648 FEDERAL REfOETEB. �housing, and these laws are referred to in general terms in tLe bond itself. The bond cannot in fact be understood or applied without a reference to these laws. As above observed, it is not even condi- tioned, in express terms, for the payment of duties, although that is its legal effect, but only for "withdrawal of the goods upon payment of duties, " etc. Being given under the provisions of law establishing the warehouse System, the bond must be interpreted in reference to the slatutes and regulations in force concerning that System; and in so far as any of such statutes, either by design or necessary effect, are found to modify the ordinary rights of suretyship in a bond like the present, they are controlling, and must be held to modify those rights Mccordingly. 2 Story, Const. (3d Ed.) 232 ; U. S. v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 734; People v. Pennock, 60 N. Y. 421, 426. In this sense, and to this extent, statutes and regulations which are designed to affect the rights of parties to the contract must be regarded as parts of the contract, otherwise the statute would be pro tanto annulled. In the case last cited it issaid, per Allen, J., (p. 426:) "The condition of the bond must be construed, and the liabilities of the sureties limited, in reference to the^ statutes making the superviser a custodian of public moneys. These statutes make a part of the contract of the surety." But, on the other hand, statutes which are not designed to affect the rights or liabilities of third parties, but are designed only to direct the officers of the government in the performance of their duties for its own protection and security merely, are construed as directory to them only, and as not creating any obligation to the surety in the bond, nor as forming any part of the contract of the government with him. U. S. V. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 736 ; U. S. v. Van Zandt, 11 Wheat. 184; U. S. Y.Nicholl, 12 Wheat. 505, 509; Locke v. Post- inaster Gen. 3 Mason, 446, 450; Dox v. Postmaster Gen. 1 Pet. 318, 325; U. S. y. Boyd, 15 Pet. 187, 208; Jones v. U. S. 18 Wall. 662; Oshorne v. U". S". 19 Wall. 577, 580; Board of Saprs v. Otis, 62 N. Y. 8S, 93, 95. These cases are all of them cases against sureties upon bonds given for the faithful performance of their duties by collectors, postmasters, or other receivers of public moneys, who were required by law to render certain periodical accounts, upon which suits might be brought for any deficiencies, and in some of the cases the of&cers were directed to be removed. In the leading case on the subject, U. S. V. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, Story, J., says: "These provisions of the law are created by the government for its own security and pro- tection, and to regulate the conduct of its officers. They are merely directory to such officers, and constitute no part of the contract with ��� �
