and such other structures, equipment and appliances as may be necessary or convenient in the conduct of said business."

The others were of like purport. The last one was: Mershon-Bacon Company, incorporated in 1906, under Act No. 232, Pub. Acts 1903, to

"Manufacture lumber and salt and to manufacture lumber and forest products into various commodities, and to buy, sell and deal in salt, lumber and forest products and various commodities produced therefrom."

Respondent also offered in evidence a printed copy of a pamphlet compiled by S. S. Garigues, State salt inspector, and printed by a legislative committee on lumber and salt in 1881. Respondent also offered in evidence printed copies of the annual reports of the State salt inspector for the years 1893 to 1909, inclusive. In the report of the State salt inspector for 1896, it is stated that

"Buckley & Douglas, Manistee, have built a very large plant this season, consisting of both grainer and vacuum pan process, estimated capacity of 2,000 barrels per day."

In the reports for 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900 Buckley & Douglas are shown as manufacturers of salt at Manistee; and in all subsequent reports the Buckley & Douglas Lumber Company is so reported. The report for 1909 shows the following salt manufacturers in Michigan for that year: District No. 1, Saginaw county, nine firms or corporations. District No. 2, Bay county, four corporations. District No. 3, St. Clair county, seven corporations. District No. 4, Manistee county, Buckley & Douglas Lumber Company and four other manufacturers. District No. 5, Mason county, three manufacturers. District No. 6, Wayne county, eight corporations.

Respondent also offered in evidence certified copies of its annual reports to the secretary of State for the years 1899 to 1909. In each of these reports respondent stated that it was engaged in the manufacture of lumber and salt and dealing in merchandise, and in the reports for the

years 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902 it replied to the question, "Has the corporation during said period been engaged in any line of business not specified in its articles of association? If so, what?" by the answer, "Manufacturing Thomas J. Elton, respondent's secretary, testified that he came to Manistee in 1882, and that the only salt that had been manufactured at Manistee had been manufactured in connection with the sawmills. Patrick Noud, a witness for respondent, testified that the first boring for salt at Manistee was done in 1878, and that since then salt has been manufactured continuously at Manistee. He had been connected with the State Lumber Company, which ceased operating shortly before the trial. That company had decided from experiments made by it that it could not manufacture salt profitably with coal as fuel.

Attention has been called to the following statutes as throwing some light upon the question: Act No. 41, Laws 1853 (1 How. Stat. § 4001 et seq.), which is a general mining and manufacturing act; Act No. 42, Laws 1867 (1 How. Stat. §§ 4026-4028), which authorizes associations or combinations of those engaged in the manufacture of salt; Act No. 187, Pub. Acts 1875, which is a general manufacturing act; Act No. 113, Pub. Acts 1877, which is a general mining company act, under which act relator says respondent must organize before it can manufacture salt. Section 1, Act No. 113, Pub. Acts 1877, reads:

"That it shall be lawful for any number of persons, not less than three, by articles of agreement in writing, to organize themselves into a corporation for the purpose of engaging in and carrying on any kind of mining business, or for refining, smelting or manufacturing any and all kinds of ores, minerals or metals, or for both mining, refining, smelting and manufacturing any or all such ores, minerals or metals."

If salt is referred to in this section, it is embraced in the word "minerals." Act No. 232, Pub. Acts 1885, is a general manufacturing act, under which respondent

organized. Act No. 232, Pub. Acts 1903, is a general manufacturing company act.

Counsel also call attention to some of the history of salt production in the State, as follows:

"By act of March 24, 1838, the State geologist was directed to commence boring for salt as soon as practicable at one or more of the salt springs, employing assistants 'well skilled in the practice of salt boring,' and the sum of $3,000 was appropriated to defray the expenses, to be paid out of the internal improvement fund, and required the State geologist to make report at the next regular session of the legislature. This report was made January 1, 1839, and in that report to the legislature, the State geologist uses this language:

"In order to procure water of sufficient strength and purity, it has been found indispensable to penetrate the overlying rocks as well as a portion of the rock from which the salt water flows. The depth to which it has been found necessary to sink varies from 350 to 1,000 feet, the deep boring for the most part furnishing water of a strength superior to the more superficial ones.'

"This report of the geologist was referred in the senate 'to the committee of manufactories.' In the report of this committee to the senate they suggested that the reference to them of this subject indicated that the senate fully anticipates the manufacture of salt and its transportation to its destined market.' On January 28, 1839, the legislature passed an act appropriating the sum of $15,000 and directing the State geologist to continue the improvement. On March 30, 1840, the legislature made a further appropriation of $5,000 for the improvements at the salt springs on Grand river, and $5,000 for those at the Tittabawassee river.' Under this act, contracts were made by the State geologist with Lucius Lyon to sink the well on Grand river to a depth of 300 feet from the surface, and with Ira D. Farrand to sink the well at the Tittabawassee river to a depth of 300 feet from the surface, and these contracts were submitted to the legislature by Governor Woodbridge, with a special message, January 9, 1841. In the annual message to the legislature of Governor Barry, January 4, 1842, he calls attention to the fact that the attempt to obtain 'water possessing qualities suitable for making salt,' has thus far proved unsuccessful. The legislature on February 14, 1842, appropriated $15,000 to

be expended upon the two wells already commenced. By act of February 16, 1842, the governor was authorized to cause the salt spring lands of the State to be platted into lots, and to lease the right to manufacture salt,' providing that every lease should contain a clause requiring at least 14 cents per bushel of 56 pounds to be paid to the State for the water.' By Act 200 of the Laws of 1859, the legislature offered a bounty of 10 cents per bushel on all salt produced, and, as they stated in the act, it is for the purpose of inducing the people of this State to engage in the business of 'boring for and manufacturing salt.' This act was followed by Act 186 of the Laws of 1861, which amends and continues this bounty 'for manufacturing salt.' Act 42 of 1867 speaks of the business as a man* * * Act 132 of 1897 * ufacturing business. provides that 'whenever any well shall have been put down for the purpose of exploring for or producing salt or brine, upon the abandoning or ceasing to operate the same, the owner or operator,' etc., shall fill up and plug the well."

*

Counsel calls attention to the provisions of section 32 of Act No. 113, Pub. Acts 1877. This section provides for corporations organized under the act making an annual report to the State, and specifies what that report shall include, among others the following:

"(8) The number of gross tons of copper obtained. (9) The number of gross tons of 2,240 pounds each of iron ore mined and shipped. (10) The number of gross tons of mineral coal mined. (11) The number of gross tons of pig iron manufactured. (12) The number of tons of any other mineral or ore mined. (13) The amount of slate or

stone mined."

And counsel contend that no mention of reporting the amount of salt produced is contained in that provision, although the manufacture of salt in the State of Michigan was considerable, and argue that it is reasonable to presume that, if the legislature intended the act should apply to salt manufacturing corporations, it would have specifically required a report of salt as well as of copper, iron ore, mineral coal, pig iron, slate, and stone. Attention is also called to Act No. 9, Pub. Acts of 1877 (2 Comp.

Laws, § 4630), where provision is made for the appointment by the governor of a commissioner of mineral statistics, and where his duties are determined, and by section 4634 he has a right to demand of a corporation or individual engaged in mining to make reports under oath as to their production and other matters required by him, and blanks are to be furnished to him for that purpose. By section 4635, the commissioner of mines is required to report to the auditor general on or before the 1st day of May in each year the amount of copper, iron, coal, or other mineral produced by each and every corporation or individual engaged in mining in this State during the preceding calendar year, which reports shall be the basis for computing the specific tax chargeable against such corporation or individual on the amount of mineral produced by them, etc.

It is argued that it is a significant fact that no provision was then made for obtaining a report from those corporations engaged in the manufacture of salt in Michigan by such commissioner. Attention is also called to Act No. 29, Laws 1869 (2 Comp. Laws, §§ 4911-4953), "An act to regulate the manufacture and provide for the inspection of salt." Section 1 of that act contains the following provision:

"That no salt manufactured in this State after this act takes effect, etc. * ** In case any manufacturer of salt shall knowingly sell or transport or permit to be sold or exported, salt contrary to the provisions of this act," etc. Section 5 of that act, among other things, contains this clause:

"In case any person, firm, company or corporation shall neglect or refuse to pay such inspection fees on demand at his, their or its office or manufactory, the party so refusing shall be liable to an action therefor,

* *

*

and it shall be lawful for the inspector and his deputies to refuse to inspect salt manufactured at the works so in default until the amount due is paid. * * * The inspector shall keep just and true accounts of all money received under this section, and an account of the amounts re