Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1892-01-23

amount of moneys which Is to be paid re-.
mains In the statute Is the word ssame'
IS entirely omitted from it. It will san
direct that he 'shall pay over the MONEYS
received and held by him by virtue of bis
office, and the whole thereof. To -.
that be shall pay over all the whole amount
Of moneys received and held bv him Il
very much the same as to say that be shall
pay over the same amount of MONEYS re-
ceived 10y him. The vice of the proposed
Interpretation is that it gives no force h
the word same
A statute ought upon the waole, 70 be
50 construed that II possible. no clause
sentence or word shall be suDerhuous, insi0-
nihcant or void. Every clause and word
Of a statute shall be presumed To
have been intended to have
some force and effect. Harrington W.
Smith, Is Wis, 1851 This provision is
part Of penal statute and perhaps, on the
familiar rule, is to be strictly oonstru ID.
Yet the intention of the Legislature
must govern in the construction
OF penal as well as other statutes, and
they are not to be construed so strictly
as to defeat the obvious intention of the
Legislature United States VS.. Locker
1874 U. s.. 624 1t seems to be written
in these tutes with sufii3 Gent ctearnpss
to, DE understood by the common mind
that the state treasurer is to receive all
the money paid into the state
treasury and 10 take care of
it, That he Is to keep it
specifically 'in the vaults of the treasury. "
provided by the state in connection with
his office, in the eapitol that the money
is to counted at the vaults of the treasury
by the governor and attorney general
quarter-y yearly; that he is TO pay out the
same money received 10y him-but only
upon the warrant of the secretary of state,
His whole dealing with it is official and
specific, and not at all as if he was the
owner. 1t is all inconsistent with the
idea that the legislature contemplated
that, as against the state, Il was the state
tredsurer's money. In contemplation of
the law, the treasurer is simply the custo-
dian of the states moncr.
1t IS, strictly, tailment-
Common wealth Va Godshaw, supra:
Perley vs.. Muskegon, supra; U. S. VS..
Thomas, supra No decision to the con.
trary is known where there were statutes
directing the mode and place Of
keeping the funds.
But, it is objected that the state cannot
recover this interest because it must trace
its tile to it, if at all, through a series of
unlawful transactions Ii it is established
that the principal fund which earned the
interest was the property Of the state,
this objection does not seem to be insuper-
able. The depositing of the money in
the banks by the treasurer for his own
gain was forbidden and unlawful On its
civil side at least the unlawful act was a
tor'-a conversion of the states money
The conversion did not displace the states
title. The fund was still the state money
The accessory followed its principal, the
accretion was the state S money-The U. s.
Mostly 1873; U. S. 273-286 But the treas
nrer can trace title to the interest only
through his own wrongful. act, This be
cannot be allowed to do That would be
a violation of that most ancient aud wide
ly applied maxim of the law, no man
shall profit by his own wrong. The de
PENDANT has not even a plausible claim Of
legal title to this interest It would, IN
iced be d startling legal paradox, if the
treasurer, being forbidden by law to de-
pOslt the public funds for his own gain.
could yet do the very thing forbidden and
get away with his gains, according to
law. Ttls interest was, also, received IN
to the state treasury It was paid o the
trcasury wit aouf restriction There was
no way for the blrlus to pay the money
into the treasury but TO nut it into the
hands OF the treasurer Any subtle dis
tiaction between paying TO the treasurer
and paying into The treasury is spacious
and Elusive 1t is not certain
81,
vaults cE the treasury No money is. paid
into the vaults Of the treasury. 1t IS paid
TO the treasurer 1t is then IN legal COM
temptation in the treasury People VS..
Mckinney, 10 Mich, "a 1t is then a
treasurer 5 duty to put It into the vault
Whether he do so does not affect the
ownership of the money. 1t is the treas
urer's duty to deliver to his successor in
office, all moneys, books, rec 1rds, papers,
ipruiturp and other effects belonging to or
in his office Section 1856,
These interest moneys belong to his office.
He has not faithfully discharged the du-
ties of his office uutll he has delivered
chem TO bis sucCe ssur in Office. Il is not
that a long continued practice
OF state tFeasurers O deposit public money
IN banks for their own gain is such
practical construction Of the statute, by
officers charged 10 the execution of the law,
as to be of any controlling influence 1t is
only 10 cases of real doubt that con
struCtioa is allowable Whet err the law
that the treasurer might
deposit pubic moneys IN the banks for
his own gain is nos perceived to
nave been Doubtful since chapter $40 OF
the laws of 1876 cam it force however
it may have been before Nor is 1t con
sidered that the delay of the state to claim
this money acts In any way as a bar i0 It's
right or a cIord upon is good faith The
law Is the standard Of the Treasures duty
and the measure Of his right. 1t ali the
IS hlla warned bin that this was not his
money
ia igment should be for the state for
the amount OF moneys detained BY the
-rrasurers with interest from the time
when it should have been paid to their
Successors.
-
In the Nick Of Time
The nick Of time to stop the course OF BLADDER
and kfdusv ror,pIsfuta L. v-bs, The ,rrana ron