New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-12-03
THE cour1AcrA

| with the NucTtWAtAh4 W StdIt A1S pen
going, it is probable that careful exam
ination has been made of the petition filed
by plaintiff in the case Of Dolhonde VS..
Graham, recently-lecided in the Eighth
District Court, in favor Of the defendant.
It is not important to know, therefore,
whether the allegations set forth were no.
true, or merely immaterial. They were
not deemed sufficient to turn the case in
favor of the plaintiff. And the Times can
not breathe life into them and give them
vitality by hashing them up into an original
article. They failed in the court, and
will also fail before the people, the tri-
bunal to which the Times evidently wishes
to submit them. The point involved in
the controversy between Dolhonds and
Graham was whether the Auditor could
recognize and pay certain claims against
the levee fund in preference to Others
which were being pressed for liquidation.
As there was not at all times money in the
treasury to the credit Of the levee fund,
and at no time enough for the purpose of
paying all the warrants, it followed that
some of the creditors would have to wait
1t was question in which the State or
the tax payers had no interest what
ever. The money was due the
holders Of the warrants, but whether A
got his money from the treasury before B
was on hand at the proper moment with
his warrants was simply matter of per-
sonal competition with which neither Mr..
Graham, Mr.. Dubuclet, Mr.. Gaines nor
Governor Warmoth had anything to do.
1t is the custom with all State creditors to
keep themselves informed of the time
when money is paid into the treasury,
and endeavor to be on hand to draw it.
There are frequent disappointments and
occasional successes, just as there are in
most other attempts to get money from
slow debtor. But we can not see what
the public have to do with all this. So
long as the financial officers keep their
accounts straight and pay no more than
the State actually owes, and conduct their
business strictly within the law, they are
not required to sympathize with unsuc-
,essful brokers who failed to present their
at the Treasurers window at the
happy moment when there were funds.
But, not being quite satisfied with its
OWN showing in the matter Of warrants,
he Times assails the whole levee system,
because one Of the firms who take large
contracts are going to make half a million
If dollars. 1t would probably hardly be
leemed sufficient cause for suspending
work on the levees if it could be shown
hat Messrs. T. J. Kennedy & Co. really
made so much money out of their con-
racts. But We have pretty good reason
to deny the allegation. We call for the I
,roof According to The testimony Of the
vitness-the 1'imes-Messrs. Kennedy &
20. receive from the State sixty and
evenly cents per cubic yard for the
york which they employ riparian plant
rs to perform for twenty and twenty
i've cents. There would be an apparent
'roit in this Arrangement, especially if |
Kennedy e. Co. could draw the full |
mount due them on the completion of |
he work; but they can not do this.
hey are paid, like other creditors Of the !
tate, in warrants, which are generally
old at from seyenty-two to seventy -four
ents on the dollar. Again: We have
o means of knowing how much
kennedy & Co. pay the planters. The
lines says they do the work for twenty
nd twenty-five cents per cubic yard. 1t
true, it is none of our business, nor
nybody's else, except the planters and
[essrs. Kennedy & Co. but as the wit
ess, lis willing" one, we doubt his
eracity. We are, however, all interested
l the amount paid by the State to P. J.
ennedy & Co. We are surprised and
to read in the Times that it is
ON sixty to seventy cents per cubic
ard. We are pleased and relieved to
nd in the contract. as published in the
EPuBL1CAN on the eleventh September,
lat the amount is considerably less.
he Board of Public Works advertised
II proposals according to law to
} the work. All the planters
the State-even the 7;nes-could have
omitted bids. Proposals to do the work
r twenty and twenty-five cents would
we been accepted, because these amounts
ould have been q little less than those
hich were agreed to. In the award,
'wever, the board gave P. J. Kennedy
Co. twenty-seyen contracts, at rates less
an fifty cents per cubic yard, the lowest
ing forty cents and the highest forty
ne and half. Some special contracts
re made at higher rates, but the whole
'rk sold will cost the State an average
about forty-five cents. So much for
e chief statement OF the willing witness
I'd as he is either ignorant of the truth
unwilling to tell it i'll a matter open to
9 public, how much reliance can be
iced upon his testimony, wherein he a
. unsupported by any corroborating
dence: The Times certainly misled a
= public about the rates of compensa- Z
N for Kennedy & Co., and it is reasona- i
: to suppose-in fact it is more than
obable-that it is equally unreliable as
the matter between Kennedy & Co.
d the planters.
That money has been squandered un- !
pretense of building levees in this Il