Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1893-01-18


mary obligations. The value of this kind
of currency was constantly fuctuatlng.
When deprecated treaSurerS were liable
to be tempted to purchase it at discount
with more available funds, perhaps coin,
in their hands, and pay public creditors
with such deprecated currency at face
value, thus making for themselves the
amount of the discount. The law
was enacted and has since been re-
tanned TO prevent such dishonesty
and wrong. lnaSmuCh as, practically,
all the currency now in circulation in the
country as money possesses the legal ten
der quality, the law ceased to be OF much
Importance. ManifeStly it was never IN
tended to require the treasurer to pay out
the Identical coins or treasury notes or
coin certificates received by him officially
for the state, but only that he should n0G
receive good money into the treasury and
pay the public creditors with deprecated
funds, if any such are in circulation. Any
other construction Of these statutes would
ignore the reasons for their enactment,
and IN our opinion, would lead to manifest
abSuTdity.
The construction of the term ''vaultS of
the treasury in which the treasurer is
required to keep the moneys of the state,
as their own vault or safe in the office OF
the state treasurer, is too narrow, for it
ignores the customary and necessary proc
eSSeS universally employed in the conduct
OF business affairs, and the methods by
which the business of the treasurer'S office
has been conducted from its first Organi-
ZatiOn, and would work violent and I'M
necessary change in these methods, to the
great detriment of public business and the
inconvenience and damage of public cred
itOrs. We are not aware of the existence
of any conditions when that statute was
enacted which called for such extreme
remedy. Further than this, ''mOney" is a
generic term and may mean any
and also any other. circulating
medium or any instruments or tokens in
general use in the commercial world as
representatives of value. 1t includes
whatever is lawfully and actually current
in commercial transactions as the eQulVa-
lent of legal tender coin and currency.
We conclude there is nothing in Section
159 which rendered it unlawful for Treas
urer McFetrldge to make the deposits in
question. The treasurer alone has no au-
thority to make any investment Of public
funds. The deposits IN question were
made by McFetrdge from any and ali
funds in the treasury unfortunately, al
though, presumably, his books showed
what amount of each fund was thus
deposited. Such deposits were made with
out the approval or concurrence OF either OF
his associate commissioners OF the public
lands or the governor. If these deposits
were instruments within the meaning OF
the statutes, they were unlaWtullY made,
but we are Of the opinion that in making
the deposits Ill question McFetrdge did
not invest the state funds, and hence that
he did not thereby violate the statutes
which prohibited HIM from SO doing. 1t
was unlawful for him to Stipulate for pay
ment by the banks OF interest on such de-
posts and receive such interest. The
moneys, therefore, were not the fruits OF
an illegal transaction, and the claim OF the
defense that the state cannot claim the
fruits Of illegal transaction without ratlfy-
ing the act is no significant.
The treasurer may well be held liable,
absolutely, for all money of the state COM
inc to his hands, and be neId liable also
for the interest on the deposits in question.
Such absolute liability does n0tneceSSarily
estOp the state to maintain that such inter-
est was received by the treasurer by virtue
of his Office and belongs to his office. 1t
has already been held herein that the pub
lie funds were lawfully deposited by
Treasurer AIcFetridge with the banks, and
that he lawfully received from such
banks compensation by way OF interest
tor the use Of such deposits. Under these
circumstances, and III the absence OF
statute separating the interest from the
fund and dlYertng 1T, TO other uses such
interest was an GccretlOn or increment to
the fund, thus becoming part Of it, and
logically and necessarily belongs TO the
owner of the fund, tO-Wlt: the state.
After discussion of the authorities
cited by the defense, the court comes
to the conclusion cited above. In the
Harshaw case, the court, by the same
justice, gives the following opinion:
There are two appeals in this action, one
by the defendant, Henry B. HarShaW, and
the other by all the remaining defendants.
Such appeals are from the judgment of the
circuit court, In favor OF the state and
against the defendants. The defendant,
HarShaW, was state treasurer for the term
commencing on the first Monday IN
January. 1889, and ending Oh the first
Monday in January. 1891. The defendants.
Sawyer, Hay, McMillen, Porter and
Hooper, together with Charles b. Clark.
now deceased, are the SuretieS in his
official bond as such treasurer. The action
is to recover interest paid by banks on de-
posts therein OF the public fundSmade by
Treasurer Harshaw. in his term of office.
1t is like the case Of the state VS.. McFet-
ridge and others, decided herewith, eX-
cept chat instead of receiving the
interest on such deposits himself, Treas
urer HarShaW and his SuretIeS, or some Of
them, secured the services Of the defend
ant Schriber to collect and receive it.
Schriber received over $62, OG0 Of such in
tereSt and deposited the same in the de-
PENDANT National Bank Of Oshkosh, of
which he was cashier, in the name of the
defendant, S. NJ. Hay, trustee. Hay is a
surety IN such bond and the president of
the defendant bank. The money still re-
mains there on deposit. The action is
in equity for an accounting of
such interest and to reach such
deposit in the defendant bank. The court
holds the defendant HarshaW and his
sureties liable for the amount Of such in
terest with interest thereon from the close
OF his Official term, with costs.
1t also holds defendants Schrlber
and the bank liable for the
amount thus deposited, but not for
interest thereon or costs. Judgment was
entered for the state accordingly, which
provided that when the amount of such
deposit should be paid the same
should be applied upon the judg-
ment against Treasurer Harshaw and his
suretieS. In respect to the liability of the
defendants, Harshaw and his sureties, the
case is ruled by the McFetrid9e case.
There can be no doubt that the state is en-
titled to recover the interest realized on It's
funds deposited IN the defendant bank by
Schriber.
The judgment of the circuit court is af-
frmed on Goth aDDeals.
HEAVY ATTACHM ENT SUIT
Claim at Minneapolis Against Con-
struction Company For 1871, 492.