The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-02-18


missioner of valuation. las well as the
costs of advertising as prescribed in
the act" brought the act within the
requirements of the constitution,
though no actual Appropriation was
made by the act.
Other courts have held that pub
lic'' money includes moneys of cities
and counties.
| Myers VS.. kiowa company. commits
sioners 60 Kan. 1888 The statute
! shall deposit daily all public money"
/ in a bank, etc. Held-that this in
cludes money belonging to the State,
county and TOWNSHIP ps--and that pub
! lie money" and county funds are
convertible terms"
| In re Renter, 122. Fed. 100. Our
treaty with Germany includes. among
( extraditable offenses, the embezzle-
ment of public moneys" Renter was
| cashier of a savings bank in the town
! of I.auenstein, which bank was owned
! by the city. He embezzled funds he
/ longing to the savings bank ana eS-
| capped to this country. He resisted ex-
tradition upon the ground that the
money embezZled by him was not
| public money" and so not within the
terms of the treaty. The court says
THE money deposited in the savings
bank by individual depositors was, OF
I course before the deposit. private
| moneys, but upon the deposit, the
money became the money of the city
of Lauenstein. the owner Of the bank.
/, The counsel for the accused asserts
that the term public moneys as
used in this treaty, means money col
iected by taxation or in some similar
! manner, applicable by the government
to any general public purpose, and
! that there is no evidence that the
! money in the savings bank could
have been used for any purpose ex-
cept to pay the amount due TO in
dividual depositors. But / think that
the money. while held by the city in
the bank, was public money belonging
to the municipality" 1t will he seen
that the distinction between such
funds and those collected by the gov
eminent through taxation was raised,
and neeatlved by the court.
i Blandford vs. Stare. % Tex. App.
s27. Blandford stole money belonging
to private corporation of which he
was an officer and escaped into
| Mexico. He was extradited. under Il
treaty which included the offense Of
| embezZlement of public moneys
/ The Texas court discharged him upon
the ground that the money Of a private
corporation was not public money. 1t
cannot be doubted. however, that he
would have been held had the funds
belonged TO county or city as well as
State, The contrary idea would he
| absurd. And bear is mind, too. these
are criminal cases and the statutes
are to be more strictly construed than
the one in question.
/ People VS., Havomeyer, etc, 8 Hun.
IN. ", 81. by an act of the legisla
ture. a railway company was directed
to make certain improvements in the
limits of the ciiy--half of the cost to
he borne by the company, and tho
! other half by the city. The cOnstitu-
ton OF New York provides: THE as
( sent of two-thirds of the members
I elected to each branch Of the legisla~
| ture shall he required to every bill
appropriating the public moneys or
property Tor local or private pur-
poses" The bill did not receive a
| two-thirds vote, and it's validity was
contested. 1t is true that the court
held that mo public moneys in the
| sense in which the word public Is
used in that part of the organic law
are appropriated, so as to make a two
thirds vote of the legislature neces-
sary"; but observe the reasoning. The
court further says: THE use of the
words public and local in the same
section forbids the thought that they
are synonymous expressions, and the
, structure of the whole sentence is in
| opposition to the construction which
attaches to each similar meaning.
| 1t was very easy 10 say, If that was
the thought intended, that no tax
should be imposed for local or
| private purpose upon the State or a
! locality. except by the vote Of two
/ thirds of the members elected to each
branch of the legislature. Instead of
that, the expression indicates. as well
I as the good sense of the requirement,
that the assent of two-thirds Of the
/ mem bers was necessary, when money
| belonging to the whole State was to
be appropriated for the benefit of a
part" 1t is evident that the court
| would have considered such money
public" had not the idea been mega
| lived by the association of the words
| public" and local" in the provision.
| The constitution makers could not
have meant to inhihit the appropria-
ton of county and city funds for their
! local purposes; and so, as the court
says. public" then could not be con-
strued as embracing other than State
moneys
3 1t is conceded that the bill, with
amendments passed the senate with
the constitutional vote; that the re-
port OF the conference committee did
not receive such a vote; and that the
BILL as reported by that committee.