noticed that the act in question makes no reference to compensation for the franchise over public highways from the revenues arising within the county by which the franchise was granted. If that had been the intention the very obvious way of expressing it would have been to say "two per centum of the gross annual receipts within the county,” instead of using the expression "two per centum of the gross annual receipts" arising from "the use, operation or possession" of the franchise. The reasonable construction of the language used is that each county or municipality is entitled to its percentage of the gross earnings arising from the use of its highway, in the proportion that the receipts arising from the use of such highways bears to the receipts attributable to all the rights of way of the entire system.

We see no reason why this cannot be estimated on a mileage basis. It may be assumed that the distributing system covers six hundred miles of easements. The proportion of the gross receipts derived from and chargeable to the use of the distributing system should be credited to this entire mileage. One-third of this mileage may extend over private rights of way which are not subject to any franchise liability. The remaining two-thirds of the mileage covered by county franchises is entitled to two-thirds of the two per cent of the gross amount, and each county is entitled to the percentage of this two-thirds in the proportion that the mileage of its franchises bears to the total mileage covered by all the franchises.

It may be argued that there is no authority under the law for such mileage apportionment. There is at least some analogy for this solution of the difficulty by the terms of the act under consideration.

Section 4 makes the following provision: "In case the franchise shall be an extension of an existing system of street railroad, then the gross receipts shall be estimated to be one half of the proportion of the total gross receipts of said system which the mileage of such extension bears to the total mileage of the whole system, and said estimate shall be conclusive as to the amount of the gross receipts of said extension."

The effect of this provision is that where a new franchise is granted to permit an extension of the lines of the

street railway the percentage to be charged under the new franchise shall be on a mileage basis. We are not concerned with the fact that the section quoted refers only to street railway franchises and that it provides for a smaller percentage of gross receipts for the extension than for the original franchise. The significant point is that it determines the earning capacity of both franchises in proportion to their respective mileage.

Doubtless, the reason that a special provision was made in the matter of an extension for street railways was to permit of a discrimination against the extension as to the proportion of gross receipts chargeable to it. Indeed, no provision at all is made in the act for other extension franchises. Such extensions are practically new franchises, standing on an equal footing in the absence of such discrimination as is provided by section 4, and imposing an equal burden with the original franchise proportionate to their mileage. So it may be assumed that where one system of distribution receives contemporaneous franchise easements in several counties, these must have attributed to them equal earning powers in the matter of gross receipts according to their respective mileage.

Such a determination of the earning capacity of the variously located franchise rights is doubtless more or less arbitrary, as, in many instances, a much less quantity of the water or gas or electricity is conveyed through one part of the system than another, just as in the instance of a street railway, some parts of the line have much greater earning capacity than others. But since the state is dealing, in this phase of the matter, with the distribution of a fund among its own political subdivisions, any plan may be adopted consistent with substantial justice, and when we are confronted with the fact that no other interpretation of the act can be made without unlawfully interfering with private rights of property, it must be assumed that the one method of distribution which could be made, and which is not repugnant to the terms of the act, was the one intended by the legislature.

"A statute cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. Mere difficulty in ascertaining its meaning, or the fact that it is susceptible of different interpretations

a notice to the accused of the time and place thereof, when the proceeding is under the second, third, or fourth subdivisions of section 287. But with regard to a disbarment under subdivision 1, no notice or order is required or provided for. The only notice which the accused attorney is to have under that subdivision is that which he receives on the trial of the criminal charge of which he has been convicted. The law informs him that one of the results of his conviction will be his subsequent disbarment in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure. This answers the constitutional requirement that he shall have due process of law before he can be deprived of his right to practice. The entire matter is involved in the criminal proceeding. The same point arose in the case of In re Bloor, 21 Mont. 49 [52 Pac. 779], under a statute taken bodily from our own code provisions and in which the court said:

"We believe no complaint or accusation in writing is necessary where an attorney or counselor has been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and where the record of conviction has been duly certified to this court. We also think that it is not necessary to issue or serve any citation upon an attorney or counselor, of proceedings to disbar him, where he has been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and where the record of his conviction has been duly certified to this court, before this court acts, where such record is the basis of the disbarment proceedings. It is the bounden duty of such attorney so convicted, to know that the legal consequences of his conviction is his disbarment. There is no discretion in the supreme court, for it must proceed under section 418, Code Civ. Proc., on receipt of a certified copy of the record of conviction; and by section 402, Id., the record of conviction is conclusive evidence."

In the later cases of In re Sutton, 50 Mont. 91 [Ann. Cas. 1917A, 1223, 145 Pac. 6], and In re Thresher, 54 Mont. 475 [170 Pac. 1163], the foregoing language from the earlier decision of that court is cited with approval. It will be noted that while the petitioner herein has cited copiously cases referring to the right and privilege of an attorney to exercise his vocation as a valuable personal and property right, he has referred us to no case holding that

itself does not bear such a construction, and, secondly, because, as has been pointed out, it might frequently occur under such interpretation, that a county granting the use of many miles of its roads would receive no return whatever from such franchise because all of the gas or water or electricity is conveyed to and distributed and paid for in another county. On the other hand, the statute will not bear the interpretation that all the gross revenue wherever received to which the franchise contributes, shall be chargeable with the two per cent payment under such franchise, for this might result in the collection of several such payments on the same receipts under various franchises.

In none of the cited decisions of this court for the recovery of a percentage of gross receipts claimed under franchises for use and occupation of public highways by public utilities was any question raised as to the method of determining what part of the gross receipts of the utility was attributable to any specified franchise. In Hanford v. Hanford Gas etc. Co., 169 Cal. 749 [147 Pac. 969], no objection was made that the receipts sought to be recovered were not the product of the use in question. The point at issue was the claim of the corporation that, under its constitutional franchise to maintain its distributing system for light over the public streets, it could also without further authority distribute heat and power. In Town of Suisun City v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 35 Cal. App. 380 [170 Pac. 1078], the action was brought by the city to recover a percentage of gross receipts from a franchise for light and power purposes to one Prior, who had theretofore been distributing electricity for lighting purposes under the constitutional franchise. It was held that a grant by the city for lighting purposes was void and in conflict with the constitutional franchise, and that the obligation to pay two per cent did not arise on the electricity distributed for lighting purposes. In City of Oakland v. Great Western Power Co., supra, the defendant company was operating over streets of the city a system for the distribution of light, heat and power. It was occupying the streets under the constitutional franchise for distribution of electricity for lighting. Subsequently, under the Broughton Act, it obtained a franchise for the distribution of heat and power, and still later acquired a blanket franchise from the city. giving it the use of all the streets of the city for the distri

bution of electricity for all purposes. It was held in the opinion that the latter franchises did not supersede the preceding ones and that the city of Oakland could recover nothing for the distribution of light under the constitutional franchise, could recover only the percentage allowed by the Broughton Act for the use of such streets as had been utilized for power and heat under that franchise, and could recover under the charter franchise for power and heat, only from such part of the system as had not been constructed under the Broughton franchise.

The significance of the Oakland case, so far as it applies, upholds the conclusion we have reached in the instant. case, that the rights of the municipality to its percentage under a given franchise are limited to the portion of the gross receipts attributable to that particular franchise.

It is true that the decision also holds that only the receipts from electricity delivered within the city of Oakland can be considered in determining such percentage, but it appears from the opinion that the charter under which the franchise sued on was issued expressly limits the right of recovery to "the gross annual receipts resulting from the sale of electric energy delivered within the limits of the city of Oakland."

The Oakland case suggests complications which do not arise in the case at bar, inasmuch as the charter franchise provides for a four per cent, and later a five per cent, payment to the city upon the gross receipts after the first five years, while the portion of the system operated under the Broughton Act is only liable for two per cent of such gross receipts as arise from the exercise of that franchise. But one distributing system is in use, covering all of the territory, and whether an apportionment of the gross earnings at the different percentages could be made on a proportionate mileage basis which would protect the rights of the corporation may be questioned. We fail to see, though, any other method which would be at all feasible. However, we are not confronted with such a contingency in this case. The entire distributing system here is under the Broughton Act, and the only parties concerned in the distribution of the percentage payments are the respective municipalities granting franchises.

A distribution of the payments according to the relative mileage can be had within the fair intendment of the act.