The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1893-01-14
INTEREST SUIT DECIDED
supreme Court AfIirms The Decision =
judge Newman

| 'iNs anu tut court
30 holds, that the funds which
treasurer McFetridge deposited
| with banks were the propertv
OF the state; that in making such de.
| posts as treasurer and STIMULATING for
and receiving interest without such
stipulation, he did not violate any law
OF the state; that such interest so mid
TO MN being an accretion or increment
TO the fund, increasing it by the amount
OF interest paid thereon, belongs to the
state; that Treasurer McFetridge re-
| ceIyed such interest by virtue of his of.
| ice OF state treasurer, and the same
belonged to his sa 6 Office; that his fail
ure to account the refor to the state. or
10 deliver the same to his successor in
office as required by law, is breach of
the conditions of his official bond and
that tins action can be maintained on
such pond against him, and his sureties
thereln, 10 recover the interest thus re-
| celved by him and unaccounted for.
IN determining this case the court
has adopted many OF the views of the
learned circuit judge, but withholds its
approval from others. Inasmuch
as We arrive at the same con-
| ciuslon reached by him, although by
different processes of reasoning, 1t is
unnecessary to further discuss the prom
| ositlons in his very able opinion.
which We are not prepared to adopt.
The judgement of the circuit court
must be affirm ed. 7"
Thus announced Chief Justice LYON
| IN the supreme court this morning, in
giving the decision of the court in the
pf tho Ctat Of NTioo1,,o;.
I. Mctetrldge, ex-state treasurer, for
the recovery of interest on public funds
| received by him. The decision is also
| made to cover the cases against ex-
treasurer Harshaw, and judgment is
gwen Tor the amount called for in Judge
N9Wman's decision, and interest. Con-
tnulng further, the opinion, which is
approved by all the Judges except Pin
ney, who did not sit in the case. is
briefly as follows.
The question whether the state is the
oWrcr OF the public funds in the bands of
lhc treasurer, or whether the legal title
thereto IS IN the treasurer, must be de-
termIned by the statutes prescribing the
rights, duties and Liabilities of the treas
urer. The statutes governing the treas
urcr were all in force when, and for a
long time before, the bond in suit was
executed. From beginning to end they
are entirely Inconsistent with the theory
that the Legislature intended, by the enact
mcnt of any OF them to est the state
treasurer with the legal ownership of the
public moneys which come to his hands
thus making him merely the debtor of
the state in respect thereto. If such were
his relations to the state, il would he diff
cult To show that such funds were not sub.
lect to be seized for his debts. or in case of
| the death Of the treasurer IN Office. that
| the same would not 90 to his administra-
| for and nf ba
state beng perhaps preferred creditor.
1t Is inconccivahIe that any legislature
| could intend such results, and there Is
| nothing III any statute which forces the
| conclusion that they did so. 4 close an
! alySIS OF the above statutes, or any extend
ed discussion Of them. Is quite unnecessary,
| for pcrIlsal of them is sufficient to carry
conviction 10 the mind that the legislature
never intended to diyest the state of its
title TO the public funds in the
hands OF the treasurer. The de-
| posts in the bank were made in
| the name OF the state treasurer, in his Of
| hcIal capacity as such. No time of credit
| was given upon tEem, but they were pay
able whenever required by the treasurer,
and thcs could only be drawn on the Of
fetal draft or check of the treasurer.
They were made IN accordance with the
usual and lOng-cOntinucd course of buSi-
ness IN that department of the state GOV
eminent They were not made primarily
treasurer, but because the eXIgCnCicS of
the business department, and the reason
able convenience OF creditors of the state,
rendered 1t almost absolutely necessary
that state funds should be kept in different
portions OF the state and i'll the cities of
chicago and New York, against which tho
treasurer might draw. Such methods had
prevailed and deposits had been .--Hde III
banks and drawn against by all the different
treasurerS for thIrty years or more before
the execution of the bonds III SUIT. \
large portion of the public funds were thus
kept on dcuoSit during the whole period,
and dlSburScd through the lnStrumentalI-
ty of tens OF thousands, even hundreds OF
thousands. OF drafts or checks drawn by
the respective treaSurerS in the name Of
their Office against such deposits. 10 say
OF any adult citizen residing IN the state
during any considerable portion of that
ucriOd. especially II he was member OF
the legislature. that he did not know OF
such course OF business would be an I'M
peachment of his intelligence. Under these
circumstances it is reasonable To hold that
the state treaSurerS We're justified IN trans
acting the business of their department as
they dId transact il. and as such business
is almost invariably conducted in the com
mercial worlI. unless those methods were
prohibited by some statutes OF state.
j. Is claimed that the provision III Section
4iia Revised Statutes, making 1t prlma
facIe evidence of embeZZlement OF any
officer or other person who, having the
care. custody or possession OF the prop
erty of another, loans or deposits IL lor ms
own gam. profit or advantage without
special authority, prohibits the treasurer
from making the deposits IN question, IN
asmuch as he made them with the nten-
ton of converting TO his own use any m
terest the banks should thereafter
pay him on such deposits. 10 SUD
isct a public officer TO the serious
penalties of the statute there must
be something IN the character and mel
dents of the deTOSlt TO snow that ne mas
disregardcd the obligations OF hlSvtfu9I
in making the same, or II cannot justly be
said that he has deposited the money loI
his own gain. so long as his actions are
within the line of his duty he IS not an
pmbczyler although he may intend at some
future time to appropriate to MS own use
| the trust funds or some portion thtreoI' or
| tho interest realized thereon. he de-
nosit, we're regularly made by the treas
| iiIrei in his official capacity as such for tue
benefit of the state, and could only oe
| drawn on his Official draft. ihe authority
| To contract for interest on Such CepoSltS Is
| as broad as the right to make thenl. loI
tho statutes contain no special RESTRICTION
IN the matter of interest. The mclplent
| ,tfense rested entirely IN the lntcnuou'
liable at any time TO be abandoned. No
person can lawfully be convicted oI an OF
| fepse merely because he intended 70 com.
nit II. but ala loiiliiN III ~ ~ - - > =
such intention. Had the treasurer mace
such deposits in his individual name, ana
| n couId be proved that he did 50 lot llc
| n,,-pO>e OF enabling him to emoeZZie lne
| money depo sited. or any portion OF II. It
might well be SAID that he thereby commit
| ted an offense under Section iilF. bul we
| cannot understand how this can truly De
| SAID of Official deposits. III res IaIar anu
| proper form. If otherwise laWfu.Iy mace.
| Wt. conclude. therefore, that treasurer
| McFetrldge did not commit criminal
| otfenSe under Section 4il9 when he hlade
| the deposits in question. .. .,
| The statutes requiring ine treasures "
| received in the discharge of his duties were
| enacted because a large portion OF the clr-
| cuiatiug medium of the country consisted
| Of bank notes, winch passed 'rtels ms
| 0tonaI- but were not legal tender for peIu,
| ,;o-X.ohliGations The value of this klnd
| MAI bA-c>'>Ni- -iupt,g0fIDp