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

want, Senators, for the edifcation and IN
formation Of you Gll, to read particularly
thto law, and to read to you the vouchers
upon which these warrants were issued.
"SEc. 3. Be it further enacted. etc.,
That every person shall be entitled to the
benefit of this act who shall make oath
thai he was regularly in the military serv-
ice of the United States, or of this State, in
the year A. D., eighteen hundred and fonr-
teen, and A. d. eighteen hundred and tit-
teen, and in that capacity was ct the
siege of New Orleans III December, A. ID.
eighteen hundred aud fourteen, aud JAN
uary A. D. eighteen hundred and fifteen,
and is now residing liz this State, who shall
stale IN such affidavit the company, regi-
uent or other army divisions Of which he
| was a member at that time, and that he
was hozorably discharged afterwards from
| the service. and that in addition such per
son shall have either evidence OF bis having
| been in the military service OF the country
az above reviewed, and Of his honorable
| discharge, or the evidence Of two credible
Witnesses who have been acquainted with
him for at least ten years, that he has
borne the repntat ton OF having been
veteran Of eighteen hundred and fourteen
and eighteen hundred and fifteen as above
defined, ana the certificate OF the clerk OF
the District Court Of the parish Of his
residence to She credibility Of the appll-
cant and his witnesses, that the pension
provided by che act shall, on the presen-
tation of such evidence as is required by
this section, BE paid on the warrant OF the
pensioner.'
This is the public law of the land, and, OF
course, we al know it. More peculiarly
aud particularly should the respondent
haae known it, who was the officer who was
to settle claims that might be brought
under it. We have produced some three
hundred papers, CT vouchers, upon which
veteran pension warrants were issued.
Here ls a saNpie OF them. Here is one OF
Widow ---, signed with 81 mark. with
out any witnesses 10 the mark, sworn to be
fore J. ?. Montamat, Justice Of the Peace.
This is only an example of more than two
hundred cases of the manner in which the
papers age made out before J. 2. Montamat,
Third Justice of the Peace, and upon which
aud by virtue OF which the Auditor issued
the warrants upon the Treasurer, while the
law specifically states in what manner these
vouchers and atfidavits and applications
shall be made out, and prohibits the Au
ditor from issuing the warrants, unless they
are made in conformity with the law. to
wit: 10 be executed before clerks OF courts.
/ care not whether this widow is
the widow of the person she Is
here Represented to be, or whether
the man represented as a veteran in that
paper was at the battle OF New IO.leans Or
not; the Auditor must require the papers to
be made in conformity to the law, or net
warrant upon them. The counsel for re-
spondent says we have not brought in these
veterans, aud in spirit of ridicule, and to
provoke laughter says, " where Is the old
drummer?n Now suppose we had summoned
every man Of those who signed these papers
and every one of them had sworn to the
satisfaction Of the Senate that hey were
the parties they represented themselves
to be. That would not justify the Auditor
in issuing warrants on any such informal
papers. Counsel for the defense attempts
to show that the intention Of the trainers Of
this law, was that these provisions should
not apply TO the parish Of Orleans, but that
they applied simply to the parishes outside.
Now what are the facts? Outside the parish
of Orleans the same state of things existed.
hold in my hand paper upon which war
rant No. 152 was issued, this affidavit
was made in the city of Jeffer-
son, before Frederick Fry, q Justice of
the Peace. This has the certificate of
the Secretary of State that Fry
is Justice OF the Peace, probably to
This is precisely similar to those executed
by Moutamat. So you perceive it made no
difference inside or outside of the city OF
New Orleans. hold Iii my hand another
case, not in so close proximity to the city OF
New Orleans, where the applicant resided III
the parish of Iberia, away out yonder, two
hundred miles. and signs himself with
mark, without any witnesses to the mark,
without any certificate from tie Secretary of
State. that the officer before whom the atti-
dayit was made was an officer. Upon that
paper the Auditor issued warrant. L ho!d
in my hand, also, paper upon which war.
rant No. go was issued for SIP oO-lssued
to party residing in the parish of St. John
the Baptist. The same informally here.
They are all made out with mark, and.no
witnesses to the mark. This purports TO be
sworn to before somebody whose name
can not make out, who subscribes himself
a Justice of the Peace. and upon that, not
only was warrant issued for pension, but
the name of the applicant was entered upon
the roll as a pensioner Of the State, SO
that all future Auditors must issue war
rants to this man, and ali this Wh!le
the law in specific terms prescribes the
manner IN which these documents shall be
drawn. They ought to be sworn to before
particular oficerEthe clerk of the District
Court of the parish, and he not only adj
ministers the oath to the party, but also
certifies, under the soemnities of his office,
that the parties are the parties which they
REPRESENT themselves to be, and that the
witnesses are known to him, and can be
believed. Now, these have cited SIMPLY as
samples of numerous cases which this hle
contains made for the purpose OF defraud-
ing the State. There are more than three
hundred cases of this kind, and we fad that
he issued warrants in all these cases. What
is his excuse? That the clerk mlsunder
stood the law; that he allowed the treasury
OF the State to be defrauded because some
clerk in his Office did not correctly interpret
the law. But he says that writs OF man
damus were issued to compel him to do this
Why did he not appeal them? He says that
the amount was not sufficiently large 10
allow all appeal. present from the file OF
papers case tried before one OF the
courts in this city, when the amount de-
manded exceeded more than one Thousand
dollars, and there was no appeal taken ana
no motion made Ior appeal IN that case,
even. I say, therefore, that the proposition
of the defense falls to the ground; thai he
did not prevent this evil, even where ne NAG i
the authority and the opportunity, but
went on until the Grand Jury interiered. l
simply say that am forced to the conclu-
sion that in the administration OF the proVl-
sions of this law-this pension law-thls
man whom we arraign before the bar OF this
Senate, entered into COLLISION with Ger
tain parties to rs unknown, for the
purpose of defrauding the state out OF
large sums of money, by the issuance OF
warrants in favor of claimants whose Claims
he knew had no foundation in law or IN
fact. It is well known that any party repre-
senting the interest of the State can inter
vene and take an appeal. The defense is
nut that the Attorney General was the
proper party to intervene; but we say that
any citizen possessing information that the
State is being wronged, this Auditor, as
as a citizen, or any other citizen,
might and should have interviewed IN behalf