Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1892-09-15

IL as lQey COulu 1OC nave 3uIQ0P1ZeU
the dealings originally and it follows
that the action was commenced with
out lawful authority. We contend that
the moneys referred to in the bond are
those moneys ouly which the treasurer
was by statute required to receive
or might have received are not meant
The expression can only mean moneys
actually realized and belonging to his
office.
The loan or deposit of the funds Of
the state by the treasurer to or with
banks or bankers upon interest or 9th
erwise, unless such funds in bank sub
ject to instant check be deemed to be
in the treasury (as now declared by
statute), was not only unauthorized
but was punished by statute as a crime,
when made for his CWn gain by the
treasurer it was declared to be pTima
faCia evidence of embeZZlement. The
private gains of the treasurer obtained
by means of a violation Of law de-
nOunced as a crime, cannot under any
just 1ule of Interpretation be deemed
moneys belonging to his office.
Another strong, and we judge control
ling ground for our contention that the
moneys in dispute were moneys belong
ing to the treasurer's office. is to be
found in the settled doctrine that by
the statute and the terms of his bond
the treasurer was made insurer of the
funds.
1t was assumed On the statute of
1876 that the treasurer might DEEPEST
such funds for his own gain in viola
ton of law, but there were no require
ments that such gain should be paid
into the treasury. On this point the
statute was silent.
Mr.. Stark next spoke at length of the
custom that had grown up of treasurers
receiving interest on deposits and that
it was generally known and allowed to
continue. In closing he said: If there
be doubt on this point we point to
the history of the state for nearly forty
years, to the uniform understanding
and practice of the executive department
Of the state, to the act and PROCEEDINGS
Of the legislature, year after year. to
its special action in 1876 and 1873 and
to other proofs, all showing that the
construction for which we contend was
universally accepted and acted upon rs
the true one during all these years, end
urge that such uniform and long-contin-
ued executive and legislative construc-
ton of the law ought to remove every
doubt and Conclusiyely settle this Ques-
ton.
Mr.. Stark begged the attention of
the court to the peculiar relation of
the state treasurer to the state and
its funds.
The treasurer, he said, holds bis office
under the constitution for the term of
two years. He can be removed from
Office only by impeachment lie is
given by statute exclusive charge and
control Of the funds of the state. No
ether officer or board of officers has any
power to direct him in respect to such
control, Or to interfere with the funds
in his charge while he holds the Office.
These funds are subject to disposition
by the legislature. except so fur as the
legislature may, by general laws have
directed or authorized their Investment
by and under the direction of the boa I'd
OF commissioners of the public lands
and the governor.
In conclusion Mr.. Stark said:
1t may well be claimed that as the
treasurer held the funds of the state rs
an officer, independent of control or
interference by other state officers, and
subject to absolute liability for their
safe keeping and disposition pursuant to
law, the treasurer was invested with a
limited and qualified property in said
funds, the general and ultimate owner
snip being and always remaining in the
state.
Except as provided by section 159.
there was no means or authority for
ascertaining or establishing a defalca-
ton in the treasury, during the treas
urer's term, while all legal demands
upon the treasury were promptly met
by him.
These considerations, as to the char
acter Of the treasurer's control of the
state funds, his independence under the
statutes, and the duties and obligations
imposed upon the officer must be taken
into the account as having most i'm
portant bearing upon all the questions
involved in this case"
Senator Villas Argument.
Senator Villas paid very little atteU,
ten to the evidence, about which there
is Virtually no controversy, but discuss
ed the law involved.
He maintained that the argument
falls into two principal divisions First;
Whether under the laws in force dur
ing the terms Of Treasures AicF'etridga
and Harshaw the interest gathered
by the loan of the funds of the state
to the banks, rightfully belongs to the
state, or to the treasurers. Second;
If the interest moneys belong and
should 60 to the state and not to its
treasurers. whether their sureties can
escape sharing their responsibility
for them
The only attempt at defense, said
the senator, is based upon the rela-
tons which the treasurer holds to the
state i'll his capacity as custodian of
the treasury.
The theory asserted for this purpose
is that the title and ownership of the
monies in the state treasury are not