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

counsel know what be isNspeaking about,
| do they know that at the moment that
Governor Warmoth learned by report
not by any formal investigation, but by
report, that Captain Armstrong was said to
be in defauit-that he communicated the
fact to the Attorney General of the State.
and asked him to institute an investiga-
ton against that officer? Does the hon.
| orable counsel know that committee
was appointed of the Senate. aud that
that committee investigated this mater
and reported that the Governor, by his
| eEerious. has saved to tie State more
than $4,000 from this same defaulting OIL
Ger after the default was discovered. Ii Is
one thing to make assertions against
public officer, bat it is quite enother thing
to prove them by facts.
| Again. broker in the performance OF
his business brings warrant, issued IN
| 1862. at a time when | remember II the
witness who was examined Oh the stand
| does not remember, what was the con
dition of the city; at time when
this people were in armed hostility
| against the United Etates; when saey had a
| government here which has been denom-
mated a de tdcto government; but the
| Constitution OF the State does not recog-
nize any contracts made by such a gov
eminent: the amendments to the, COnstitu-
ton of the United States says the same
thing; and, by virtue Of the recoastruc-
ton acts, you are not allowed to recog-
nize any such contract on the part OK any
| such de facto government. This was no.
| settled in the case of the State Of Texas,
! and, ] ask, has any decision been made IN
| regard to this particular by the Supreme
| Court cf the United States? l ask, has the
| Supreme Court of the United States deci-
| ded that contracts made by these de taco
governments-Ge fdct0 in using their
whole strength to overthrow the de jsls5
government of the United States-are
valid and should be enforced. Wicklitfe.
however, contrary to what was laid down
as presidents and practice. by his chief
clerk, upon whom he depended, accepted
this warrant. Did he refer the case 20 the
Legislature? Not at all; he received that
warrant back and paStedit upon the stamp
book and issued small warrants for it..
And what did he do? Did he
sign the name Of J. 81. Peralto to the
warrants, or his own? | undertake
to sag that when he signed his OWE name
to this warrant, he should have stated the
facts upon them, and should have made a
correct copy of the original. and the subdi-
visions should be exactly like the original
warrant except as to the amount. and If
Mr.. Peralta was not present there to sign
them, the present Auditor should, if he
ISSUED them at all, have signed the name
of L. Peralta, with the remark that he
signed it for him; in other words, the sub
divisions should be copies of the original
in everything except the amounts. Did
he do that? No. This warrant was worth
sixty eight cents on the dollar, for war
rants with the signature of G NJ. Wick
life were worth six or eight cents more
than those signed with the name of II.
Peralta. G. II. Wicklitfe was not Auditor
in February, 1862, thereby, l undertake. to
say. that in the subdivision of this war;
rant, he not only committed wrong act,
but he asserted in wiring. bis name to
this arrant, a falsehood. when he signed
his name as Auditor OF Public Accounts,
February Is, 1862, when, ii fact, at that
time he vas burning cotton on the Missis-
sippi river, outside The Federal lines.
Now, before l close, hare few words
more to say in regard TO these unfortunate
printers, and the administration of the
printing laws-these unfortunate men
whom was charged Of contracting with
on behalf OF the State: fact which the
honorable gentlemen desire TO turn into
ridicule, because I was On the printing
committee. These printers go to bin for
tbeir pay, which they have right to. or
else they have not; they presented their
accounts, and he told them tina. under the
mandate of the Governor he was obliged
to cut them down one-half or tWo-thirds,
but if they would sign receipts in tull he
would divide the accounts with them.
Now what is that? Here these printers do
wrong thing. Here they do what he con-
tends, is wrong, for it was his understand
ing with the commissioners that he would
pay them according to the measurement
agreed on, and then pays them according
to their own measurement. WHAT'S that
He SAYS that he had right to do this. and
he tells them that he will settle with them,
provided they pay him, and before they can
get any settlement whatever, they are
obliged TO pay him. This IS
extortion or oppression, and indict-
able. Now these printers were poor
men, obliged to pay for their labor,
pay their journeymen printers and the
running expenses of their Office, and they
must make the settlement on the terms of
the Auditor, or none at all; and here | will
read the section Of the law which, say is
applicable to this case:
SEC. %. Should the Auditor knowingly
issue any warrant upon the Treasurer not
authorized by law, or should he wlitnlly
neglect or refuse to perform any DUTY
enjoiaed by law, or be guilty OF any OPP
preston or extoriion, or receive any fee
or reward for the performance of any duty
not allowed by law; or should he, BY
color of his Office, knowingly do any act
not authorized, or in any other manner
than is required by law, or illegally use or
misapply any money belonging to the
State, he sshall be deemed guilty of mis-
demeanor in Office, and upon conviction,
be fined not more than one thousand dol
lars and imprisoned not more tfan five
years, and be dismissed from office"
Shall be deemed guilty OF INSIDE
meanor." Now, that section covers the
whole of our articles, and the learned
counsel for the defense stand on this floor
and assert that there was no such offense
known as misdemeanor in the statute Of
Louisiana. / read this statute and fling
that in his teeth and tell him that he does
not understand the law, or that he does
not take the pains to read it. Now, mis-
demeanor, under that law, is indictable
before the criminal courts of the State;
but say outside and beyond that statute
it is an Improbable offense, and In con-
nection with that law it is not only an in
dictable but an improbable offense, and
II ia tie duty of the people of the State
not only to impeach, but also to indict
him. try him and convict him
under this specification. We charge,