New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-03
| cessfnl defense in the Fourth District
Court, or was the case decided on tehni-

1905, recognizes Cn2t y. ". hAtDmau nas
incurred certain expenses heretofore in
Cured" and mentions the character OF
these expenses. The second section says,
that the State Treasurer is directed to
pay on the warrant of the Auditor the
sum mentioned to reimburse him. That
operation of the law was not satisfied. |
think there was no appropriation made
for the bureau in 1867, and Mr.. Kaufman
assumed the responsibility and made adj
vances. The Senate and House of Rep
resentatives recognized these advances,
and made an appropriation to reimburse
him. II am informed correctly, his sue
cessor in office, DR.. Noyes, requested the
Governor not to sign the bill lntil Kaufman
had placed this fund at his disposal, OF
disposed Of it in certain manner, and
prior ~ the signature Of the bill, before it
become law, Mr.. Ksthman, under protest,
transferred or made an order by which
this fund was transferred to other parties,
I think to DR.. Moves.
G. That is, he drew an order on the
Auditor?
A. Yes, and received back an order for
his salary out of it. 1 hold that his salary
was not included in this appropriation,
that his salary was to be paid to him be
sides, and had nothing to do with the ap-
preparation.
@. Did you not know that that money
had been disbursed properly?
A. believe it never was, until dis
buYsed under order of the Sixth District
Court, aud the disbursement to DR.. Noyes,
l believe, was fraud.
Q. Have you ever SEEN the paper
drawn up?
A. Yes, and I believe it to be fraud.
@. 1t is drawn by Mr.. Kathman2
A. Very true, and his protest is there.
Q. You received portion for him?
A. Very true. for his salary, which he
was entitled to receive.
Q. Did he not furnish this account in
the settlement?
A. That l do not know particularly.
@. Mr.. Kathman was then either intim-
idated by threats, and induced to sign this
document, or not get his warrants!
A. ASH was informed by Mr.. Kathman,
I he said that having advanced money, and
coal and wood and other things to news
papers, and other advances, he needed
money, in some shape, and if he could not
get it regularly or legitimately, or if he
could not get it as by the relief bill, he
would take portion Of 1t as his salary,
and wait for the balance.
@. Did you not know that the money
was disburssd precisely in accordance
with the items upon which the bill was
framed?
A. No, did Tot know anything about
the bill; / knew nothing about the bill
until April, 1868.
n W.T. $685., H. ;,,,
A. In the Sixth District Court, my i'm
preston is, in August some day; the date
is marked on the back.
@. How long afterwards did you obtain
the warrants ?
A. think in October some time.
@. Do you remember having any con
versation with Mr.. Dean in regard to the
issuance of these warrants ?
A. Yes, spoke to Mr.. Dean about it.
@. Did you say to Mr.. Dean that the
mandamus had been made peremptory
when it had not been made peremptory
A. certainly could not have said that,
because that would not have been telling
| the truth. The mandamus was made per
emptory in the Sixth District Court, or
| my reading the act to the Judge.
Q. Why did YOU transfer the case to the
Sixth District Court?
A. will state why. I concluded thai
the reason-frst, l thought had a lega
right had motives of advantage;
thought it was more to my interest to pu
! it in another court, but the reason was
that thought had the right, being The
party in interest.
| @. What was the reason?
| A. The reasons were private reasons
I believed it to my advantage to put it il
another court.
I @. I want to know the reasons.
A. will state, that it was because die
not believe that Judge Theard after his de
cision-
Q. understood you to say that the cas-
was decided on technicalities
A. No, not at all, he first decided it il
favor of Kaufman, afterwards in favor O
Wickliffe. Mr.. Wickliffe asked for ney
trial, and it was granted; and the secont
time, it was decided in favor of Wickliffe
after it had been under advisement TO
some time; and do not think that Judg
Theard was altogether satisfied with tn
decision, although, he gave reasons 70
| Judgment; 1 have not examined then
carefully, but I do not think he was alto
gether satisfied?
@. You mean, 1t was decided on tech
nichalities?
A. I think he decided on the law tina
the law did not authorize the issuance Q
| these warrants.
| @. Now, in regard to this mandamus-
at the time that you obtained the warrants
had the mandamus been made peremptory
and service made?
A. Certainly; so I was informed from
the records.
@. Do you not know?
A. had the mandana1s sent to tn
Auditors Office, as the record will show
whatever day it was made peremptory;
l had requested the delivery of it to tn
Auditor. l think it was the sixth of DC
tober.
@. You are positive in regard to the con
versation with Mr.. Dean?
A. had conversation with Mr.. Dean
in his office-a friendly conversation.
o. suppose you think a friendly con
rvesation is not testimony?
A. The impression on my mind, as t
what said-my recollection of the con
versation-I speak OF, what I must hav
seen-I must have said of what was true
precisely what did say, do not remem
Der.
| @. No appearance was made in the Sixtl
District Court?
A. None except my appearance.
@ None on the part Of the State or tn
Auditor
A. No.
@. Did the Attorney General know c
the tendency of this suit
A. I do not know; he never knew
from me.