Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1880-12-23
PUBLIC FUNDS.
where Does the Loss Pail tu Case
OF Their NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
the Distries Attorney Opisss -
b subj ees.

Last evening the Committee appointed
BY the County Commissioner. and the
District Attorney. while at the County
Clerks office waiting for the bondsmsn
Of C.rrick to appear. INDUCED in con.
siderable informal talk on the subject Of
the responsibility for the safs-kssping Of
the public funds. and where the loss
would fall 10 case Of their smbezzlsnent
beyond recovery.
Some Of the Commissioners. without
passing upon the question Of the right
OF the Treasurer to pay the State 10 full
Of oil demands when there had been
q loss from the treasury. a. in the
case Of the Carrick dsfalcation, and a.
had already been done by the Treasurer.
thought that the haste which bad been
shown In doing 80 was at least In bad
taste. Que Of them thought, from the
fact that the State Controller had not
notified the District Attorney to bring
suit on Carrisk's bonds, Is hs isl 70.
auirsd by Law to do. that that oncial
could not be aware that there had been
any deialcation In Storey county.
This kind Of conversation led up TO
the subject Of the keeping OF public
moneys, and in case OF o dsfalcation
never made good.
Commissioners Canavan said the idea
was quite prevalent that the Stats could
suffer no loss. The opinion was waited
along the streets on almost every breath.
He was not so surs about the matter.
The county held certain moneys in trust
Tor the State. Official bonds ran to the
State and not the county and 1t was only
because OF statutory provisions whereby
the approval Of those bonds was esp--
cially provided for that the County Com.
m~issionsrs were authorized to examine
tn, M. He was not prepared to say that
in case Of an i~rrrparssls loss the State
might moi be the losing party. At any
rate, the State had It's scourse on the
bondsm-n OF q d~efsultsr rather than
against the county.
District Attorney Harris said that with
all due Difference to the dictum OF Judge
Rising to the tff-ct that for the purposes
of ,hs Csrrick case the money taken
must be considered the property OF
storey county-that. in other words.
Storey county aud not tho State bad
been robb.d-hs could not agree BY any
. that the State could not lose IL
case the depleted treasury was never
made good. %Supposins every cent bad
been taken and never recovered. n that
Carrick's boudsm-n were bankrupt, the
State would have NO remsdy against
Storey county.
Upon being asked by u present how
il would be about public school moneys
held by the county in such a case. the
District Attorney said that Was another
question aud one on which he did not
care ut present to give q positive opin-
ion. A school district stood in quite q
different position from that occupied by
tn. State. The latter had Q remedy IN
case Of loss against the bonds oil the
county official. which were made paya
BILE to the State. The county also bad
such Q remedy in case OF loss. IL was
different with Q school district and the
equities OF the case appealed strongly
toward the schools. Al first he thought
the county would be compelled TO make
good the school funds 10 any event. but
he had modified that view somewhat
spon investigation Of the subject and
would not now say where q loss in such
q case would eventually lie.
The SUBJECT was discussed at consider
able length aud the weight OF opinion
and consequently Of argument was on
the side that the State. in case OF IA
loss from the County Treasury OF funds
held in trust for it.. would DO compelled
10 sustain the loss.