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

I'm banks, in his name Of office, of the
public funds in his hands belonging to
his office. which were deposited sub
icct to his draft therefor at any time
rs such, and only as such treasurer, an
unauthorized and illeeql Is" Of those
funds? Many adipdications elsewhere
hold the doctrine that il the treasurer
was prohibited by law 10 make such
deposits, he Is not liable 10 account to
the state for any interest received by
him thereon So far as We have been
able to discover. none OF the adiudica-
tons contain very satisfactory state
ment Of the principle upon which they
rest But we suppose II TO be that
such unlawful deposit OF the funds is
a conversion thereof by the treasurer
20 his own use as indicated in Sergeant
cases in this court, the measure OF dam
ares for which conversion is the sum
thus converted with interest thereon
from the time he should have paid the
money 10 the creditors OF the state, or
delivered the same 10 his successor I'm
office, as required 10y law H. before
any lawful demand therefor. the treas
urcr thus pays over or delivers the
amount SO converted by him, the dam
ages which the state might otherwise
have recovered OF him and his sureties
are satisfied, and the right Of action is
gone although he may have made gains
10y way Of interest. or otherwise, out OF
the money thus converted.
For reasons hereinafter stated 1t is
unnecessary TO determine whether, II
the treasurer illegally made such de-
posits, he fulfilled his obligations 70 tho
state when he paid over the funds thus
deposited as required 10y law. 1t may DO
observed, however, that whatever the
rights Of the suretes are in such case,
TO allow the treasurer To escape nc
counting TO the state Tor gains accruing
from his illegal use Of the public funds,
looks very much like allowing a public
officer to profit 10y his own wrong and
breach Of official duty. Courts should
be slow 10 assert the right of deln-
quent official to such gains unless com
PEELED to do so by plain rules of law.
But let 1t be assumed for the purposes
of the case that if the deposits We're (ns
the defendants alleEcl Illegally made,
this action must fail, and we are
brought TO consider and determine
whether they were 10 made.
These deposits were made in the name
of the treasurer in his official capacity
as such No time of credit was given
upon them, but they were payable
whenever required by the treasurer and
they could only be drawn on the
official draft or check Of the treasurer.
They were made in accordance with the
usual and long continued course Of bus
mess In that department of the state
government They We're not made pri-
marty for the purposes Of gain or profit
to the treasurer but because the
exigenccs of the business of The depart
ment, and the reasonable convenience
of creditors OF the state, rendered 1t
almost absolutely necessary that state
funds should be kept in different por-
lions of the state, ana in the cities OF
Chicago and New York, against which
the treasurer might draw 20 pay APP
preparations. Such methods had pre-
vailed, and deposits had been made in
banks, and drawn against 10y all the
different state trcasurCrs for thirty
years or more before the execution OF
the bond in suit A large portion of the
public funds were thus kept on deposit
during that whole period and discussed
through the fundamentally Of tens OF
even hundreds OF thousands
OF drafts or checks drawn by the re-
spectiYe teasurcrs IN their name OF
Office against such deposits. TO say OF
any adult citizen residing in the state
during any considerable portion Of that
pcriod. especially if he was a member or
the legislature, that he did not know OF
such course Of business would be an im-
parchment Of hi intelligence Under
these circumstances it Is reasonable 10
hold that the state treasurers were JUS
tilted In tranGcting the business OF
their department ms they did
transact it, and as such bus
mess is almost invariably con-
Quoted In the commercial world, UNI
less those methods were prohibited by
some statute of the state. And this
brings IL to an examination OF tho
statutes bearing upon the subject
IT may correctly be assumed, we
think. that If the making Of such de-
posts was prohibited at all, the prohibit
ton must be found in one or more OF
the following statutes; Secs 1872, 100,
100 and 4410 II. s., above referred 10,
and the provisions for the investment o.
the trust funds, being Secs. 25s, 258a
and 2G2a S. q Il. Annot SITS.
1t is maintained III behalf Of the state
that. under Secs. 1852 and 44l9 it was
the duty Of the treasurer TO pay out or
deliver to the persons entitled thereto
the same Identical coin and currency
paid into the treasury, and that the de-
posits in question came within the pro-
vision of the latter section making it a
crime on the part of the treasurer to
loan or deposit the public funds for his
own gain, profit or advantage without
special authority, which Of course would
don tIa Inuoeffu unlawful Also