Omaha daily bee., 1894-02-22
srArE pEposLroRr LAm UPHELD.

STATE DEPOSITORY LAIy UPHELD.
The decision OF the supreme court Of Me-
braska granting the writ Of mandamus to
compel the state treasurer to make deposit
Of public moneys prayed for by bank
which had qualified under the state de-
posItory law overthrows almost every conten-
tlon made by the state treasurer with regard
in his Interpretation of the term "current
funds" The state treasurer maintained that
the law required him to deposit only the
moneys that camo into the general fund Of
the state and that It left him free to deal
with all other public moneys that might
come into his possession as had been the
custom ever since the institution Of the state
government. He therefore refused to hand
over to the depository banks the moneys in
all of the following funds Sinking relief,
permanent school, temporary school, per-
manent university library, agricultural col
lege endowment normal school endowment
temporary university. normal school interest
and saline The decision Of the supreme
court eXcmpts from the operation of the law
only the permanent school and trust funds
In arriving at this conclusion the court
has gone with considerable detail into the
intention which actuated the legislature in
enactlng the state depository law and has
attempted to give it the full force which that
body expected 1t to have. 1t was clearly the
purpose of the law to include more than
single fund, otherwise It would not have
spoken of the several current funds. To re-
quire only a small portion of the state moneys
to he let ont at interest, while the remain
der continued to inure to the benefit of
private persons, would have been as sense
less as it would be inconsistent. From this
it must be inferred that the act is to be
construed as to include all the public
funds over the disposition Of which the legis-
laturG can constitutionally exercise control.
The reason why the permanent school funds
cannot have been affected by this law lies
in the provision OF the constitution that de-
clares such funds trust funds, to be held
forever inviOlate and undiminshed and not
to be invested or loaned except on United
States or state securities or registered county
bonds of this state. The deposit of moneys
in bank and the payment of interest
thereon the court holds to be a loan, and
since loans of this kind out of the perma-
nent school fund are prohibited and beyond
be subject to the depository law.
This reasoning of the court is logical and
indicative of a disposition to give the law
it's widest possible scope within the limits of
the state constitution. 1t makes clear the
duty of the state treasurer to Immediately
place on deposit all moneys which he has
withheld under a mistaken notion that they
are not to be viewed as current funds
Further willfu violation of the law wills
leave him liable to the severe penalties pre-
scrbed in the fourth section. Into the validity
and legality of this section the court refuses
to go until that question shall be properly
brought before it. The reference to it,
however, seems to throw some doubt on this |
point, but even were the criminal character
of its violation removed it would afford no |
excuse to the treasurer for not living up to
the plain intention of the law. With respect |
to the permanent school funds the treasurer |
is in a greater dilemma than ever. The |
are not to be loaned except on the securities |
designated in the constitution. Further |
more, that the ordinary deposit in any bank |
is loan. If the treasurer continues to loan |
out or to deposit this money he violates, not |
an enactment of the legislature, but the con-
which he has sworn to obey A
decision authorizing its investment in state
might prove temporary relief, but
it will not solve the problem. The only
permanent solution is to be sought by con-
stitutional amendment.