1906-1908 Ind. Op. Att'y Gen. p. 148

In §1 it is made the duty of the department to collect infor- mation and data relating to legislative subjects, and the practical working and effects of laws enacted in other states. It is possible that, to obtain this information so as to "effectually carry the provisions of this act" some member or members of the depart- nment must travel to the state where such laws are in force. In such a case, and perhaps under other circumstances, the appro- priation could properly be drawn upon to defray necessary ex- penses. This is made clear by the use of the word "expenses" in §3, which includes expenses incurred while traveling on the business of the department. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that under the statute above mentioned, it will be allowable to pay traveling expenses to a member of the library staff in the legislative reference depart- ment, provided such expenses are reasonably necessary to fully carry out the purposes of the statute. BOND-EXPENSES OF PREMIUM FOR OFFICIAL BOND. April 5, 1907. Honorable John C. Billheimer, Auditor of State, Indianapolis, Indiana: Dear Sir-You have submitted to me certain questions, re- garding the payment of premiums upon official bonds, which I shall answer in order. First. Under the law as it stood prior to the enactment of M\Iarch 2, 1907, could a member of the board of trustees or board of control of the several educational, benevolent or correctional institutions of the state, pay the premium on his official bond out of the maintenance funds of his institution, or in anywise charge the state with the same ? I am of the opinion that he could not. While the trustees of many of the state institutions were required to file bonds (See Burns' Stats. 1901, section 3005, and opinion of Attorney-General Taylor, 1900-1902, page 52), the law made no express provision for payment of th6 expense of obtaining the same. At the time the above section of the statute was passed (1899) the business of bonding companies had not assumed the proportions it has since attained, and it can scarcely be presumed the legislature anticipated there would be any considerable expense connected with the execution of the bond, but personal security only, was probably in the mind of the legislators. At present, the premium paid or agreed to be paid to secure the bond is money expended or a debt incurred prior to the qualification of the officer; and is in no sense an expenditure made in the performance of his official duties; for the filing of a proper bond is a condition precedent to his becoming a trustee. (See Burns' Stats. 1901, section 7542.) Again, as the rate of premium may vary in different instances, and is not fixed by statute, there would be nothing to prevent an officer from entering into a collusion agreement with a surety, for an exorbitant amomt to be paid for the bond; and charging the state therefor. The legislature never intended to open the door to such abuses. The rule is supported by authority, that doubts in respect to payment of salary, expenses, etc., to public officials are to be re- solved against the officer and in favor of the state, since, other things being equal, the interest of the public is superior to that of the individual. (23 Am. and Eng. Encyc. Law, p. 388). Hence, you will be justified in refusing to charge the state with the cost of bonds filed by said trustees. Second. Under the act of 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 140-141), can trustees of the state educational, benevolent and correctional institutions charge the cost of their bonds to the maintenance or expense finds of such institutions? I see no reason to place a different interpretation upon the recent statute than upon the laws previously in force. Nothing is contained in the act'of 1907 which suggests payment by the state. The trustee must qualify by giving bond. His a(t in so doing is the act of a private individual who seeks to become a public official. He is no more entitled to charge the state with the expense incident thereto, than he is to have the state pay him for books and periodicals purchased by him in order to become better qualified to perform the duties of his office. Third. Can a public officer, other than such trustees, charge the state with the amount expended by him in procuring an official bond? For the same reasons, I am of the opinion that such charge is unauthorized. While the separate amounts might be small, the aggregate would be enormous. To justify the imposition of such a burden upon the state, some clear statutory authority should be found, and none exists. My view therefore is, that each public officer who pays a pre- mium for his official bond, must defray such expense out of his individual funds only.