or the Ben ett law had not yet been o Spoon 1 inred adly went up the spr fcbeat' n, not only as to the p

:、༞,,་、༈༙ སྡོམ

the delicate and dangerous

but discussed patiorai mettets wi

44

ng elottence. The result was that d' Hoa Un 1890 was ent down to; 700, 2 Is Lad been prstaded to return to ngid cang dgn work bore rut es plorali v was over 53,060,

CHAPTER XXI.

THE TREASURY CASES--TWO APPORTIONMENT ACTS THAT FAILED.

During Governor Peck's first administration suits were brought against the former State Treasurers to recover the money which they had received as interest on deposits in the different banks of the State. For many years it had been the practice of the State Treasurers to make deposits of the State's money in banks for safe keeping, and convenience in transacting business, and the interest paid them by the banks for the use of such public funds the Treasurers had always appropriated to their own use. The amounts thus annually received by the Treasurers were very large and made the office of State Treasurer exceedingly remunerative. At first nothing was paid to the Treasurers by the banks; next the banks paid a gratuity, or what Byron Kilbourn would have called "a pecuniary compliment," according to the amount of money deposited, and corresponding to the liberality of the banker. This money was usually sent to the Treasurer in a letter marked "personal" and went into the private pocket of him to whom it was addressed, and no account of it ever appeared on the books of the Treasurer's office. As to the propriety of these acts of the State Treasurers, Chief Justice Lyon of the Supreme court, in deciding the case, said:

"These deposits were made in the name of the Treasurer, in his official capacity as such. No time of credit was given upon them, but they were payable whenever required by the Treasurer, and they could only be drawn on the official draft or check of the Treasurer. They were made in accordance with the usual and long-continued course of business in that department of the State government. They were not made primarily for the purposes of gain or profit to the Treasurer, but because the exigencies of the business of the department, and the reasonable convenience of

creditors of the State, rendered it almost absolutely necessary that State funds should be kept in different portions of the State, and in the cities of Chicago and New York, against which the Treasurer might draw to pay appropriations. Such methods had prevailed, and deposits had been made in banks, and drawn against, by all the different State Treasurers, for thirty years or more before the execution of the bond in suit. A large portion of the public funds were thus kept on deposit during that whole period, and disbursed through the instrumentality of tens of thousands-even of hundreds. of thousands of drafts or checks drawn by the respective Treasurers in their name of office against such deposits. To say of any adult citizen residing in the State during any considerable portion of that period, especially if he was a member of the Legislature, that he did not know of such course of business, would be an impeachment of his intelligence. Under these circumstances it is reasonable to hold that the State Treasurers were justified in transacting the business of their department as they did transact it, and as such business is almost invariably conducted in the commercial world, unless those methods were prohibited by some statute of the State."

Later on there was an agreement or understanding, verbal or written, between the bankers and the Treasurer as to the amount of interest to be paid and the manner of its payment. When George W. Peck was nominated for Governor the Democratic party promised that if the people placed it in power it would bring suits against all these ex-Treasurers and their bondsmen to recover this interest. The suits were brought according to promise, and after a hotly contested litigation in the courts, judgment was obtained against Messrs. McFetridge, Guenther, Harshaw, Baetz and Kuehn for a sum aggregating $725,000.

This was considered the crowning glory of the Peck administration. Great credit was accorded to J. L. O'Connor, the Attorney General, for the able manner in which he pressed those suits to a successful issue.

A majority of the Legislature which met in 1891 was Democratic. A bill was introduced in that Legislature authorizing the Commissioners of Public Lands, to-wit, the Treasurer, Secretary of State and Attorney General, with the approval of the Governor,