In re House Resolution Relating to House Bill No. 349

• Decision Date: 29 March 1889
• Docket Number: 2,444.
• Citation: 21 P. 486,12 Colo. 395
• Parties: In re HOUSE RESOLUTION RELATING TO HOUSE BILL NO. 349.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

21 P. 486

12 Colo. 395

In re HOUSE RESOLUTION RELATING TO HOUSE BILL NO. 349.

No. 2,444.

Supreme Court of Colorado

March 29, 1889

The matter submitted to the supreme court for consideration appears in the communication presented, as follows 'Whereas, it is a mooted question whether the passage of bill No. 349, as amended, would so take from the hands of the state treasurer the funds of the state as to relieve said treasurer, and the sureties upon his official bond, from liability to the state for the loss of any funds deposited in accordance with the provisions of said bill; and whereas the question is one of vital importance at this time therefore be it resolved that a copy of said bill, together with the following question, be submitted to the supreme court of this state, with a request for an early reply. Question. Will the enactment into a law of house bill No. 349, as attached hereto, affect in any way the liability of the state treasurer, and the sureties upon his official bond, for funds deposited in accordance with the provisions of said bill, and is said bill authorized by section 12, art. 10, of the constitution of this state?' Section 12, art. 10, of the constitution, referred to in the legislative communication, and also in the opinion, reads: 'The treasurer shall keep a separate account of each fund in his hands, and shall, at the end of each quarter of the fiscal year, report to the governor in writing, under oath, the amount of all moneys in his hands to the credit of every such fund, and the place where the same are kept or deposited, and the number and amount of every warrant received, and the number and amount of every warrant paid therefrom during the quarter. Swearing falsely to any such report shall be deemed perjury. The governor shall cause every such report to be immediately published in at least one newspaper printed at the seat of government, and otherwise as the general assembly may require. The general assembly may provide by law further regulations for the safe-keeping and management of the public funds in the hands of the treasurer; but, notwithstanding any such regulation, the treasurer and his sureties shall in all cases he held responsible therefor.'

PER CURIAM.

The first branch of the question propounded must be answered in the negative. No statute adopted to regulate the safe-keeping of the public moneys can operate to relieve the state treasurer or his sureties from liability upon his official bond. The responsibility of that officer and his sureties for the protection any safety of the public funds while in his hands in irrevocably fixed by constitutional mandate. Section 12, art. 10, Const. The second branch of the question is not so easily answered. It is hardly possible that the framers of the constitution intended to make the treasurer and his sureties absolutely responsible for the security of the public funds, and yet authorize the legislature to lodge with some other official the control thereof. Such a purpose besides...