The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1890-07-05


aud qualified Treasurer of the state,
franduIently embczzled and appropriated
to his own use money aud evidences oI
he was bou Il t. account for and deliver
to Edwin II. Brown. his successor in
office.
The sole GleStlon is whether the
nfleusa thus Charged comes within the
provisions Of tie code. or. other words.
whether the cole provides for the punish
mount OF the Safe Treasurer vino embez
zles the states funds.
The question is a narrow one and
turns entirely upu the construction of
the statutes. a gnnl deal WAS said
about tho general 1les Nv which courts
are governed IN the, ms rlIctinn Of stat
uteS, but these aretoo VOL satt led TO
admit of much dlslssion. All agree
that the intention the Lng:slature
must govern in the instruction or all
statutes. This rules es at the bottom
of all statutory conStIctiOn. The law,
it is true, in its tendeless for life and
liberty, requires that pal statutes shall
be strictly construed, (Which is meant
that courts will not exhd the punish
ment to cases not piary within the
language used; at the sle tim. such
statutes are to be fairly a reasonably
construed. and courts will 1t bv mar
row and strained constitution excIude
from their operation cases pinIy within
their scope and meaning, stated nv
Sedgwick on statutory ldwS,Page cST.
ard quoted with approval Bluwel B.,
in f ley vs. Fletcher, 30 Ex.O6.
'The more correct version othe doc.
trine appears to be that statute OF this
class are to be fairly construed ID faith
fully applied according 70 the tent of
the Legislature, without unwa. utabIe
severity on the Que hand or upjciiable
lauity on the other, in cases Odoubs9
the courts iuciuing TO mercy. AR AMI
then, it is the Legislative iutent thmrIst |
govern the constituting of penal rs ne
case of all other statutes. /
This intention is to be aScPrned |
primarily, of course, from the lanAge
of the statute itself, and if the lan4ue
used is plain and uuambigucus the LIS.
lature must be understood as meh,g
what they have expressly declared. n
what is the language ot the statute L
under consideration: Every p, rson h.
inc office in this STATE, DC, who sh |
fraudulently embezzIa or apprnpri rte
his own use money, or evidences at den
which he is by Law bnurd TO pay owe
account for or deliver to tue Treasure
of the state &c Prov iSiOn is thus mad
for the punishment OF all officers VIII
shall emheZZle funds of the state Uhicl
they are bound to pay over or deliver t.
the Treasurer But this, it is argued
does not include the Treasurer, becaus
he cannot be said TO be bound to pa
over or deliver such funds to himself.
If the statute stopped here thor
might be some ground fer this conten
ton. but Il does not sop here, havin!
made provision for the punishment o
such oiiiceIs-that is to say, officer
whose duty it is to pay over ard accOun
to the Treasurer; it turtle provides 70
the punishment OF ali officers who Shal
enbcZzle money. funds or evider cas o
debt belonging to the state which the,
are bound to pay over, account for o
deliver TO any other person by law au
thoriZed to receive the same. Such i
the plain and urambiguous language O
the latter part OF the cnacting clause
and it would be difficult to employ Ian
cuage broader and more comprehensive
Thus the body of the act not only pro
vides for the punishment of such officer
who shall embezzle funds which they ar
bound 20 pay or deliver to the Treasurer
but also the punishment of all officer
who shall embeZzle money or funds O
the state which they are bound to pay o
deliver to any person lawfully AUTHORIZE
to receive the same.
so the question comes to this: Di
the defendant i'll error embeZZle or az
propriate to his own use, money, fund
or evidences of debt belonging to tn
state which he WAS bound to pay or de
liver to any person by law authorize
TO receive the same II he did, the
the oflienSe charged in tie indictment
one within the very letter OF the statute
the embCzzlement being admitted by tn
demurrer. The only question is whethe
the funds embeZZled we're funds whic
he was bound to pay over, account fo
or deliver to any person lawfully author
lied to receive the same. and as to thi
there cannot De, it seems. any question
He is the most important financial office
of the state.
The entire revenue of the state
amounting to millions of dollars, is pal
to him, aud by him to be disbursed i
the mode and manner provided by law
Besides this the sinking fund, the pro
ductive and unpvOductive assets, are en-
trusted to his care aud custody. and tn
surplus revenue remaining in the Treas
ury he is directed to invest from time I
time in state or other securities, all c
which are committed to his keeping
The fluids belong to the state and ar
held by him as Treasurer. and when h
ceases to be Treasurer. wbt Their by re
moval or otherwise, he is bound to pa
over, account for and deliver such fund
to his successor in office, who is til
person lawfully authorized to receiv
the same.
Upon his failure SD ia do his off1cia
bond would be liable in civil action
and for the embeZzlemant of such fund
by him while in office the defendant i
error would be crminaIly responsible.
Now agains5 this plain and obviou
construction of the s,a'ute what is tn
contention on the other side? There
must be, it was argued. a point of tim
when the crime was mmitted, and i
could not be sad To have been comm t
before tho defendant was dismissed iron
office, because there were no funds whic
he was obliged to pay over or deliver t
the Treasurer of the state. he bein
then the Treasurer himself. Nor coul
the crime be said to have been commit
ted after be was discharged from office
because he was not then person holdin
office SO, according to this contention
there was no point OF time when the dc
Il l,,
The bare statement of such an argu
meat is an answer to the argument itself
There must have been, it is true,
point of time when the crime was com
mitted, and that point OF time was wheI
the defendant embeZZled the funds OF tn
state i'll his possession as its Treasurer. Ill
was bound, as we have said, to pay owe
and deliver such funds to his successor i
office, aud the crime was complete whe
no embeZzied or appropriated the sam
to his own use, The crime being com
plete, his subsequent removal in no man
ner affected his criminal responsibility.
He is indicted as Stevenson Archer
and, as such, he is auswerable for Grim
committed by hun while holding the Offic
of Treasurer, and although his oificia
character is gone, his personal RESPONSE
bility for the crime thus committed re
mains. SO looking to the face of tn
statute itself AMI coustrning languag
used in it's natural ordinary and com
nonsense meaning, we all agree tina
the offense charged is one strictly With
the terms of tho statute. But, if Their
could lie any question as to the construc
ton of the words of the statute, tn
title to the statute shows beyond doub
that the Legislature meant to provide
fer the punishme mt of every officer VIII