New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-13

completely, or with dereliction OF duty
here? Manifestly, this was an accident
and you are all willing to admit that TINS
was an accident, because, on the twelfth
of June, you find the following entry:
"By consent Of counsel this case is re-
opened, and its trial fixed for Friday, the
| eighteenth instant, at ten O'Clock A. NJ.
| So that here you have, occurring IN the
Fourth District Court, the same neglect
| which you charge as criminal IN the Sixth
| District Court. In the Fourth District
| Court the mandamus was made peremp'
tory. but you do not complain, because.
two days afterward, be discovered it, and
| by consent OF counsel the case
was reopened. What does this
show? You acquit him in the
Fourth District Court; you say, gallant
| officer, faithful in the performance OF your
duty, you discovered this IN time, ana you
| have gone with the consent OF counsel and
reopene1 the case, you made your defense,
and the Judge decided in yonr favor
| There was no crime there. Why Simply
because you are satisfied that the original
mandamus was made peremptory, and II
was accidental And now, as the same
thing happens in the Sixth District Court,
after the case has been pending long
| time, and when new mandamus had been
taken out without any new demand having
been made upon Mr.. Wickliffe, and within
few DAYS after the decision in the Fourth
District Court, and. supposing it to be the
same case, ne put the papers away and the
mandamus being made peremptory upon
| him, you charge upon him crime, aud that
without charging that this neglect was
| criminal corrupt, Intentional or dishonest.
| Have you no bowels OF compassion:
! Have you no consideration for the acct
dents OF business? Have you no considera-
| ton for The accidents of an otfic ecroWded
with applicants, crowded with mandslnuses
an officer whose attention has been dis
| tracted by the mass of business arising
| out of the peculiar situation of affairs! And
suppose the money dishonesty and cor
ruptly obtained, who derives any adgan-
taga? It>is shown that he is not the
guilty part7, for in the Fourth District
Court he discovered his error, and, tortu-
nately for him, corrected it. This manda-
mus had been pending before the public
and discussed through the newspapers; it
was Instituted by person in the office Of
the Attorney General, and III constant
communication with him, who might have
known what was going on III the courts.
irrespective of his association with Mr..
Howard, and it was his duty to have inter-
vened on the part OF the State. All, but
you say that he discovered his mistake and
corrected it in one court. and it was an acct
dent. and in the other he did not. Is he,
therefore, to be charged with having Grim
inally and Intentionally allowed thee war
rants to be drawn on the treasury, without
any benefit to himself? 1t is not charged
that he did this corruptly the charge is
not proved. He derived no benefit from IT.,
and vet you are called, On your oaths,
to say that under these circumstances his
neglect.to appear was corrupt and willful
neglect, Intentional neglect, which you
must believe in order to find him guilty OF
the first article. There is no principle OF
law authorizing you to presume corrupt
intent, but every thing is to be presumed
in favor of public officer; corrupt inten-
ton cannot be Inferred; and | put II to
your consciences and your oaths. There
is not one solitary fact in evidence which
can induce you to believe that there was
any corrupt intention on his part IN falling
to appear in the Sixth District Court. Ii
SO, want to know il. Iwant the nonora
BILE managers on the part of the House Of
| iVtpIG-tutGlNtS ~ pOiuI OItH OiC soi4s"@ )
circumst stance from which that is to be H.
terred. If be participated in the money,
if ne combined and arranged with othel
parties TO accomplish this object, then he
would be guilty: but you ask, simply, be
cause an officer has accidentally neglected
to appear in court to defend case that
therefore ne is guilty Of crime. Senator'S
it is perfectly monstrous. because the es
| oh h.
that IL was Intentional derelictlon OF duty
Let these gentlemen point out where
is made the duty OF the Auditor to deienc
suits. The Auditors law authorizes hin
to employ counsel to prosecute delinquen
tax payers, and to pay them a commission
of ten per cent. 1t is true he often ap
| peared III court, but all these appearance
were owing to his personal integrity, ire
spective of the law. Whenever he ha(
the opportunity he appeared to defend The
| State. which is proved in regard to these
{ printing warrants, because you have OF
, fered in evidence the various mandamuse
2 | in the Fifth and Sixth District Courts
r These mandamuses were made pereNp
, tory, and by the judges decision. he wa
:. compelled to issue these warrants in favo
5 of the printers. Everywhere he made thu
D defence which be conceived proper, bu
. that was no duty of his. Do you sa,
e that in the Kaufman case it was his dut,
f to notify the Attorney General? But die
|. he not have the right to suppose that tn
t Attorney General knew of this from hi
: association? Even suppose it was hi
e duty to notify him. did he not
E. from all the surrounding circumstances
did he net have right to suppose tina
y the Attorney General was cognizant of il
: and that be did not see fit to intervene
q But, it may be said, why not appeal
. That is al very well, but the mandarin
: was made peremptory But why did yo
a not appeal, and notify the Attorney Ger
eral you say. | tell you why; the nal
q damus is simply petition. 1t was mad
= peremptory because there was no appeai
q ance: there was no evidence on record
a nothing but the law; there was no ev
dence that the money had been previousl
paid, and the Supreme Court must hav
decided the case on the record; it was pc
| f.cly palpable and plain that they mus
> have affirmed the Judgment Of the lowe
court. It was too late; you can not intro
| duce new evidence in the Supreme Cour
J The Supreme Court is not court of orig
q inal jurisdiction; it only examines case
Oh the proof submitted in the inerio
x court. and therefore it was useless to az
|. peal, because on the face Of the papers til
4 claim appeared to be just one
;, owing to the non-appearance {
! the respondent. = 1t would have bee
useless expense, and the origins
j. Judgment must have been affirmed.
e therefore say, that so far as this charge
| - = %l,nl ~ -