Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1892-01-23
Judge Newman Holds That Messrs.
Hari haw and McFetridge Were
Simply Trustees.
Facts About the Cases Full EeXt of
the Important
Opinion.

suits of the state against eX-Stdte Treas
urers Henry b. Harshaw and Edward c.
McFetridge, iled his decision in the Dane
county circuit court Monday. 1t will be
remembered that Judge Newman was
called in by Judge Slebecker who declined
TO hear the cases on the ground Of preJu-
dice.
The following is Ike full text Of Judge
Newman decision
State of Wisconsin vs.. E. C. McFetridge
and others.
State of Wisconsin vs.. Henry B. Har-
shaw and others.
These are two actions against former
state treasurers and their sureties TO re.
cover money which the treasurers re-
celyed from certain banks for the use Of
public money deposited with them, and
which they have fliled 10 deliver to their
successors in office The two eases de-
pend mainly ON similar facts, and the
questions Of law are very much the same;
SO they were tried and are decided to-
gethsr fer convenience.
Mr. McFetridge was treasurer for FIVE
years, from 1882 TO 1887. Mr. Harshaw
from 1887 to 1891, four years. During
these terms of office the law fixed the sal
airy Of the office al S., 900 per year, and
at the same time, declared that that um
"shall be in iull for all services rendered
by him in his official capacity This sum
is equal to the largest salary paid to any
officer in the state 1t is eqaul TO the sal.
arr paid to the governor and to the jus
tees of the supreme court. The duties Of
the office of the state treasurer require
from him little besides good bookkeeping
and suitable care to keep the public money
safely. He is not IN any Important sense
the state hnancier The general manage
meut Of the finances of the state Is con-
ided 10 three commissioners, OF whom the
treasurer is one.
These defendants during their respect
i've terms kept large sums Of the public
money deposited in banks and received
from the banks for the use of Il, large
sums of money, eyeial times larger than
the salary allowed to their Office by
law. This interest money they did not
account for to the state, nor deliver to
heir successor IN Office, but kept as
their own Ihe eyideace tends 10 show
chat earlier treasures had uniformly
done the same, but with much less of
system and smaller profit. Il is TO re
cover these interest moneys that these
actions are brought
1t may be assumed for he purpose OF
the decision that these inter st moneys
belong to Whichever party shall be found
TO have been the owner of the fund
which earned them This is the general
rule Of law, and no circumstance seems TO
make this case exceptions Indeed
! q i Il 9 a.
sent from this proposition on the argu
ment
Interest upon fund is accessory TO the
fund and becomes part OF it. The iuno,
as so increased by interest, belongs to the
owner of the original fund.
In this action, it is claimed for the state
that the principal fund, which earns this
interest, was tn money of the state. On
the ground that the interest was an accre-
tiou to- that fund, the state claims to re.
cover il in tuIs action For the aeleud-
ant it is denied that the principal fund
was the money OF the state but. on the
contrary, it Is claimed that IL was the
tTaasurer's own money aud that for that
reason, be mas the right 10 retain the IN
terest which 1t earned. So, the issue is,
practically, wlose money was II that earn
ed tine interest The decision Will 6e a
necessary cons, 9nence from the ans yer to
the question
1t seems to be fair to assume that money
which is received into the state treasury
is the state S money until In some way,
it is satisfactorily shown or demonstrated
that II is not the states money So it
should seem that the butden Of the argu
ment is upon the p5rty who denies that It,
the principal fund, Is the st3fe's money.
The argument by which this is said to
be demonstrated is this: TIE treasurer
gives bond with -ureties tor tine faith
ful discharge Of the duties OF bis office
Ga this bond ne and his ,uretias are Tia,
bile 10 the state la the amount Of the pens
atty of hts U1ud, TO account for aud pay
over. al the money which shall come %
ms hands 0y virtue OF his Cshce abso-
luIely IA every event, whatever gau be
be excused from 5ucn pa ment Hence
1t is inferred lnat he ut once, On the *
eeution Of mis- official bond, becomes IN
absolute debtor 90 the state IN the
amount Of the penalty OF bis bond From
the fact that he Is an absolute 8ebter Ii
Is again inferred that Uoueys which are
received into the state treasury become
tie treasurer 5 own WO0ey. aud that hi,
bond stlp3s 10 the state III place of th
money This Is ALSO sand TO follow lOg-
lclly. from the premises that Ia. Is 8uab
Soiute debtor GA lis uhllaI bond The
ownership Of the fund tud the liability
are said 20 be co-ex'ensIve.
The whole argument rests upon the
premises that the treasurer is liable in
every event If IN any circumstance at
loss he is liable the argument -aIHs M