Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1897-11-11

'"The condition of the Sond is broken,
and the obligation has he.onle absolute.
rs the claim of the Unttd States UPON
them, released by the lache, of the ofli-
Ger to whom the assertion Of that claim
was intrusted?
This question, also, has ben settled
in this Court.
.'lhe case of the United Safes VS..
kirkpatrick and others. 0 Wht1t. T2O,
was a suit instituted on a bond gwen by
a collector of Direct taxes and Internal
duties. under the act of 22nd July, 1913,
ch. 16. The Act required each collector
to transmit his accounts 10 the Treasury
monthly; to pay over the moneys to.-
lecicd quarterly; and to complete his ccl-
lection. pay over the moneys collected t,
the Treasury. and render his final ac-
count within six months from the day on
which he shall have received the collec-
tion list from the principal assessor. In
case of failure, the Act authorizes and re-
qnires the comptroller of the Treasury,
immediately, to issue his warrant of dis
tress against such delinquent collector.
and his suretics. The comptroller did not
issue his warrant of distress according to
the mandate of the law: and this suit was
instituted four years after such warrant
ought TO have been issued.
The Court left It 10 the jury to decide
whether the government had not by this
commission, waived its resort to the sure
tics. A verdict was found for the de-
PENDANTS; the judgment on which was
brought before his Court by writ of error.
The counsel for the defendant urged
that laches might be imputed 10 the gov
ernment. through the negligence of its
officers; but this Court reversed tho iudg-
ment, declaring the opinion thar the
charge of the Court below, which sun
poses THAT lacheS viii discharge the bond,
cannot be maintained in law. THE ut
most vigilance: II was said. would not
save the public from the mosi serious
losses if the doctrine Of lachcs caa he an
piled to its transactions. 1t would in ef-
feet, work n repeal of AL securities 1t
was further said, that the provisions of
the law which require that settlements
should he made Mt short and stated pcr-
lods, are created by the government Cor
its own security and projections: and 10
regulate the conduct of its own officers
They are merely directory 10 such officers,
and constitute no part of the contract
of the question, the Court laid down the
principle. that the mere lachcs of the
public officers. constitutes no grounds Of
discharge in the present ease The same
question came on TO he again considered
in the case of the United States VS.. Van
zandt, IL Wheat. 1SI.
This was an action of debt brought
up on paymaster's official bond. against
one of the sureties. The act of organiz-
ing the general staff, and making further
provision for the army of the United
States, makes it the duty of the paymas-
ter to render his vouchers to the Paymas-
ter General, for the settlement of his ac,
counts; and if he fail to do so for more
than six months after he shall have re-
ceived funds, the act imperatively en-
joins that he shall he recalled. and an
other appointed in his place. The pay
master had failed TO comply with the re-
quisites of the law: after which rhe Pay
masterItieneral instead of obeying it's
mandate. by removing him. placed further
funds in his hands. The Circuit Court
instructed the jury, that the defendant,
the surety, was not charseab,c for any
failure of the paymaster to account for
such additional funds, so placed in his
hands after his said default and neglect
inI respect of the funds previously re-
ceived were known; and verdict was
found for the defendant. The judgment
on this verdict was also brought before
the Court by writ of error. and was
reversed.
The, counsel for the defendant con
tended that this case differed from the
United States VS.. Kirkpatrick and others;
but the Court said The provisions in both
laws arc mercy directory to the officers,
and intended for the security and protcc-
tion of government, by ensuring punct-
nality and responsibility; but %ey form
no part of the contract with the surety
The placing further funds in the hands
of the defaulting paymaster was con-
sidered as the necessary consequence of
his continuance in office. This is cer-
tainly a very strong case. These two
eases seem to fix the principle, that the
laches of the officers of the government,
however gross, do not of themselves dis
charge the sureties in an official bond,
from the obligation it creates; fs firmly
as the decisions of this Court can fix it.
We think they decide the question now
under consideration"
In the case of the United States VS..
Boyd and others, 15 Peters pos. decided
in 1871 (Mr. Justice Catron delivering the
opinionl the suit was instituted against
Gordon ID. Boyd, Receiver Of Public
Moneys in the district of lands subject
to sale at Columbus, Miss, and the sure
ties in his official bond.
Mr.. Justice Catron speaking of the fail
ure of the Receiver to account and pay
as required by thc rules of the Treasury
Department, says: "Laches are not i'm
putab.e to the government. The regula-
tions requiring settlement TO be made by
its officers at short periods are designed
for the protection of the government, and
merely directory to the officers. such is
the settled doctrine of this Court" and
cites the cases above quoted.
Finally, in Jones st al. VS., United
States, is Wallace, 662, decided in 1873,
suit was instituted in the Court below
against Jones ct. nj. as sureties for one
Quilian, conditioned that the said Quill
lian should faithfully discharge the duties
of postmaster at Mi.ledgeville, Ga. and.
faithfully, once in three months, or
oftener, if thereto required. render ac-
count of his receipts and expenditures,
and pay the balance of al moneys that
shall come into his hands. and keep safely
all the public moneys collected by him.
The case was argued on demurrer and
the defendants plea concisely and briefly
presents the question at issue us follows:
"That as to any default of the said
Quillian, their principal in said bond in
the declaration mentioned as postmaster
aforesaid, within two years before the
commencement of this action, they are
not liable in law therefor, but have been
and are fully discharged and released.