CUSTODY OF THE PUBLIC MONEY.
Mr. MILLER, from the Committee on the Trust Fund, returned Mr. Woollen's bill [H. R. 24] to provide designated depositories for the safe keeping of the public money in the several counties, and prescribing penalties with an amendment giving power to the authorities to move such money when ihey deem fit. He said: The provisions of this bill have respect to the custody of all the public funds of the State.
Mr. BRANHAM was opposed to any change in the law for the care of public funds which contemplated their distribution among a number of depositories. The page: 178[View Page 178]correct principle was to collect only sufficient revenue to secure a fair working balance in the Treasury, and that should be kept where the law now requires it to be kept--in vaults of the Treasury. He moved to lay the whole matter on the table, but withdrew his motion at the request of Mr. Woollen, who wished to say something in defense of the bill, as its author.
Mr. WOOLLEN said the present system of keeping the public funds was wrong. It is well known that the money is not kept in the vaults of the State Treasury, as required by law; but that on the contrary it is deposited in various banks, and the public officers are drawing and pocketing the Interest thereon. It is this fact which in a large measure causes the present stringency in money. In the neighborhood of $600,000 of the public funds is held by the banks on deposit, and during the session of the Legislature they are constantly fearful least they may be called upon to pay over these deposits. This operates to lock up a large amount of currency and cause stringency.
The object of this bill is to provide that when the money comes into the hands of the public treasurer it shall go from him into the hands of the depositories, guarded by law so that it shall be safe, and that the depositories shall give a fitting compensation for it, which proceeds shall go into the pockets of the sovereigns of the country who own it. The practical working of the present law is that the proceeds of this money go into the pockets of the publfc officers. I do not know how the law against it is avoided. But so it is; these proceeds go into the hands of the State officers to the extent of $30,000 or $40,000 annually. Then I say we ought to have some good practical law on this sub ject that will meet the exigencies of the times. I would not lay my hand on a dollar of this interest that has got into the hands of the public officers under the present law. It is theirs and they have a right to it. But, clearly, the interest accumulations of the public funds should belong to those who own the public funds. I hope the motion of the gentleman will not prevail; but that he will examine the bill, and, if he finds it a good thing, vote for it.
Mr. SHIRLEY said the present system of keeping county funds was one cause of the depreciation in value of county orders. County treasurers loaned the moneys to banks and pocketed the interest, while county orders went unpaid, because there were no funds in the treasury. He regarded it as a great outrage upon the people that public officers should bank upon the public funds.
Mr. COBB objected that the bill opened a loop hole for fraud by releasing sureties. The funds were now guarded loosely enough.
Mr. WOOLLEN explained that there was, under the provisions of the bill, no release of the sureties of the officers until after the bond of the depositaries had been filed.
Messrs. BUSKIRK and BUTTS also spoke in favor of the provisions of the bill.
The amendments reported by the committee were concurred in, the bill laid upon the table and 500 copies ordered to be printed.
