New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-02

MT. Manager Lowell: NOW, ask JIG WIZ
| ness why he would not have done so?
MIR. Semmes: Well, object to that.
Mr.. Gray, of counsel: If the court please,
have this to state: do not see what pur-
pose this has in the examination. What
| the witness would or would not have done
can be no legal evidence against the Aud.
| itOr. Therefore, object to the whole ex-
| animation, because they must prove facts
and not opinions. They must prove what
done.
The Chief Justice: The Chief Justice thinks
| the objection well taken; it is but the
| option of the witness to what he would have
done under peculiar state of affairs; that
| is not evidence in this case
Question by Mr.. Manager Lowell: You
state that you were Auditor since the
war, from 1865 to some time subsequent.
Was it the practice in your Office during
that time to recognize warrants issued in
1862?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why were they not recognized?
A. Well, sir. they were never brought in.
| do not recollect that I ever saw one after
| got back from the seat OF war.
@. Where was the Auditors office in 1862?
A. + art of the time it was in Baton Rouge,
Opelousas and Shreveport; no, we only got
| to Shreveport in 1868. 1t was in Baton
| Rouge and Opelousas.
Q. What was the capital of the State?
A. Baton Rouge.
Q. Why did you remove the Auditors
| Office to Opelousas?
A. Well, it was to get away from the
| Federals.
Q. What was the condition of this State in
February, 1862?
A. Well, sir, we were still in Baton Rouge;
we only moved from Baton Rouge in April
| 1862.
@. Was not the State in what we term in
| state of rebellion against the United States
| in February, 1862?
A. Yes, sir; the State seeded, you know,
in January. 1861.
| Q. And they were still seeded in Februa-
| ry, 1892
A. Yes, sir.
Q: No portion of the State had been sur
| rendered?
| A, No portion of the State at that time
| April, 1862.
| The witness: wish to correct statement
made by MIR. Giffen before the investigation
committee of the House, which think Is
Mr.. Manager Lowell: We have no objec-
ton.
| from Mr.. Peralta, former Auditor, about 10l
levee bonds. This was just before MIR. Pc
rata vacated his Office, and after Governor
| Warmoth took charge of his Office. As well
| as I remember, there were two overdue
| coupons cut off, and one Endorsed with the
amount duen That is the part that | wish
| to correct. Mr.. Giffen evidently made an
| error, for the lO1 bonds he refers to never
saw, or had in my possession one second:
| Those bonds were handed by Mr.. Snethen
to Mr.. Pike, and they were in possession OF
| Mr.. Pike on the eleventh of July. Mr.. Pike
| came to the Office with the bonds. had
| then transferred the office to Mr.. WlckllHe,
| and they were at no time in my possession.
| Thence, if the coupons were cut off, they
were not cut Off by me, for l had not the
bonds in my possession, and never had.
| Mr.. Manager Lowell. Ny impression is
| that Mr.. Gitfen made that straight last night
| in his.testimony.
| Mr., Peralta: I thought l would correct it
| because the impression left is, that he got
the bonds from me after the coupons had
| been cut off.
Question by Mr. Semmes: call for the
| production of the warrant Which is referred
| to in this case.
Mr.. Manager Lowell: We are going to try
| to produce it; we are going to call upon the
! defendant to produce the bond.
| Mr.. Semmes; refer to the one thousand
! dollar warrant.
Mr.. Manager Lowell: Oh, yes, we will in
| trOduce that.
| MIR. Semmes: want it shown to the
witness so that can cross examine him IN
regard to it.
| Cross examination:
| Mr.. Semmes. counsel for the accused here
| handed the warrant book TO the witness and
| said:
| Q. That is the warrant. I perceive it is
| dated the twentieth OF February, 1867. Ii
is signed by you, is it not?
| A. Yes. sir.
| O. Will YOU state from the warrant what
was the purpose for which it was issued? :.
A. It was issued in favor of d charitable
institution, believe.
Q. Which one?
A. The Maison de Cirque Plals; the House
of Five Wounds, in Jefferson City.
| o. Does the warrant refer to
an appropriation made by the Legislature
for that purpose?
A. (Reading from the warrant book),
"The amount appropriated for the relief OF
said institution, under act seventy-elght, OF
1892
Q. see it is dated twentieth of February,
1862. At that time where was the seat OF
government?
A. Baton Rouge.
Q. 1t was before the capture Of the city Of
New Orleans, of course?
| A. Yes, sir, we were in Baton Rouge.
O, Had that institution anything to dc
with the war, that you are aware OF, IN any
way?
o. What was the character OF its char
tiles?
| o, We have heard great deal about cut.
ting warrants; what does that signify; is II
anything more than dividing up the Original
obligation, so that if the original obligation Ii
valid the cutting up neither diminishes mol
increases the responsibility of the State?
A. OF course not.
| @. It is a mere matter of convenience tc
the person holding the obligation?
4. Yes, sir, merely to accommodate
people.
Q. This thing of cutting up warrants has
only been introduced since the suspension
of payment in money?
A. Yes, sir, it is only new system
established two or three years ago..
@. The truth is, l suppose the law does
not contemplate any such thing!
| A. There is no prohibition OF 1t.
Q. No prohibition Of it, but the law does
net require it.
A. Formerly, when there was plenty O.
money in the State treasury, there was nc
cause to divide warrant, because the very
moment warrant was issued it was paid.
| @. Under the law as contemplated, war
rants would be like check upon the bank
A. Yes, sir.
| Q. 1t was only in consequence of sus
pension of payments in currency that 1t be
came necessary to cut them up in small
fractions?
| A. Yes, sir.
Redirect examination by Mr.. Manager
McMillen.
Question. You stated. in your cross-ex
animation, that if the condition OF th'
treasury rendered it necessary, the Auditor
could subdiyide warrants from large Int