Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1863-06-08
Opinions az the supreme court ON
the Interest Question.
The State ex. rel of
The Iioir,l of Sinking Fund
Commissioners,
Appeal from
Marion q. @.
Ris,inc, Auditor of State.


Ristinc, Auditor Of State.
Hanna ]. Thi. was proceeding 10 obtain n
mandate against Rist'ne, rs Auditor, To compel
him 10 ssuo warrant on the Treasurer OF State,
To- obtain the payment of the semi annual inter
est upon certain parts OF the public debt.
There was demurrer sustained TO the con-
plaint Judgment for the defendant.
The allegations In the complaint were substan
TALLY the same with those set forth IN case. NJ
this term. betw cen the same parties but appear
ng To have been decided differently below.
OF course those to whom the interest il near
due, are anxious To receive the same. The otii-
GERS of State through counsel. express themselves
"a anxious to pay IT, IL they have authority 10 do
so. Each party asks Us, without regard to mere
forms and technicaities. To determine as to the
power and duty of said officers. relative 10 such
payment. under the laws now in force.
The Constitution. adopted in 1851. contains
this provision. Sec 3. Art. 10. mo money
shall he drawn from the public Treasury. but in
pursuance of appropriations made by law"
At the time of the adoption of said section bv
the convention and by tho people, there existed a
large debt against the State. the semi annual IN.
terest ON which wes more than one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars; payable half yearly in the
city of New York. rs per arrangement with the
bond holders. under the acts of 1916 and 1917.
To make these semi annual payments il was
manner. conveyed or transferred from the Treas
ury here To the Office OF the Agent of State, Mt
the city of New York A custom sprang up,
dating from the time our iebt was funded under
said acts. and continuing in an almost. il not
quite. unbroken chain until 1859. by which, upon
the iequisition of the Agent Of State the funds
were transferred to New York. To his control, tn
make said payments. without a special appropra
ton having been previously made of each amount
80 transferred
At the legislative session of 1857 funds were
not provided. nor appropriations made. to meet
said interest, and other current expenses In the
attempt 10 remedy this neglect Of the legislative
body. the Executive and Administrative officers
ere tel debt 10 provide the funds, and paid them
out in discharge of said interest
IL Is within our knowledge, as A part of the
history of the State that the acts Of these officers
and the failure Of the Legislature act, provoked
much comment by which public attention was
drawn to the questions involved in the contro
verSy.
At the session Of 1889, the Legislature passed
an act. in relation To. ar providing Treasury
system: BY the seventh section Of which, il was
enacted. among other things. that "The Treas
urer of State Is expressly prohibited from paying
any money out Of or transferring any money
from the Treasury of 81 tc. except upon the war
rant of the Au litor OF State" Acts 1889. p 230
And IN the eighth section il is declared thtt 1.-THE
Auditor of State shall at no time draw warrant
upon the Treasurer of State unless there be
money in the Treasury bclonein. To the
fund upon which the same Is drawn In pay
the same and in conformity to apron. iations
made by law. and on money actually in the
treasury. subject to the payment OF the sumo
Id
contemplated two things. First, to carry into
full effect the section of the Constitution above
quoted: and secondly. To create. or NJ least main.
tain, strict system OF checks upon each other in
the Auditors and Treasurer Offices in regard TO
the moneys of the people entrusted to the care OF
said officers.
This third section of the Constitution was not
self executing: that j.. whilst il mi .ht be opera
tive upon the conscience OF tho person sworn to
support il: and through that channel, punishment
might follow a disregard of its behests. vet no
temporal punishment. or forfeiture was prescribed
AMI therefore supposed questions OF overriding
necessity suffered ~ blind The ewes of per-
sens Ia the remote consequences OF disregard of
this pain provision of the Fundamental law
The statute of lco9 was not. in itself any
more binding than the constitutional provision.
and therefore. the reason of the enactment of the
law of 1861 prescribing penalties and punishmen,
for violation of that of 1859, which vas based
upon the principle embodied in the Constitution
By said act Of 1861 IL is made felony for an Of
fcer To convert to his own use. &c contrary 10
law, any funds replaced in his care. and punished
BY fine. &c. and imprisoned from one D. twenty
one wears. And to pay out mones ia any other
manner except prescribed by law. the rretsu-
rer is subject to \ fine OF from 6ftv To five hun
dred dollars and imprisonment not less than one
year and 10 use the money Of one fund 10 pay
drafts upon any other fund subjects him To pun
ishmen, somewhat similar. And the Auditor To
draw a warrant. unless there be money in the
treasury belonging 10 the fund drawn on. and in
conformity TO appropriations made by law, sub
ieets himself u a fine OF from one hundred TO one
thousand dollars and imprisonment from one TO
six months
After the passage Of the law of 1889. whatever
usage and custom was growing up and maturing
in regard to withdrawing money from the treasu-
ry was at abandoned for the plainer and less
hazardous mode prescribed by the Constitution
and laws.
IL il manifest. upon a careful consideration of
the act Of 1889, that il the Treasurer of State il
permitted To remove money from the trcas,r,
without first procuring authority from the
Auditor, IL would be impossible fpr the lat
ter officer To perform his duty foe IL i strictly en-
loinei upon hum that he shall no time dsaw a
warrant upon the Treasurer OF State unless there