New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-04

dred upon which he IS now charged ; ano
they could try him over again, because ne
could not prove that the three hundred
now offered in evidence are not the three
hundred mentioned in the article. But
when the learned manager discovered
the force of the argument, and that these
vouchers were about to be thrown out,
they said we offer them in evidence for the
whole article, not for any part. What do
they mean by that? They mean that they
are admissible in evidence for some
purpose under this article. Now, as
to the last clause; they are evil
IDENTIFY not admissible; they are
not admissible for the purpose of showing
that the law has not been complied with;
they are not admissible for the purpose
of showing the date OF the transaction
they are not admissible for the purpose
of showing the amount Of the vouchers,
nor are they admissible for any purpose
so far as the last claims are concerned.
Now, are they admissible under the first
clause? What is the first clause? The
first clause says he did issue warrants upon
the State treasury purporting to be drawn
in pursuance to the appropriations of act
No 152, acts of 1868, entitled an act to
provide pensions for the veterans of 1914
and 1916, amounting $227, $40 so.
1t don't make any difference upon what
sort of voucher he made the issue of
these warrants; the charge is that he issued
the warrants. Under that charge, if all tn
pension vouchers had been in conformity
with the law, it would only make the
case worse if all the pension vouchers were
accordingly law; yet, he had exceeded the
l,n
guilty under the charge, so that
the fact, whether the vouchers
were good or bad, 50 far as the first clause
is concerned, it is perfectly immaterIal to
this Investigation, because the charge is
not for the issuing of warrants on i'm
proper vouchers-that is upon the second
clause-but for issuing warrants at all,
proper or improper, if in excess of the ap-
preparation of 5000 dollars or what
ever it may be for that purpose. The evil
dence against him on that charge, is
the warrant on the invalids claim
upon which the warrant is based; because
under the law regulating the Auditors
Office tOre is a clause that if he issues to
ne knowingly warrant iu excess of the
appropriation made for that purpose, he
violates the law and is guilty of INSIDE
meanor. This article contains two charges:
therefore you have violated the law by
exceeding the appropriations do not
care upon what vouchers; and in addition
to that you have violated the law, because
even though you have been within the ap-
preparation, you have issued it upon
vouchers not authorized.
Senator Bacon: Will counsel have the
answer to article twenty-six read?
The answer of the defendant to article
tween y-six was read by the Secretary.
Mr. Semmes: Now let us suppose they
had set out in their articles this, that and
the other man, we would have been then
prepared to give some reason for the issue
of these warrants in each case. But who
do you mean by three hundred persons ?
Are they residing in Louisiana or in Mis-
sissippi, like this public printer? Where
are these three hundred persons? Give
me their names, give me the dates, and |
will make an explanation, but am here
without this opportunity, and we have
precipitated upon US three hundred
vouchers, without an opportunity OF seeing
who the parties are; without knowing any
thing about them, we are called upon to
make defense. Don't you see that it is
called upon to answer tor three hundred
letters you had written to three
hundred persons-even at particu-
lar date if you choose-how in the
name of heaven could you defend your
self without knowing to whom the letters
were written, to specify the dates and per-
sons, and giving you an opportunity OF
making an explanation.
Senator Bacon 1 would ask the conn
sci from whose possession the vouchers
come?
Mr.. Semmes The vouchers come from
the Auditors Office. but they do not tell US
what vouchers. Why, l suppose in the
Auditors Offices there are thousands upon
thousands of vouchers.
Mr.. Manager McMlllen: Pension
vouchers?
Mr. Semmes: suppose SO, Judging from
sons were paid. How many persons
would it take to make up the amount of
the appropriation not objected to? Under
the articles of impeachment preferred
he has no longer control or possession of
the papers; he has no access to them, and
yet you call upon him to answer for the
safety of every paper in his office, and
without any opportunity to answer Tor the
Identification of any paper. Such thing
was never heard of, and the Chief Justice
koows that it is not sustainable in law or
evidence.
Mr.. Manager McMillen: Mr.. Chief JUS
tice and gentlemen Of the Senate, the
present discussion arose upon a ruling
made by the presiding officer, that certain
records belonging to the Auditors Office
are not admissible IN sustaining charge
made by the House of Representa-
tives against George NJ. Wickliffe, Au-
ditor Of Public Accounts. A Senator
has asked in his seat that this question
be submitted to the Senate for their deci-
sion, and the House of Representatives, at
this tine, desire that the Senate SHOULD de-
termine whether or not this particular
evidence, and evidence Of this character,
shall be admitted to sustain the charges
which have been preferred, and indirectly,
in deciding that question, what, in their
Judgment is the charac er of the proceed
| ings now being held. | have listened, Mr..
Chief Justice, with great interest to the
| able and settled argument of the learned
counsel for the defense, and / have been
little astonished that he, even, with his
| ability and learning, should pretend to
assert and prove in the hearing of the in
telligent body of men constituting the
| Senate of Louisiana, that it sits here to-
day simply as court of criminal or civil
| jurisdiction. That it is court of some
sort the constitution Of the State very
| clearly asserts, and the managers on
the part of the House OF Representatives
will net undertake to deny it. But we