Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-01-21

templated that all public funds of The
state shall remain specifically In the vault;
OF the treasury, so that they can be counted
qparrer yearly.
So, the treasurer does not stand on fhe
same footing as the local treasurer. In
the case of the local treasurer. inasmuct
as the law does not direct the mode ano
place of keeping the funds, the treasurer
1t is assumed, may keep them where and
very much as he pleases. 1t is very much
1.-THE same as if the funds were his own
i, But IN the case of the state treasurer. the
statutes provide lndustriously for the SAFE
keeping of the funds in designated
place. where they are to some extent under
the supervision of other officers than him
!, self.
The recent case Of Commonwealth VS.
Godshaw, II S. A. Reporter. 737. de.
| eided by the court of appeals of Ken
lucky, goes upon this distinction. This
case holds that a local collector called
the trustee of the jury fund, whose duty
1t 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 deposit
ing or a mode of keeping it. 1t was held
that the interest paid to him By a bank
where ne deposited the funds could not be
recovered from him by the state. But the
court says that this would not be so if the
law prescribed a mode of keeping or place
of depositing it, The court say: Nothing
is prescribed as to the mode OF keeping
it or the place of depositing 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 ac-
countable unless by his neglect. The
court cites Ferley vs.. Muskegon, 80 Mich
1872, as an authority to the same effect.
So, if it shall be found on examination
of the statutes that, by law, the state
treasurer is required to keep the states
| 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's relation to it is strictly that of
bailee, and that, if he oheys the law re.
lating to his custody and it becomes lost
without his fault he is not liable.
The condition of the treasurers bondiis
| for the faithful discharge of the duties
| of his office" The general duties of LIS
office are defined by section 1872 of the re-
vlsed statutes: the treasurer SHAH keep
his office at the capitol, shall receive and
| have charge of all moneys paid into the
state treasurer and pay out thu same as
directed by law" The language is plain
n
| depreciation. Ogden VS. Glldden, Wis,
| AZ. 1t is to be understood according to
| the common and approved usage of the
language. 479l R. S. He shall have
| charge of the moneys seems equivalent to
say he shall have custody Of the moneys.
The gcvarnor and attorney general are re-
quired at least once in each quarter year
| to examine and see that all the money
appearing 10y the books of the secretary
and state treasurer 'as belonging to the
| several funds is in the vaults of the treas
ury. If it is not found to be there it must
be put there within ten days, or the at
torney general must bring al &C
| ton to recover it. Section 159 This also
is plaln and unambiguous, It is object
ed that the word treasury" may be
| ambiguous; that il does not always
mean the place where the money is kept;
| but that it sometimes signifies merely
TIE custody of the eff Ger. But the
phrase vaults of the treasury is not
obnoxious to that objection. 1t is re-
quired that they examine and see that
''aIl 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,
it will hardly be claimed that It's mean
ing is doubtful. 1t will not be held thai
in this statute the worn 'money' IN
Guides promissory notes, checks or Ger
tiicates of deposits, or perhaps anything
which is not commonly understood to
be money. These are only evidences Of
debt. It makes no difference that they
are issued by bank.
In law there can be no difference be-
tween loan to bunk and loan to any
one else. There is no law which pre-
sumes one borrower without security is
safer than another. CeadPr County VS..
,Jenkin. 10 Neb 254; Wavne County va.
Brassler (Neb.), 40 n W, Rep. 1872; Perley
VS., Muskegon, supra. The law makes the
depositing of public moneys by any Of the
officers named in section 44l3, which in
cludes the state treasurer, for his own
gain, profit or advantage without special
authority" prima facie evidence that
such officer has embezzled the money.
Section 4419. This is clear intimation 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
statute is ambiguous; that the phrase
the same moneys" may and properly
does mean 'the same amount Of moneys"
But it will be seen that all that is signi-
6cant in the idea that it is the same
amount Of moneys which is to be paid re-
mains in the statute is the word same"
is entirely omitted from it. it will still
direct that he "shail pay over the moneys
received and held by him by virtue of his
Office, and the whole thereof. 10 say
that ne 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 proposed
in Interpretation is that it gives no force to
the word same.
A statute ought, upon the waole, 70 be
so construed that 1t possible, no clause
sentence or word shall be superhuous, insig
nifcant or void Every clause and word
of a statute shall be presumed to
have been intended to have
some force and effect Harrington VS..
Smith, % Wis, 43-6 This provision is
part Of "a penal statute and perhaps, on the
familiar rule, is to be strictly construed.
Yet the intention Of TIC legislature
must govern in the construction