New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-17

eomnsct that he enters into with the Feo-
nile In accepting it, to perform it faithfully
md well, and that he must guard and
,watch over carefully the interests OF the
commonwealth; that he must exercise the
same care and diligence as agent and rep
sesentative of the State that be would ex-
ercise in his own individual capacity-ln
his own private business; that be must
have the same care and diligence in tie
performance of public duty that he
would have it acting for himself, person
ally. instead OF as an agent.
We charge this officer with having taken
certain coupons of State bonds; we say
that under the act which is known as inc
levee bond bill, we have shown
wrong-doing on the part OF Inc
respondcnt and that conclusiveiy
we have traced into the hands OF the re-
spondent certain bonds with the coupons
upon them, and we have shown by the tes
Emony of Senator Lynch that warrant
was issued on thirty-three coupons, num-
hered one and two, of these bonds las
this respondent watched carefully over the
iuterests of the State IN this! lie De-
oniled irto his office small, young and
innocent boy, and forced that boy to al
low his name to go on the warrant, ana TO
indorse the warrant, in order that this man
now arraigned before the bar of this Sem
ate might rob the State Of $3.50, inducing
that boy to commit crime, and to be
q party to theft committed on the State;
and this man who induced this robbery is
the man that the people of the State have
selected to guard the finances Of the state.
Can you conceive of o grerter crllne
Not only has he himself committed a
crime. but be has caused an inno-
cent child to make bis name part
and parcel of the crime to be handed
down to the last posterity as that OF
criminal. We ask you 10 examine the
case. and to examine it well. We ask you
70 examine it outside of the technicallt1es
addrced by the eminent counsel for the
defense. We ask you to examine 1t inside
of the technicaities Of the law. We ask
Won to say that by the common ordinary
rules of parliamentary law he should be
dismissed from his Office for this act, If for
none other. But what is the law This
officer, in issuing this warrant, violated
the express statutes of the State. lie
violated the law of 1855, made tor the
Guidance and direction of the Auditor.
That,law sage, should the Auditor know
ingly issue any warrant upon The treasury,
mot authorized by law, etc., he shall be
deemed guilty OF misdemeanor in office,
etc. Here is this man issuing warrant
upon coupons which he knew were over
due, and which it was his duty to destroy,
and which he knew were no legal oblga-
lions against the state; issuing it for the
sole and express purpose Of making just
20 many dollars, and in direct violation
of the known and written statutes of the
State. It was an indictable otfense before
the courts, and no Grand Jury of the State
would fail, upon the preSen lation OF the
facts. to bring bill of indictment against
this man for having done this. We say
that this is the case. He is gully not
only of political offense against the peo-
ple of the State, but of criminal ofense
against the statute law of the land. We
come now to the printing law. An
attempt to ridicule has been made be-
cause I, one of the managers on the part
of the House of Representatives, had the
honor to be member of the Printing
Board. I was member of that board. |
never yet have done any act that l was
ashamed to acknowledge. I was MEM
Der of that Printing Board. We did make
the contracts with these public printers.
and we undertook, under authority of the
printing act, to tell the Auditor how he
should settle the accounts with these gen.
-tlemen. He agreed with us upon
certain, rules for measurement, and
he violated that agreement and
he told these printers that the Governor
had attempted to cut them down one
third, and that we undertook to direct him
as to The measurement, but that if they
would pay him, he would disregard the
solemn obligation, and contract, and agree
ment which he had made with US, and
they were to give him the surplus, trying
to create the impression that this was solely
the act of the Governor. He furthermore.
~ the ties imony shows, refused to audit
their accounts unless they made this ar
rangement with him. He took q man in
his Office, as appears by the testimony in
troduced before the investigation commit
tee, and said to him, "You are poor man;
you are man with whom my relations in
the past have been of most friendly char
meter; you are man who are dependent
ON your own exertions for support, and
In sympathy for your far,ily and your con-
dition, unfortunate as it is, and in consider
ation of the intimacy which has existed be-
tween US heretofore, l will audit these
warrants, but you must pay me fifteen per
cent" Great God! who ever heard
of such intimacy as that? Who
ever heard Of such friendship
as that When this man told hf1h that
he was to receive twenty-five per cent,
this high public officer made a sacrifice,
out of friendship for This mans family,
and issued the warrants, but took more
than half the percentage that his dear
friend was to receive. There was no plea
that there was no appropriations no plea
that it was not his duty 10 issue these war
rants; but he had the man in his grasp,
and he told him that he would issue the
warrants, but onlyin consideration that he
waste pay him fifteen per cent, and that
he was to keep the matter secret. In
the examination before the Investigating
Committee the Auditor asked this very
question, 'Did you not agree with me
that if issued this warrant you would
keep this matter a secret?' Now, if in
this case, on the admission of the respond
ent himself, he agreed to do this thing in
secret, is it not proper and right to sup
pose that in other cases he did the same
thingf An attempt was made to invali-
date the testimony of Patrice Leonard,
witness examined to prove the same sort
of transaction, and what was the result?
These gentlemen came on that witness
stand and said that although he
was not their personal friend, still they
considered him man of honor and integ-
rity, and they would believe him whether
ON oath or not. An attempt was made to
invalidate the testimony of another wit
ness, and the counsel undertook 10 throw
ridicule upon him because he, like myself,
was SO unfortunate as to have been born