New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-02
PUBLICAN, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2 1870

Mr.. Semmes: We have no objections to its
Introduction for that purpose.
Mr.. Manager Lowell then offered the fol-
lowing references to the records of the
Auditors Office:
Printing and advertising-Folios1 67, 16s,
3S9 to 1893 inclusive.
Folios 727 to TAO inclusive, appropriation
book No. 2.
Same-Folios $50 to 1853 inclusive, ditto 8.
Pensions-Issued act No. l36, of 1867
Folios 173 to III, appropriation book No. 2.
Folios 2ls to 226, appropriation book
No. 8.
Pensions-Issued act No. 152 of 1868
Folios Ais to 424, 527 to $50 and 704, appro.
priation book No. 2.
Folios 232 to 253, 1874 to ss7 inclusive, ap-
preparation book No. 3.
The following order, offered by Manager
Lowell, was then read by the Secretary:
Ordered, That the defendant, George NJ
Wickliffe, Auditor of Public Accounts, be
required to produce the original warrant
No. 7O7l, and the coupons upon which such
warrant was drawn.
The Chief Justice: The Secretary will call
the roll. Those in favor of the order being
granted will vote YEA" those opposed will
vote mo"
The roll being called, the order was
ad opted by the following vote.
Yeas: Anderson, Antoine, Bacon, Beares,
Braughn, Campbell, Dsrrall, Day, Egan,
ard, Pinchback, Poindexter, Ray, Thompson,
Todd. Whitney, wilcox, Williams, Wittgen-
stein-24.
Nays: None.
Mr.. Semmes, of counsel: We take notice
of the order, and will answer tomorrow
morning.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL LIZ sAssIER.
Paul LIE Sassier, witness for the prosecu
ton. was called, and duly sworn by the Sec
rotary of the Senate.
Examination in Chief:
Question By Mr.. Manager Lowell: State
your name and occupation?
Answer. Paul Lessassir; am with ]. Her
nandez broker.
Q, Do you recollect ever having warrant
drawn in 1862?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the amount of it =?
A One thousand dollars.
O. Do YOU remember the date of it
A No, sir, not otherwise than that it was
drawn in 1862.
Q. How came you il possession of that
warrant?
A. bought it.
O. What did you give for it?
A. Seventy cents
Q. Did you try to sell it!
A. | did sell it.
Q. What did you get for it
A. Sixty nine cents.
O. What were State warrants worth then !,
A About seventy-two and half or
seventy-three.
Q. Who did you, sell this warrant to?
A. Mr.. Strauss.
Q. Did you ever present it at the Auditors
Office?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you present it to at the
Auditors Office?
| A. l saw Mr.. Lagroue there.
Q. Did he cut it up for you.
A. No, sir.
@. Did he refuse?
| A. Yes.
| 0, For what reason?
A. He said an appropriation must be made
| by the Legislature for it.
| o. He said there was no appropriation
for it.
| A. Yes, sir.
O. Who did you sell this warrant to?
| 4. Strauss, a broker on St. Charles street.
| Q. For what purpose?
A. To have it cut up.
Q. Why did you want it cut up?
! A. Because thought l would have diff
| Guilty in selling it as it was.
@. Was it too large to sell?
A. Not only that, but there were several
| Endorsements upon it, and it was suggested
to me that would have some difficulty IN
| getting rid of it.
O. Have you negotiated that kind of war.
| rants before or sinceS
A. No. sir.
Q. You sold the warrant in tits original
shape?
A Yes, sir
By Mr.. Manager McMillen:
O. You sold it after you had applied TO
have it subdivided?
A. Yes, sir: after found it was not re-
ceivable for taxes, and could not be cut Ep.
@. Who told you it was not receivable for
taxes?
A. Mr.. Dubuclet.
Q. Were other warrants receivable st that
time for taxes?
A. Yes, sir.
@. Why was this particular warrant not
receivable?
A. do not know; because it was issued
in 1862, suppose. What guided me in buy
ing it was the fact that they would not pay
it for want of funds.
Q, That was the case with other warrants,
| was it not?
A. Yes, sir; but that suggested that it was
| good, and | bought it.
Q. Why should not a warrant, issued ID
1862, be paid as well as any other?
A. For want of fluids.
O. Was that the only reason why this war.
rant was not paid?
A. Well. don't know that. IL mao tnat
Endorsement on it by Mr.. Dubuclet, and that
was what guided me in buying.
O. Why was this warrant not receivable
for taxes?
A. Well, it was signed by Mr.. Peralta.
and it was dated in 1862; that was the only
reason I could see.
| Q. Then warrants signed by MIR. Peralta
and dated 1862, were not receivable for
taxes in 1869.
A. The Treasurer said not.
Mr.. Gray, of Counsel: This is mere ques'
ton d opinion, and do not think test
mony can be introduced to show whether
they were receivable or not. The law
determines that. Upon the part of the
defense, we contend that this was receiv
able-that it was legitimate deed on the
part of the State. But, to prove by this
witness what the laws are-whether it was
receivable or not receivable, we do mos'
positively object
Mr.. Manager MoMillen: Mr.. Chief Justice,
besides being question of law, it seems also
to be question of fact, SO far as this partlcu
lar warrant is concerned. We are trying to es
tablish the fact that this warrant was pre-
scented in 1869, and that it was refused BY
the State Treasurer; and we are trying tt
elicit from this witness reason TOR sucE
refusal. am very well aware, MIR. Che
Justice, that warrants drawn by the Auditor
against the Treasurer CT the State we're maze
49, N