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

document? Now, Senators, ! do not pro-
pose to try the Attorney General. We do
not propose to do that at all. but when he,
! as an Off Ger of the State, gives en- opinion
as he is required to do under tie law, and
when his opinion is submitted here in evil
| dence, DO propose TO analyze 1t and see
! what it is worth. | can almost remember
! it, it is sach wonderful instrument, and
{! it made sgch a deep impression on my
mind. (Mr. Lowell -ead the opiDion OF
the Attorney General, dated fourteenth OF
| November, 1869.
Nov, Senators, | undertake to say that
understand che English language and L
read to yon. for believe that yoU under
stand the English language, article one
hundred and four of the constitutions:
ARTICLE le4. No money shall be drawn
from the treasury but in pursuance OF
specific appropriations nade by Law. A
statement and account Of receipts and ex-
penditures of all public moneys shall be
made annually in such manner as shak be
prescribed by law; and the first General
Assembly converting under Ghis consiSu-
ton shall make a special appropriation to
| li9uidate whatever portion OF the debt OF
this convention may az that time remain
unpaid or unproVided for"
Now, while I have The greltest respec.
for all officers elected to perform the func-
tons and acts OF hei- offices by the peo-
pie, and the commonwealth, | say as O.
man and as a citizen, that that opinion Of
the Attorney General is absolutely non
! sense, and that it is ccly equalled by ap-
other opinion OF that same officer, who,
when called upon by u committee Of the
Legislature, during this present session. to
give his opinion whether, under the con-
stitution, this Legislature could sit one
hundred aud twenty days, closed up his
opinion with the remark that although he
thought the Legislature had no
right 10 sit more than sixty days,
! yet the press Of business was such
that the Governor ought TO call an
extra session. | say that that opinion
is only equalled by this, and if J. as a law
Yer, had boy ten years Old who would give
such an absurd opinion as that, should
| teeS inclined to disOWn and dislnherlt
| hin. / voted for This man. too. Now. [
say, Senators. that / seriously and honestly
belieze this, and defy The Attorney Gen
eral TO give any logical reason to show
| that he is correct in his opinion, which is
here in evidence; for when the conStitu-
ton speaks in such plain and distinct
terms that he who runs may read, lC ia
clear that it prohibits the Auditor from
| issuing warrants except against specific
| appropriations made by law. Moreover.
there is Law on the statute books which
provides the manner in which claims
against the State for which there are no
specific appropriations may be settled, ii
words as llows:
| f'SEC. L. 10 all cases where the law
| recognizes claim !or money against the
| State, and no appropriation shall have
/ been made to pay the same, the Auditor
shall audit and settle it, and give The
| claimant certificate of the amount there
| Of, under bis official seal, if demanded,
! and shall report the same to tie General
| Assembly with as little delay as possible"
Now, by the appropriation bill. S150, 600
| was set apart for printing and advertising,
and when that Was exhausted and 4 or b
presented an account tor printing, it was
his duty not to draw warrants, but o give
certificates Of Indebtedness and report the
fact to the General Assembly in order that
they might make an appropriation. The
respondent claims that he HIS q right to
ask the Attorney General for his opinion,
which is true, and behind that opinion be
suei warrants TO the amount Of nearly
$500 900 over aud above he appro priation.
Now what is the legal principle and proper
Interpretation Of that clause, which allows
public officers to ask The opinion of the At
torney GeneraH They N " ak the opin-
ion OF the 4 torney General. Ii lie gives an
opinion msnitestly absurd, as | consider
this one is, is the officer bound by that
opinion? Not at all If be has the inter
est Of the State at heart: if he desires to
protect the interests of the people, he will
contest such important cases, the opinion
of the Attorney General withstandi1g.
H. says he was mandamused under the
printing law and the pension law. True.
and it was his duty, when the petition of
mandamus was filed, and notice sersed
upon him to go into court, or to employ
an attorney to go into court and defend
the case, and if the Judgment in the lower
court Was adverse to the Auditor and the
State, il was his duty 10 appeal to the
highest tribunal in the land, the Supreme
Court of the State. Did this man. elected
by the people of Louisiana TO the high
Office which he holds, do this? Not at all.
Testimony has been introduced, and is in
the case in the shape of the record of the
petition and proceedings for mandamus. l
have not taken time to read this record all
through. Why? Because 1 examined
these documents only SO far as to enable
me to see that the orders were issued from
the District Courts, and not from he Su-
preme Court The Auditor did not appeal
to the highest Judicial tribunal of the
State, as he ought. He allowed those
yrits of mandamus to issue and to be made
ppremptory, and, without taking any ap-
peal. he submitted 10 the Judgments Of the
lower courts, and for all l know, he al
lowed them to go by default, as be did in
the Kaufman case.
I come now to this remarkable case, the
tension case. In your wisdom and desire,
no doubt to mete out impartial justice to
| all men and to all women, you passed
| pensicn law, by the provisions of which
YOU intended, undoubtedly, to pay each Of
| the gallant veterans, the colored veterans
| and their widows, the same pension which
Won allowed to white veterans. That law
was framed l do not know by whom; by
one of your own number, [ believe. 1t
was framed, however, with specific pro-
visions sufficient to guard the interest and
the treasury of the State. Itspecified that
| each applicant for pension, under the pro-
visions Of this act, should set forth in his APP
plica,ion the time he entered the service, the
term of service, nature of service, etc, and
| il was to be sworn to before the Clerk of
the District Court of the parish in which
he resided, and it should be certified under
the official seal of office by the Clerk, that he
knew the applicant, and that he knew
the two witnesses brought by the appli-
cant to substantiate his claim, and that
| thew were men of credibilitY and charac-