorney General John H. Light has filed an opinion defining the respective duties of the compensation commissioners and the insurance commissioner, under Sec tion 30 of the Compensation Law l The Contractors Mutual Liab1l1ty Insurance company of Boston, 10 Ire mont street, is in good standing in l Massac chusetts but the Connecticut in surance commissioner finds it is not legally entitled to admission to do business in this state.
 | Certain Massachusetts corporations have offered to the compensation com nissioners proof of responsibility to meet losses occurring under the com 1 pensation act, including evidence that they are insured in the Massachusetts company.
 The commission was in doubt if 1t had the right to consider such a pol icy as evidence of solvency, and ap- piled to the attorney general, whose opinion is follows:
 If these elements are proper ones for consideration: All of the power given to members of the Workmen's s Icompensation commission relating 10 i the subject of your inquiry, is found l in Section 30 of the Act, and such 1 l opinion; therefore, I shall quote the section in full:
 Every employer subject to Part B who shall not furnish to the commits sioner satisfactory proof of his sol vency and financial ability to pay directly to injured employees or other benehciartes the compensation pro- vided by this act, shall insure his full liability under Part B in one or both the following. d) By filing with the insurance commissioner in form ac- ceptabIe to him security guaranteeing the performance of the obligations of this act by said employer; or @ by insuring his full liability under Part B of this act in such stock or mutual companies or associations as are or may be authorized to take such risks in this state or by such combination of the above mentioned two methods as he may choose, subject to the ap- prova1 of the Insurance commission er@
 There is here clear line of dernar-a cation between the duties imposed upon the worknen's compensate commissioner and the duties imposed upon the insurance commissioner. The former is . to ascertain the solvencey and financial ability of the employer to pay directly to injured employees, or other benehciaries the compensa- tion provided by the act, and the lat ter is to pass upon all questions of security, or insurance, submitted by the employer, guaranteeing his per formance of the obligation of the act. Hence each official has a separate and distinct function to fill, and in no case does the power of the one en- brace the power of the other. It has been uniformly held that the emu meration of powers in a statute for bid the things not enumerated; and a statute which provides that a thing shall be done in a certain way car ries with it an implied prohibition against doing that thing in any other way. For instance when Congress gave the supreme court of the United States appellate Jurisdiction in certain specific cases, it was held to forbid that court from exercising appellate powers in all other cases than those. specified; and when national banks were em- powered to make loans on personal security it was likewise held that such a bank could not make loans on the security of a mortgage on real es- tate.
 State ex-re1 Morris v. Bulkeley, 61 Conn. 367.
 Now, from parity of reasoning, when the legislature gave the insur- ance commissioner jurisdiction over all matters of insurance under the workmen'se compensation act, it inn paied1y prohibited khe- members of the workmens compensation comnis- sion from exercising any Jurisdiction in the premises.
 An official cannot do indirectly what he has no power to do directly, yet you are asked to do just that by the Massachusetts corporations referred to in your letter. Section 30 of the Act, quoted above, requires an en1- pIoyer, who is obliged to insure his full liability under Part B. to do so in such stock or mutual companies or associations as are may be authoS~ ized to take such risks in this state. If, therefore, any member , of your commission should give a Massachu- setts corporation a certificate of fnan- cia1 ability to pay directly under Sec tion 30 of Part of the act, on the strength of it's being insured by a, company not authorized to take such risks fin this state, he would be per pany to do business in this state con employer concerned to successfully I am of the opinion that the mem bers of the workmen's compensation com mission have no right to consider an insurance policy, or an individual Or corporation guaranty, whether resi- dent or nonresident, as factor or element in determining the question of so1vency. The word solvent is well known in the common law, and zas used in the compensation act, it means that an employer has property sufficient to insure and meet his full liability under Part B.
 Respectfully submitted,
 JNO. H. LIGHT,
 Attorney-General