The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1897-10-15
INTENT NOT NECESSARY.

| Argus-Leader: In discussing the
scandal in the state auditors Office
some people are inclined to palliate the
offence on the ground that while the
culprits actually converted the state
money to their own use, they did not
intend to do 80, that is, that there was
absence of criminal intent, and there
fore the shortage was no crime
These people overlook the plain let
ter of the law and also the theory upon
which the state employs an auditor.
The first paragraph Of section 669S
says: every public officer who
appropriates to his own use without
authority of law any money received
by him as such officer, clerk or deputy
or otherwise. on behalf of this state or
the people thereof, or in which they
are interested, is guilty OF a felony
! There is nothing said here about in
tent. The statue does not require that
| when an officer has taken and spent the
| public money he shall be shown to have
| intended to steal it. The mere fact
that he appropriates it to his own use
constitutes the crime.
And this Interpretation is reasona-
BILE. The officer is charged with safe
guarding the state funds. He is EN-.
ployed and paid to see that those state
funds are safely covered into the treas
ury. His failure to do so, unless it can
be shown that that failure is due to
causes entirely beyond the control of
the officer is a crime. 1t is his clear
duty to make sure that every cent
which comes into his hands on behalf
of the state is turned over to the treas
urer. There are some duties where
carelessness is crime and this one is
made so expressly.
II a stationary engineer believes that
the water in this boiler is ample, but
fails to verify his belief and the boiler
explodes and kills man, the engineer
is sent to the penitentiary for man
slaughter. He did not intend to kill,
but carelesseess in his care was a
crime. II a railway telegrapher for
3
ensues the law places him behind the
bars. Ho did not intend to commit
crime He had no possible motive
But it was his duty to see that his work
was properly performed.
So if financial officer employed to
collect state funds puts those funds in
his pocket and spends them, he may
plead that he did not intend to steal
and he may admit his plea. But he is
nevertheless guilty of crime It was
his business to know that every cent
was turned over. That is precisely
what the state employed him for and
paid him his salary. His carelessness
is criminal
OF all officers employed the one duty
OF the state auditor is to be accurate
If he is careless with the state money,
loses it or spends it, or let's some one
else do 40, he has failed clearly in the
very point which justifes his employ
ment. He is the one officer upon whom
the state relies to see that its accounts
are properly kept and that a proper
accounting is made. When he fails he
fails in the one essential to his posi-
ton.
In the present case the matter is
worse. Admitting for argument that
| Messrs. Nipple and Mayhew did not in
tend to rob the state, admitting that
! their shortage was due solely to care
leSSneSs, and this cannot he fairly
clrimed in the case of Mayhem, at any
rate, that shortage was due clearly to
| their failure to obey chapter IS of the
laws OF 1891, which requires that all
state officers turn over all the fees in
| their hands each and every month, and
| hat they once year make a full
| statement to the treasurer of the fees
received. Had they followed these
plain provisions OF law no unconscious
shortage could have occurred Their
conscious and willful disregard of this
| law constitutes malfeasance under sec
| tion 67O4 even though there had been
| no shortage. That disregard takes
| from the plea that the shortage was
due to a mistake.
II these gentlemen can show that
they did not actually intend to defraud
the state, their showing should miti-
| gate their punishment. But in no case
can it acquit them Of crime. Their
restoration of the money may mitigate
the otfense. but it does not excuse it.