New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-03-15

appropriation for specified object Tho
act in reference to the colored veterans
of 1912 is general and specific appro-
priation, because certain amount Is
appropriated to each veteran. Suppose,
if the court please, your honor
is entitled to salary of five thousand
dollars year, by law, and that
the Legislature appropriates SO much to
pay the salary of judges, and that appr0-
| priation is exhausted, is a Judicial officer
| not entitled to compensation by the gen.
| eral law? Or, under the constitution, which
says the salary of judges shall not be di-
minished during their continuance in Office.
The appropriation is made by the consti-
tuition, and I care not whether the Legis-
| ature neglects their duty or not; by the
constitution it is an appropriation, and
they can not avoid it.. But the act of the
Legislature is very clear, that each colored
veteran is entitled to so much. What Is
the duty of the Auditor? Suppose a col
ored veteran presents himself with the
proper affidavit under the pension act, and
demands his warrant, and suppose the
Auditor refuses to- issue it, and says
there is no appropriation - there
is the appropriation, and how can
the Auditor know whether there is any
money in the treasury to pay it, He can
not 60 into the Treasurers office and ex--
anime whether there is any money In the
vaults; all he has to do is TO see whether
the law makes the appropriation; and this
law makes an appropriation as much as
the law for paying the. judges of the SUI
preme Court.
But it seems that the gentleman insists
that there are not so many colored veterans
in the State How can he say? How
| does he know? The law provides the
| manner in which the claim is to be proved,
how the proof is to be presented, and be-
| fore what officer; and upon the presenta-
| ton of that proof the Auditor issues the
warrant for that pension
| This is specific appropriation,
the same as the Salaris of judges.
The estimate made by the Commit.
tee on Finance of the Legislature, in
presenting bill has never been consid-
cred as the making of an appropriation; 1t
is simply an estimate. The estimate may
be Sl50,OO 100000 or 100000, but
whether the amount be sufficient OF not is
no business of the Auditor that is the
business Of the Treasurer to say whether
it shall be paid or not. That I understand
to be the law. Hence this charge that it
was done without any specific approprla-
ton must fall Whether there be any
money in the treasury, is a question, not
for the Auditor, but for the Treasurer, to
determine. Therefore, they have entirely
mistaken the law. 1t is the Auditors busl-
ness only to examine the claim and the
vouchers, and issue the warrant.
Now, if the court please, in reference to
the second point, which my colleague did
not discuss. l beg leave to present
this point; that in these charges and
specifications, and by the testimony, it Is
shown that the party has been tried before
Now presume that 1t will not be con-
tended that, in republic like ours, if man
has been found guilty Of murder this court
can try him. l presume that the constl-
tuition OF the United States means some
thing. Chief Justice Marshall, in an
early decision, declared that the constitu-
ton of the United States was bill OF
rights not only for the people in the Dis
trict of Columbia, but bill of rights for
the people of all the States. This being
the case, what is the constitution OF the
United States, and what is our own con-
sitution? The gentlemen seem to THINK
that they have right. even after man
has been tried before court OF justice, to
indict him for the offense; but if he ba in
dicted before court of competent
iurisdictibn; it, after trial by court,
and jury he is acquitted, is it proper to try
him again? Is it proper to says you have
been tried before court Of criminal juris-
diction: you have been tried once, and
acquitted, but we will try you again? Is
this the principles of the constitution of
the United States? Is this what it means.
that By simply changing position, and say
, ing, you have been tried before criminal
court, but we will try you before civil
court, simply changing the name? l now
insist, and we do insist on this argument,
and it must be clear to the mind of every
, rejecting man. that no matter under what
form YOU clothe it, whether you call this a
political court or civil court, if you render
a verdict of guilty, it is conviction and
punishment; and would not that make it
/ court of criminal jurisdiction? For whatever
the law provides punishment for, that is
, a penal offense. beg again to call atten-
, ton to decision of the Supreme Court.
, | I cite from Black, the case of Priest.
Priest carried his case to the Supreme
, Court Of the United States, and this de-
termined the question what is the nature
I and character of punishment; because, l
, presume, it will be admitted that If this be
! a punishment. then the court must be gov
\ eIuSu dcCOIuAuS ~ tAO IUlSo Va Ao" olAes w
be punishment it must be made penal
| ofense by some statute. This being the
case, the law being clear, come now to
the question, under what clause can we
be found guilty of crime or misdemeanors
\ l will sum up very briefly: have en-
Q deayored to show that there is no such
thing as misdemeanor in the State
q of Louisiana known to the law
Is there lawyer in the State
that will say so? A misdemeanor is not
, what each man may think, according to his
; own fancy aud idea, to be improper
q Crime is not what each man may think, &C
: cordiug to bis OWN fancy, to be wrong
; but presume the convention, in framing
g the constitution, when they used the word:
). crimes and misdemeanors. used them a:
! synonymous terms. In England there II
a such thing as misdemeanor, but not II
n this State; for whatever the law declares
s contrary to the Statutes is misdemeanor
! do not suppose that there is single law
!, Yer who will doubt this proposition
q Then, under these circumstances, how
q does 1t stand? Laws are not made TO nc
q purpose.
d Do tie people. when they elect mai
d to Office, guarantee that he shall always
= be right? Is it required that he shall
as always be right? Is so, the office would be,
I very Improbable one. The Auditors office
l. the duties of which are the most Difficult