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

if you are conscientious judges, governed
as you ought to be by the, laws of the land,
controlled as you ought to be by the rules
OF evidence and the principles applicable to
such cases, not one Of you can consclen-
tiously as Judge on your oath, declare
that any article, as charged against the de-
PENDANT, constitutes crime. And I swant
the learned managers. to answer this; want
the learned managers to meet 1t; Tor one
Of the essential elements Of a prosecution
is. that it should present case which, at
ter Judgment has been pronounced, will
show on the record that crime
was charged. l say that after going
through the evidence, and admitting
ali of If true, without any dissection or In
vestigation of it, that any Judge OF any
court would pronounce them all INSULT
cient, even supposing the allegations to be
alltrue. We therefore demur to all the arti-
cles OF indictment. We therefore maintain
that you can not go one step further; that
as the charges have not been made III puf-
suance of law, you are here arrested, and
cannot examine the facts: that the charges
are not made in pursuance OF the statutes.
and therefore the accused is TO be &C
Quilted.
But, suppose you disagree with me rs
to that The next question is, what is the
the evidence in regard to the first article?
The evidence is that there was an appro
priation made under act No. 213 OF the
Acts of 1868. appropriating eleven thousand
and ODD dollars to J. G. Kathman. Now, a
great deal has been said about that, and
my own opinion is, that Mr.. Wickliffe, in
his defense, in the Fourth District Court,
and the Managers. and DR.. Moves, and the
Governor, aud all concefned, have mis-
taken the law I read from page 2S4 Of
the Acts of 1868. act No. 2I3:
I call the attention of the court to this,
and you will perceive that in the first SEC
ton there is made distinct appropria-
tion Of S11, COS, to pay the expenses Of the
Bureau Of immigration, for printing,
stationery, articles furnished, and salary;
that is, an appropriation for that purpose,
so entered on the Auditors books, to be
drawn for in pursuance OF law. Remem-
Der that Mr.. kathman was out OF office,
and Mr.. Noyes in Office, and 1t was al ap-
preparation for the purposes CT the
bureau.
Now read the second section:
That the State Treasurer, etc. pay to
j. C. kathman the sum mentioned, TO re-
in burse him for money advanced.
You will observe that the first section is
an appropriation to pay the expenses OF
the bureau, to pay for printing, stationery.
etc. and that the second section makes aa
appropriation TO J. c. Kaufman Of SINH
lar sum, to reimburse him. Now. con-
tend that these are two distinct and indie
pendent appropriations, and that the ap-
preparation in The second is bat
a reference 10 the first section. fo-
the purpose Of asceriaining the amount.
I now speak of the law as it stands, for, as
was well said by one of the managers on
the part OF the House of Represe atatiVes,
when Senator Ray was examined as wit
ness. in reference to his position toward
the pension act. that the intention he had
in framing the bill had nothing to do with
the intention Of the Legislature N passing
il, and the law must be construed as il
stands or the statute books irrespective Of
any acts or intentions Of the legislators IL
passing or supporting it. And the ques-
ton is, whether on legitimate construc-
ton OF the law, there are not two independ.
ent and distinct appropriations, one iol
the purpose of paying the expenses of the
bureau, the other for the Individual ben
eft OF Mr. Kathman. / make this propo
siton, and ! now ask the Senators TO look
at the act. The second section directs the
Treasurer to pay this amount to Mr.. kath.
man for money advanced by him. The
subject matter of his claim, we presume
had been investigated by a committee o
the Legislature, and they Vert
satisfied tha: he did advance
this money, therefore. he wa:
entitled TO it, and it should &c paid to hin
for his benefit. The only Indication il
the act by which ii can, by any possibility
be construed otherwise, is the words
THE sum mentioned in the first section,
| which. | understand, to designate the
| amount appropriated to Mr.. Kaufman
and which the Auditor and everybod,
else understood to be the same sum. / say
| it is impossible, because the money coul(
not then be applied to the benefit Of Mr.
| kaufman, which the second section de
clares shall be done; therefore / say, &C
cording to legitimate construction place.
upon the act that there are two distiuc
and independent appropriations; one t.
| pay the expenses Of the bureau, and tn
| other to reimburse Mr.. Kathman TO
| money advanced. And on that principle
no doubt, it was that the counsel for MI
Kathman, Mr.. Howard, proceeded in hl
mandamus; and / therefore disagree wit
the Judge of the Fourth District Court il
regard to the Judgment rendered in tn
case, and, in all probability that view G
the case was not presented to hin
that it was not the same sum; bV
that these words were used, simply to ID
dictate the amount, and that it was not th
identical sum mentioned il the first sec
ton.
But suppose / am in error in regard
that. The question still arises, was n
Wicklife guilty Of crime in neglecting
appear before the Sixth District Court
What is the evidence? The evidence
that mandamus was procured from tn
Fourth District Court, and that that mar
damus Was made peremptory. | call tb
attention of Senators to the fact, that i
the Fourth District Court Mr.. Wickliff
was ordered to pay the money, becaus
ne did not appear there.
read the petition in this case:
J.C. Kathman VS.. G. II. Wickliffe, Audito
of Public AccOunts-Fourtd District Cour
parish of Orieans-No. %, 1863.
Filed June 5, 1869.
On motion CT John B. Howard, attorne
for j. c. Kathman, and, on suggesting I
the court that, by virtue OF an act of th
General Assembly, approved December
1868, the sum Of eleven thousand and 81
dollars and seventy cents was appropriated
to be paid to him by the State Treasurer, o
the warrant OF the Auditor of Public A.
counts; and, on further suggesting that sal
Auditor, G. NJ. Wickliffe has failed an
refused, though often requested to delive
to said ]. c. Kaufman, the warrants pre-
vided for in said appropriation, so that til