Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1893-01-14

posts in question. Stated In another
form, such absolute liability does not
necessarily cstop the state to maintain
that such interest was received By the
treasurer by virtue Of bis Office
and belongs to his office. There
are cases, however, which apparently
sustain the contention Of defendants
counsel on this branch Of the case. Some
Of them viii now be examined for the
purpose OF ascertaining whether they do
so hold, and if 50, upon what grounds
the doctrine is rested.
I The case Of People vs.. Walsgn. IS Pac.
Rep, 1119, recently decided by the SUI
-, Art. 10, Of the constitution, it may he
upon by counsel for defendants to sus-
tain their contention Like this action,
it was brought by the state on the Off
cial bond Of a former state treasurer,
against him and his sureties therein, TO
recover interest received by such treas
urer on deposits Of public funds made
by him in banks, which interest was
retained by him TO his own individual
use. 1t was held by the trial court on
demurrer that the complaint failed 10
state a cause Of action against the
treasurer or his sureties and the SUI
preme court affirmed a judgment for
defendants i'm such demurrer
We understand that the judgment in
that case is rested by the court on two
separate and distinct grounds tO-wit,
~, upon the statutes of that state, and
%, upon the absolute liability OF the
treasurer to account to the state for
the public funds which come to his
hands
AS to the first OF these grounds. In
March, 1889, one branch of the Colorado
legislature pursuant to a practice which
seems 10 be authorized in that state,
submitted to the supreme court certain
questions relative TO the validity of GER
tain proposed legislation, affecting the
care, custody and control of the public
funds. In answering those questions
the court took occasion to say, 1T is
eminently proper and in view of Sec.
10. Art. 10 of the constitution it may be
a legislative duty to provide by statute
that all interest paid by banks upon
public funds deposited with them shall
be placed to the credit Of the state"
In April Of that year the legislature,
presumably prompted thereto by the
above suggestion, enacted law the pur-
pose of which. rs correctly expressed IN
it's title, being ITO prohibit the CONVEX
sion, loaninE or deposit, for the benefit
Of officers, agents and servants Of public
funds belonging to the counties, cities,
town, township and school districts of
the state, and to prescribe punishment
for the violation of the condi-
tons hereof, and to repeal all
acts inconsi tent herewith" The
act gives a right of action to any such
municipality or any other subdivision Of
the state against any such officer.
agent or servant who has contracted
for or received. and against any person
or association who has contracted to
nay the same to the individual use of
such officer. agent or servant, any ben
Gifts or advantages because of the de-
pOsit of the public funds with such per-
son or association. The term benefits
or advantages" was clearly intended TO
include interest on such deposits. The
act industriously excludes the state
treasurer from its requirements and pen
alties. Because it does so the court
held that the state had no right of ac-
ton against the state treasurer, and, of
course, none against the sureties in his
official bond TO recover interest received
and retained by him to his own use, on
such deposits Of the public funds. This
ruling alone was necessarily decisive of
the case. Because we have no such
statute in this state, the case, in that
aspect of It, does not aid us in the de
termination Of the present case.
But rs before stated, the court also
rested it's decision upon the further and
Independent ground that. because Of the
absolute liability Of the treasurer TO ac-
count to the state for all funds coming
to his hands by virtue Of his office he
cannot be required TO account for inter-
. est received by him on the public funds
thus deposited This is laid down rs
a general rule Of law, una fected by
statutory provisions, and Is OF course as
applicable in this state as in Colorado.
The court here cited pertinent opin-
ions from Indiana. Colorado, Georgia..
The foregoing seem to be the cases
most relied upon to sustain the propOs' =
ton that Treasurer NTcFetidge and his
surcties are relieved from liability on
his official bond for the interest claimed,
because Of his absolute liability to the
state for the public funds received by
him by virtue Of his office. With all due
Difference to the able courts which have
asserted or intimated the existence OF
the alleged rule under consideration, we
are constrained to say that, in our
opinion. they have failed to demon
strate. either by authority or upon prin-
eiple, that the same has any place in
our Jurisprudence.
1t has already been held herein that
tn, public funds were lawfully depos-
tied by Treasurer NIcFenidGe with the
banks. and that he lawfully received
from such banks compensation by way
,,f irt cy,oe+ for tho YvSp Of such dp0OSitS.