The independent. (Harrisonburg, La.) 1853-18??, 1859-01-26
The state Treasury.

tween E. W. Robertson, State Auditor .
Public Accounts, and Robert A. Hunter
State Treasurer, involving very importan
questions as to the limits Of thespowers o
each over the funds in the State Treasury
Such topics are Of deep interest to the peo
pie of the State.
The following article from the Picayunt
sets forth the whcle case, and is worthy o
Ipublic attention:
The Treasurer has refused to pay war
, rant for $4,000, drawn upon him by the An
lGtor in the usual form OF law, but which he
|afiir,us hat the Auditor had no right to draw
under the law. The following is state
ment of the facts:
BY an act of the State, approved last
| March, the sum Of $4,000 was appropriated
out Of the Swamp Land Fund OF the First
District to he disposed of under the super
vision of the Commissioner of that district
to the draining and retaining of swamp
lands in West Feliciana, with the provision
that the same "shall not be expended till a
survey is made and subject to the approval
of the Board of Swamp LandCommissioners.
On the sth Of May no survey having been
made, and no work done under the act, one
Peter Hommerck obtained from the Audi
tor a warrant for $4,000 for work done IN
retaining swamp lands in West Eellciana
on an old contract, before the act was passed.
Mr.. Uunter refused to pay the warrant,
for several very solid reasons, Of which we
select two that arpea. very conclusive.
l. The Constitution Of the State creates
lis Office, while that Of Auditor is the crea-
ton Of law. 1t is provided in the Constitu-
ton. (Sec. 81 }
mo money shall be drawn from the
Treasurer, but in pursuance of specific ap-
preparations made-by law"
And in the law regulating the duties of
the Office, passed March rs, 1855, he is re-
quire1 (Sec 5, second clause.)
10 disburse the public money upon war
rants drawn upon him, according to law, and
not otherwise"
And again (Sec. 5, fourth clause)
To keep true and just account of ap-
preparations made by law, and the disburse-
ments under the same"
And still further, By section IA.
| He shall have free access to the books Of
the Auditor, and to al! officers of the State
for the inspection of all books, accounts and
papers which may contain the duties Of his
office"
| Under these injunctions and directions Of
the Constitution aud the law, the Treasurer
contends that he is at liberty to inquire
whether warrant presented to him is drawn
under an appropriation made by law, and
has the right to refuse payment, if he ascer-
| tans it to be not in accordance with law, or
against it.
Ia this case It is evident that the warrant
ought not to have been drawn, because the
law required certain conditions to be COM
piled with before it should be paid, ami be-
ing payable out of specific fund for a totally
different purpose from that for which it was
appropriated, ii is violation Of the law.
| 2. The Treasurer files another ground of
refusal. lie shows that the Swamp L,nd
Commissioners are suspended by law Of
| the last Legislature, from the power of draw
ing any money cut of the Treasurer at all,
and that this money could not be paid even
| il lawfully due Bat this is secondary to the
general question raised. whether the Treas
urer has any discretion whatever, under the
law, to examine the legality Of any warrant
drawn by the Auditor, and whether he is
bound to pay il, when drawn according to
! the forms Of Office, when he knows that it is
| in violation Of law.
The contractor to whom this money was
PAYABLE CLAIMS that the warrant of the Az
ditor is final, and re accordingly brought
suit against the Treasurer before the District
Judge OF East Baton Rouge
! The court there decide; that the Treasurer
is mere ministerial officer. whose duty it
is TO pay all warrants drawn upon BIN. in
the form of law, bv the Auditor; and that
the Judgment OF the Auditor in settling and
adjusting claims upon the State, is final, and
that when such claims are merged in the
! form of a warrant, neither tie Treasurer of
the ,sa.e nor the courts CAN reconsider the
question at all.
{ From this Judgment an appeal is taken to
| the Supreme Court and The decision will be
10, KID tor with a great deal OF solctude
1t will be difficult, We think, to maintain
this judgment OF he District Court, which
makes the office Of Treasurer altogether in
terior and aux ;hary TO that of Auditor The
Office Of State Treasurer has been established
in every constitution of the State; that Of
| AA"u' VI i" VI 'E'S!I I'C"iioH, W law. tue
function Of Treasurer and Auditor were
originally lertormel. as parts Of the oftic. of
! Treasurer, and the creation OF the new Office
of Auditor was merely subdiy sion Of labor.
and io' The convenience of the pubic ser
vice in the increase Of checks ana in the
settlement Of accounts and in the disburse-
ment OF money. The superior character Of
the constitutional Office survives, and it can
not lie reasonably argued that it was to be
made mete y registering department ia
the Office Of the Auditor
Ii the Judgment Of the Baton Rouge court
obtains continuation IN the Supreme court,
the Treasurer looses all independence OF ac-
ltion As an officer Of tie Treasurr anh i