State v. Coffin

• Decision Date: 26 December 1903
• Citation: 74 P. 962,9 Idaho 338
• Parties: TURNER, STATE AUDITOR, v. COFFIN, STATE TREASURER
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

74 P. 962

9 Idaho 338

TURNER, STATE AUDITOR, v. COFFIN, STATE TREASURER

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 26, 1903

TITLE TO LEGISLATIVE ACT-CONSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN SAME-CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT-INTERPRETATION OF SAME.

1.Under section 16 of article 3 of the state constitution which provides that "Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be embraced in the title,"the courts must give a liberal construction to the language used by the legislature in framing the title to any given act which they may pass.

2.It was evidently the intention of the framers of such constitutional provision to require a title sufficiently definite and comprehensive as to indicate to one reading it the general scope and purpose of the legislation intended by the act, and if the title be sufficient for that purpose it will be held as including all necessary and incidental legislation required to make the general purpose of the act operative.

3.Act approved March 4, 1903, entitled "An act to provide for the care and keeping of moneys in the custody of the treasurer of the state of Idaho, and prescribing penalties,"Session Laws of 1903, page 375, held insufficient to authorize legislation thereunder providing for the depositing of the public funds in banks designated as state depositories and the collection of interest thereon and the removal of such funds beyond the custody and control of the state treasurer.

4.Held, further, that the legislation attempted to be enacted under said title is not in harmony with such title and is not fairly indicated by the title.

5.Held, further, that the legislature cannot in the title of an act use language which in the ordinary and usual acceptation of the terms thereof would imply and convey one meaning and in the body of the act declare that such language means the reverse.

(Syllabus by the court.)

ACTION by the state of Idaho upon the relation of Theodore Turner state auditor and secretary of the state board of deposits, against Henry N. Coffin, state treasurer, upon application for writ of mandate requiring the treasurer to deposit certain of the public funds within a designated state depository.Alternative writ of mandamus quashed and writ denied.

Writ quashed and petition denied.No costs awarded.

John A Bagley, Attorney General, and Henry Z. Johnson, for the Auditor.

This is a hearing on the return to an alternative writ of mandate in an original proceeding in this court.The proceeding involves the validity of an act of the legislature of the state of Idaho entitled "An act to provide for the care and keeping of moneys in the custody of the treasurer of the state of Idaho and prescribing penalties," approved the fourth day of March, 1903.(Seventh Sess. Laws, p. 375.)The defendant attacks the validity of the law and assigns the following reasons why the writ heretofore issued should not be made peremptory: Because by the constitutionhe is the legal custodian of all state funds, and should he comply with the direction of the board he would be liable personally on his official bond in case of a loss of such public funds that the order does not indicate from which of said funds he shall transmit said money; that the board is not authorized to be created by the constitution; that the defendant is not a member of said board; that he is the custodian of the public school fund, and that if he transmits said fund it would be contrary to law, as it would be a loaning of said money; that the act takes the funds from his custody without his consent, contrary to the provisions of law; and, finally, that the act contravenes the constitution in this, that the subject matter of the act is not expressed in the title, that no money can be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation and that it interferes with his custody of the public school fund.In discussing the legal objections to the act urged by the defendant, his contention that he is the "constitutional custodian of all the funds of this state," and as such has "control" thereof and "cannot be interfered with by any statutory enactment," will be considered first, for, obviously, if the legislature can neither control the public funds nor provide for their care and keeping, then an inquiry into the sufficiency of the title to an act wherein it attempts to do so becomes unnecessary.But the state treasurer is not "the constitutional custodian of all funds," nor of any fund except "the public school fund," and the "control" of that fund is vested in the legislature.(Idaho Const., art. 9, sec. 3.)And the statement of counsel that "the responsibility of the treasurer is not a statutory responsibility" is likewise erroneous.His custody of the public moneys arises from his statutory duty "to receive and keep all moneys belonging to the state not required to be received and kept by some other person."(Idaho Rev. Stats. 1887, sec. 230, subd. 1.)The framers of the constitution recognized that "the control" of the public moneys was in the legislature, for they expressly provided that the state treasurer should "perform such duties as may be prescribed by law."(Idaho Const., art. 4, sec. 1.)And the legislature, after defining his duties, provided that he must "discharge such other duties as may be imposed upon him by law."(Idaho Rev. Stats., 1887, sec. 230, subd. 12.)The question whether the state is the owner of the public funds in the hands of its treasurer, or whether the legal title thereto is in the treasurer, must be determined by the statutes defining the rights, duties and liabilities of the treasurer.The citation to the statutes and constitution prescribing the duties and liabilities of the state treasurer are given herewith: Idaho Rev. Stats. 1887, sec. 230, subd. 12;sec. 6975;Idaho Const., art. 7, sec. 10;State v. McFetridge,84 Wis. 473, 54 N.W. 1, 998, 20 L. R. A. 223;City of Healdsburg v. Mulligan,113 Cal. 205, 45 P. 337, 33 L. R. A. 463;City of Livingston v. Woods,20 Mont. 99, 49 P. 437-440;State v. Copeland,96 Tenn. 296, 54 Am. St. Rep. 824, 34 S.W. 427, 428, 31 L. R. A. 844;In re House Resolution,12 Colo. 397, 21 P. 486.In pursuance of the constitutional direction that the treasurer shall "perform such duties as may be prescribed by law," and the statutory authority that he must "discharge such other duties as may be imposed upon him by law,"the legislature enacted the law in controversy.With the expediency of this law this court has nothing to do.The treasurer is also under statutory bond to "faithfully perform such additional duties as may be imposed on him by any law of the state."(Idaho Rev. Stats. 1887, sec. 396.)And one of the "additional duties imposed on him" is the duty under the act in controversy, upon receiving the statutory notice that a bank has been designated as a state depository, "to forthwith transmit to such depository the amount of money allotted to it."(Seventh Sess. Laws, p. 373, sec. 11.)This "duty" is mandatory upon him.It is a ministerial and not a discretionary duty; and "if the treasurer properly performs the duty thus laid upon him, he will not be responsible for any loss that may occur by reason of the making of such deposits."(Seventh Sess. Laws, p. 373, sec. 11;City of New Haven v. Fresenius,75 Conn. 145, 52 A. 823, 825.)It will be readily seen from the above constitutional and statutory provisions and the decisions herein cited that the "control" of the public funds is in the state, and their "custody" in the treasurer under the direction of the state.The distinction between "custody" and "control" is well stated in People v. Burr,41 How. Pr. 293;cited in8 Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 532.To control means to check, restrain, govern, direct, regulate.(7 Ency. of Law, 2d ed., 457;State v. Bobleter,83 Minn. 479, 86 N.W. 461, 462;State v. Hill,47 Neb. 546, 66 N.W. 541.)It is next contended that the act herein is void, because the subject matter thereof is not expressed in the title as required by the constitution, in this: That the title provides for the "care and keeping of moneys in the custody of the treasurer of the state of Idaho," while in the body of the act there is created a board of deposits, who, by the terms thereof are authorized to designate banks as state depositories upon their complying with certain conditions, one of which is the payment of interest to the state.(Diana Shooting Club v. Lamoreaux,114 Wis. 44, 91 Am. St. Rep. 898, 89 N.W. 880, 882, 883;Martin v. Taylor,4 N. Dak. 278, 60 N.W. 392, 395, 396, 25 L. R. A. 838;State v. Sloan,66 Ark. 575, 74 Am. St. Rep. 106, 53 S.W. 47;City of Seattle v. Barto,31 Wash. 141, 71 P. 735;State v. Sharpless,31 Wash. 191, 96 Am. St. Rep. 893, 71 P. 737;Hopkins v. Scott,38 Neb. 661, 57 N.W. 391;Seay v. Bank of Rome,66 Ga. 609;Spratley v. Board of County Commrs.,56 Kan. 272, 43 P. 232-235;Colquitt v. Simpson,72 Ga. 501, 510, 511.)Defendant for a third ground of defense urges that the depositing of the public school fund in a designated depository is a "loan" of the same in contravention of the constitution.The Nebraska cases cited to sustain this point have, however, as the supreme court of South Dakota says in Allibone v. Ames, 9 S. Dak. 74, 68 N.W. 165, 166, 33 L. R. A. 585, "been overruled in a recent decision by the supreme court of that state," citing State v. Hill,47 Neb. 546, 66 N.W. 541.(State v. McFetridge,84 Wis. 473, 54 N.W. 1, 998, 20 L. R. A. 223;Nebraska v. First Nat. Bank,88 F. 947;Bardsley v. Sternberg,18 Wash. 612, 52 P. 251-255;Hunt v. Hopley,120 Iowa 695, 95 N.W. 205.)Defendant says that the bond of the treasurer "charges him with the safekeeping of the state moneys."Also that "it charges...