50 FEDERAL imronrsa.
account as disbursing officer, during the 18 months in which the bal-
ance now sued for accrued, amounted to about $29,000. If those
debits were not lawfully made, or if the defendants, as sureties for
Mr. Morgan as disbursing officer, are entitled to have those debits
canceled, so far as they aifect the defendants, then the accounts will
show nothing due from him as disbursing officer, and the plaintiffs
would not be entitled to recover in this action. l
, From what has been said, it is manifest that Mr. Morgan did not
keep distinct his transactions as respects the two classes of funds, as
required by law. He used passport moneys in his possession to pay
legal demands upon the other funds in the treasury, and he after-
wards drew checks upon the specific appropriations account, for the
purpose of paying into the treasury the passport moneys which he
was bound to turn over to the government. This course of proced-
ure was unauthorized and illegal. No harm, indeed, would come
from it, and no loss to any one, provided the checks thus drawn on
the treasurer were no greater than the amount of cash received from
passport moneys that he had already applied in payment of claims
on him as disbursing officer. But the whole balance now claimed
y against these sureties arisesin consequence of the fact that these
amounts were not the same, and because his checks on the treasurer
were so much in excess of the amount of passport moneys that he
had applied upon the appropriations account. Apparently, he mis-
applied a certain amount of passport moneys to his own use, and
drew upon his appropriations account to make good to the treasury
the passport deficiency. T
The drawing of these drafts on the treasurer was doubtless a vio-
lation of the terms of the defendants’ bond for "the faithful discharge
of his duties as disbursing oil:lcer." And if, by means of these drafts,
the United States had been deprived of any moneys, or had sustained
any pecuniary damage, or any moneys had, in the language of Mr.
Justice Bmvrcnroan, in the case of Morgan v. Van Dyck, 7 Blatchf. 147,
"been withdrawn from the custody of the treasurer," and thus lost
to the government, the defendants would have been answerable for
the deficiency shown. The evidence is clear, however, that there was
no withdrawal. The balances in the treasury were unchanged.' Pre-
cisely the same money was in the treasurer’s hands after these drafts
q as before. There is no evidence that, up to the time of the commence-
ment of.this action, there had been any change as respects the amount
of moneys in the treasury by reason of these drafts, or of the debits
made in consequence of them againstMr. Morgan’s account as dis-
bursing officer. V ,
A The drafts were clearly unlawful. The debits based on them were
equally unlawful. On their face, the draft and the letter showed this
illegality. The letters stated explicitly that Mr. Morgan had col-
lectedithe amount named "during the current month for passport
moneys," and that he deposited them with the treasurer; that is, by