Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1892-01-22


with respect to the mode or place of keep
ing the funds So that if he accounts
fairly and meets all obligations as pre-
septed there is usually no occasion or dis
position to inquire further as to the dis
position or management of the funds
While IN the case of the state treasurers
the statutes are more explicit. 1t is con
templated that all public funds of the
state shall remain specifically in the
vaults OF the treasury, so that they can be
counted quarter yearly.
| So, the state treasurer does not stand on
the same footing as the local treasurer. In
the case of the local treasurer. inasmuch
| as the law does not direct the mode and
place of keeping the funds, the treasurer,
1t Is assumed, may keep them where AID
very much as he phases. It is very much
| the same as if the funds were his own.
! But II the case of the state treasurer. the
statutes provide industriously for he safe
| keeping of the funds In Il DESIGNATED
place, where t1ey are to some extent under
the supervision of other officers than him
self.
The recent case of Commonwealth vs..
| Godgeshaw, II s. w. Reporter, 1877, de-
clded by the court of appeals of Ken
tucky, goes upon this distinction. This
|
trustee Of the jury fund, whose duty it
was to collect fines and forfeitures and
other sources of revenue to be applied to
the payment of the jurors, was the owner
of the money he collected, upon the ground
that no law directed place for depositing
or mode of keeping it. Il was held that
| the interests paid to him by bank where
he deposited the funds could not be recov.
cred from him by the state. But the court
says that this would not be so if the law
prescribed mode of keeping or place of
deposltlng it. The court say: Nothing
is prescribed as to the mode of keeping
it or the place of depositiong it, Money
paid into the treasury becomes the money
OF the state because it is required to be
! paid INTO the treasury as such and, the
law requiring the money to be paid into
certain banks, when the treasurer does
this and the money is lost, he is not &C
countable unless by his neglect. The court
cites Perlee vs.. Muskegon, 81 Mich 1872, as
an authority to the same effect
| So, If 1t shall be found on examination
of the statutes that, by law. the state
treasurer is required to keep the state
money in the vaults which the state has
provided for that purpose at the capitol,
where it can be counted periodically and
has forbidden him to loan it, then these
cases are authority that the money is not
the treasurer's own money, but that it is
the states own money; and that the
| treasurer relation to it is strictly that OF
baiiee; and that, if he obeys the law, re.
latlng to his custody and it becomes'lo.t
without his fault he is not liable.
The condition of the treasurer's bond Is
for the faithful discharge the duties
of mis- office" The general duties of hls
office are defined by section 152 of the
revised statutes. The treasurer shall
keep his office at the capitol, sh Ill receive
and have charge of all moneys paid into
the state treasurer and pay out the same
as directed by law. The language is plain
and Unambiguous. 1t does not ad nit Of in
depreciation. Ogden VS.. Glidden. 9 Wis
1t Is to be understood according to the
conmon and approved usage Of language.
479l r. 5. He shall have charge of the
moneys seems equivalent to say he shall
have custody of the moneys. The COVER
quired at least once in each
quarter year to examine aud see
that all the money appearing by the books
Of the secretary and state treasurer as be.
longing to the severais funds is IN the
vaults of the treasurer. If it is not found to
be there it must be put there within ten
days, or the attorney general must bring
an action to recover it. Section 1853
This also is plain and unamhiguous. 1t is
| objected that TIE word treasury may be
ambiguous; that it does not always
mean the place where the money is kept;
but that it sometimes signifies merely
the custody Of the officer But the
phrase 'vaults Of the treasury is not
obnoxious to that objection. It is re-
CURED that they examine and see that
al the money which ought to be there
IS there IN the vaults OF the treasury.
Some times the term money" is ambig
uous. In some connections it is held to
include some things which, strictly, are
not money. But, as used in this statute,
If will hardly be claimed that its me IN
ing is doubtful. 1t will not be held that
in this statute the word money" in
cludes promissory notes, checks or GER
tifcates Of deposits, or perhaps anything
which is not commonly understood 70
be money. These are only evidences of
debt. 1t u axes no difference that they
are issued by bank.
Ia law there can be no diff erence be
tween q loan to a bank and n loan to any
one else. There is no law which pre-
sumes one borrower without security is
safer than another Cedear County "
Jenkin, 10 Neb. 254; Wayne County vs.
Brassler (Neb.) AZ w Rep. 1872; Perloy
VS.. Muskegon, supra. The law makes the
depositing of public moneys by any of the
officers named in section 4413, which IN
cludes the state treasurer ''fo1 his own
gain, profit or advantage without special
authority" prima facie, evidence that
such officer has embezzted The money. Sec
ton 4419. This is a clear intimatiVn at
least that it was not intended that the
state treasurer should make profit for him
self by the use of public money Section
4419 also provides that ''every public
Office shall promptly pay over, as required
by law, the same moneys received and
held by him by virtue of his office, and
| the whole thereof" 1t is objected that
this statue IS ambiguous; that the phrase
the same moneys may and probably
does mean ''the same amount of moneys. "
But it will be seen that all that is signii-
cant in the idea that it is the same amount
of moneys which is to be paid remains in
the statute If the word same is entirely
omitted from it. It will still direct that
he shall pay over the moneys received
and held by him by virtue OF his office.
and the whole thereof To say that be
shall pay over all the whole amount of
moneys received and held by him is very
much the same as to say that he shall
pay over the same amount of moneys re-
Ceived by him. The vice of the propos-
ed Interpretation is that 1t gives no force
= L.