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

administered, fhe State of Louisiana would
not have been called upon to disburse
more than twenty five or thirty thousand
dollars. But what has been really the
case? Mr.. Wickliffe, during the past
year, since the passage of that law, has
drawn warrants against the treasury OF
the State for 1927, 67O We claim, Sena-
tors, that he has drawn warrants without
law. and upon vouchers not in conformity
with law. The law says, "that the appro-
priation shall be paid upon the warrants
of the parry himself (or herself), when
this is certified by the clerk of the court
of the parish within which said pensioner
resides; that he saw the pensioner sign
the warrant, and that he is the person whom
he represents himself to be, which war
rant shall be accompanied by the affidavit
of the pensioner.
I ask you, Senators, to take these vouch-
ers there are piles of them), examine
them yourselves, and see whether they
are in conformity with the law or
not. We answer, on the part OF the
House of Representatives, that they are
not; that they do not contain the neces-
sary certificates and affidavits made by the
proper parties. in compliance with the
provisions of the law: and we claim that
every warrant drawn by the Auditor OF
Public Accounts upon the Treasurer of
the State upon vouchers not made out in
conformity with the law, are drawn with
out authority of law, and are in violation
of his du as Auditor OF Public Accounts,
and we demand, in the name OF the people
of the State of Louisiana, whose treasury
has been defrauded through the neglect
and misdeeds of this servant of theirs,
that his unworthiness be written by you
in your verdict, and that he be elected
from the Office which he now fills.
Articles twenty-six and twenty-seven
charge that the Auditor of Public Ac-
counts drew warrants to a large amount
in excess of a specific appropriation.
This is the sense and substance OF the
charge. That by exceeding the appropria-
ton by 1919 1868 48, George NJ. Wick
life was guilty of a high crime and mis-
demeanor in Office.
I can not turn to the section at once,
but the constitution of the State orders
that no warrant shall be drawn upon the
Auditor of Public Accounts except against
specific appropriation made by the Lee
gislature, and we claim, Senators, that, in
violating this constitutional provision, in
arrogating to himself the right and the
power to issue warrants other than against
specific appropriation, he has violated the
constitution of the State. He has prosti-
tuted the powers of his Office and i'm
, posed a burden upon the treasury OF
this State. Article 104 of the constitu-
f ton says: "No money shall be drawn
. from the treasury, but in pursuance OF
| specific appropriations made by law,
{ clear and distinct IN its language, well de-
, fined in its meaning and purposes. AT
, the last session of our General Assembly
, We appropriated $4,000 for public print
| ing, and we were given to understand that
: this would be sufficient amount to cover
t. the expenditures of the State on account
of public printing, and yet we find, when
: we come to examine the books Of the
3 Auditor of Public Accounts, that he has
issued in excess OF this appropriation
! warrants to the amount of some $3.50 600
5 double the amount of the appropriation
t made by law, and more too. These war
r rants have gone out as valid claims agains
: the State. In doing this, we claim tina
Q Mr.. Wickliffe has violated the constitution
0 of the State; has been guilty of an oficia
n crime. and has unnecessarily and in an i'm
t proper manner warranted upon the treas
ury of the State, and because he is guilt,
i of these official acts we believe him to b.
!, unworthy longer to fill the Office which b
# holds, aud We believe it to be your duty
e Senator's, so to find and so to decide
i know that the learned counsel for the de
o tense, and the defendant himself, shiel,
d themselves behind the written authorit,
}, or opinion of the Attorney General of tn
3. State; such an opinion has been introduc
}, ed in evidence, we believe, in their behall
l. but deem this to be plain and commol
e sense proposition that when the constitu
n ton of the State expressly provides tina
e such things shall not be done no Office
f. OF our State government unde
A. any circumstances, is justifiable in dom
l. that which he is expressly forbidden t
J. do. I do not care who advises him, O
it what court issues its mandate, requirin
& him to do it; the constitution of on
b State is beyond and above any power an
}. authority of either the Attorney Genera
>, or any courts of the State, and in on
J. constitution we have written, in languag
st 80 plain that every man, though he ruI
70 may read and understand. We find
J. written that no money shall be draw
q from the treasury but in pursuance 9
Il specific appropriations by law, and in th
d face of that constitutional provision, un
o dertake to say that Mr.. Wickliffe, as Audi
Cor of Public Accounts, is not justified
: AID can not be justified, in his action
Q of issuing warrants in exces
o of this appropriation, by the opinion @
!, the Attorney General, or that of an
a other man or officer in this State.
/, Comma then, to article twenty-eigh
8 and the last, we make a general charg
0 that Mr.. Wi1klifFe has his office in sucl
, confusion as to render it impossible t,
f make report cfthe finances of the Stat
9 | to the Governor Or General Assembly, AMI
| generally that he is unfit and unqualifie,
. | to perform the duties of his Office.
5 Counsel for the defendant say that i
f this charge be true the other charge made
S against him for not making a report of tn
? affairs of his Office must fall. Senators, i
: that be your Judgment, we'll and good
8 1t seems to me that either charge if sus
l tanned would be sufficient slone, unsup
t ported by any other charge, to convict hin
! Of being unworthy at least Of filling thu
e office which he now holds, and justify yoI
b in evicting him from that office.
e ''The respondent AYERS that to @ certain
extent the archives and papers Of thi
e office, at two periods during the year 1869
: were thrown into dire confusion ard dis
!, order by the unwarrantable conduct OF thu
r Governor of this State, who, in the montl
Q of March, 1869, by the unlawful and IN
}, constitutional use of the physical power:
d Of the Metropolitan Police, torcibl.
b took possession of the Office o
. this respondent, and expelled hin