New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-10-29
THE COURTS.
The Forged Warrant Case.

The Forged Warrant Case.
State ex rel. Samuel Smith vs.. James
Graham, State AuditOr.-This case came
up for examination yesterday morning pc
fore Judge Dibble Of the Eighth Dls'rlc'
Court. .o.
The writ is based on the allegation that
8. A. Isaac presented the State Auditor GER
tain forced coupons of bonds issued IN pay
ment of the floating debt, on which Isaac
obtained warrant on the State treasurer
for Sl2,l20. Isaac sold the warrant TO reia,
tors. in the regular course OF business, ana
they now seek by mandamus 10 eon.Pel the
Auditor TO issue another warrant, thereby
making the State Treasury responsible Tor
JouhIa the amount in controversy. Wit
aosses were examined and the fact seems
m he established that the coupons i'll ques-
tons were actually forged.
Eighth District Court.
State of Louisiana ex rel. T. Lafon VS..
John S. Walton, Administrator, etc.-Ihe
following decision has been rendered in this
case:
This is an application for writ Of man
damus to compel John S. Walton, Admins
traitor of Finance for the city OF New
Orleans, to receive in payment OF taxes
due the city of New Orleans, from relator,
an amount of two hundred and tity-tour
$1,000 dollars, in warrants issued by the De
partment of Metropolitan Police. The petl-
ton AYERS that it is the duty of the respond,
emit to receive, i'll payment for municipal
taxes. such warrants to an amount not ex-
ceeding the apportionment made by the
METROPOLITAN Police against the city OF New
Orleans, for the year 1862 The relator
alleges that he has Il right to pay portion
of the taxes due by him III these Warrants
AYERS demand and refusal, and asks rellef
by the writ sought.
The response is that the warrants ten
dered are not such as were contemplated by
the law making such evidences of indebted
ness receivable for municipal taxes.
The act of the Legislature approved Sep
TENDER IA, 1868, establishing Metropolltah
Police district, and providing TOR IT'S gov
ernment requires the Board OF Police Com
missioners to make an annual apportlon-
ment of the expense OF maintaining the
organization. This estimate waste be submit
ted to the municipal and parish governments
within the district for revision or objection;
but if the board should adhere to the ap-
portionment the assessment should be maj.
The Common Councils OF New Orleans, JET
ferson City and CarrOllton, and the Police
Juries of the towns of Algiers and Gretna,
and the parishes of st. Bernard and Jetier-
son. were required to levy and collect an
annual tax to meet the apportionment so
made, and to pay the respective amounts
due bv each into the Treasury of the State.
Sections twenty-seven, twenty-eight and
twenty-nine. The board was required to
elect q treasurer Section sixteen. lie
was to receive from the State Treasurer,
upon the warrant of the president and the
members of the board, attested by the
chief clerk, the money SO received into the
treasury for the Metropolitan Police fund
Section thirty. The money so received by
the treasurer of the Board of Commission
ers was to be by him disbursed, ''on
check and voucher" at the direction OF the
board
This act was amended and re-enacted
March g. 1869, but the sections referred TO
were re-adopted without change.
The authorities governing the city OF New
Orleans at the time of the adoption Of the
original act, refused to obey the provisions
of the law, and contested its legality; it was
affirmed valid by the Supreme Court. In
the meantime, however, the city had not
paid a dollar into the State treasury to ac-
count of the fund; of course the treasurer
of the board had drawn nothing ont, and
there was no money to be dlsburse0 ION
check and voucher" in defraying the eX-
penses of the police organization. The
Board of Commissioners was forced to
maintain their department on credit sys-
TEN. They approved the pay rolls and bills
for other expenses presented, and ordered
their treasurer to pay the amount. inns
order was made upon him in the form OF IA
warrant, drawn by the chief clerk III favor
of the payee or his order.
The treasurer had no money, and so re-
sorting to the expedient of writing his ac-
ceptance across the face Of the warrant,
taking the receipt Of the payee for the
amount. and returning the order to the
creditor instead of the check for cash which
should have been handed him. These
anomalous accepted orders were sold upon
the market, and became known as Metro
politan Police warrants. The law never
contemplated payment in such form, and
such warrants would have had no existence
had it not been for the foolhardy opposition
of New Orleans to the authority Of the
State government. These facts are matters
Of public history.
The officers and employees of the police
department were obliged to sell these war
rants, so-called, at ruinous rates of discount.
To remedy this evil the Legislature passed
law, which was approved February y,
1869, to make such warrants receivable Tor
licenses and taxes for the cities Of New Or
leans, Jefferson and CarrOlltOn, and for the
parishes of Orleans, Jefferson and st. Yer
nard. The language of this statute is, that
all warrants issued in payment OF the ss,la
ries of officers, employees and members OF
the Metropolitan police, in accordance with
act No. "A, approved September IA, 1868,
etc., should be made receivable for all taxes
due the corporations aforesaid; provided
that the aggregate of said warrants so re-
ceived in each current year shall not exceed
the amount OF the apportlOnment made by
the Board of Metropolitan Police Commits
sioners upon such city or parish for that
year. The law prescribed penalty foi
noncompliance, but was not obeyed by the
officers of the city government.
The warrants upon which this proceeding
is based are accepted by S. N. Burbank,
treasurer. 1t seems, by the testimony, that
subsequently the board suspended him from
Office, but did not elect a successor, because
they were enjoined from so doing at the suit
of Burbank. After the suspension OF the
treasurer the board continued TO draw upon
its own treasury, but without q treasurer 10
accept the warrants as before done, the
board authorized the president to approve
them, and they were paid out IN that form
and put upon the market.
Again the Legislature interfered, and
upon the twenty-eighth of February, 1870,
law was enacted and approved, making
all warrants signed by the chief clerk upon
the treasurer, and approved by the presi
dent, receivable for taxes, as provided in the
other law.
As suggested, the first of these two stat
utes was not cbeyed by the city authorities.
When judicial relief was sought. they an
swcred that the warrants rendered had not
been issued in accordance with the Metro
politan Police act, and, therefore, were not
III contemplation of the law making the
class Of warrants to which they were sup
posed to belong, receivable for municipal
taxes. The objection was well made as &c
the fact, for the Metropolitan law did not
contemplate the issuance of such warrants
payment would be made in this way: The
City and Parish Treasurers were ordered tC
pay to the State Treasurer the amounts o.
the appointments for each city or par
ISL, tElS money was TO drawn Oul