New Orleans Republican., 1872-05-23
THE COURTS.
The Judges Warrants - Judge Dibble
Commands Payment-State RevenRe
Officers Must Pay in Cash.


The Judges Warrants : Judge DibbI,
Commands Payment-State RevenR'
Officers Must Pay in Cash.
In the following decision Judge Dibble
of the Eighth District Court, traverses the
petition of Judges Collens, beaumont anC
Duvigneaud for a mandamus, reviews the
theory of the petitioners, sustains the posi-
ton assumed by them, that the cOnstitu
tiOnal officers of the government are en-
titled to be paid their salaries in prefer
ence, and concludes by making peremptOry
their mandamus on the Treasurer:
State of Louisiana eX. rel, L. Wharton
Collins, j. Duvigneaud and Charles Leau
mont VS.. Antoine Dubuclet, State Treas
urer.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT.
The relators in this application for man
damus are Judges respectively of the Sew
enth, Second and Fifth District Courts for
the parish of Orleans. They allege thai
they have received and hold and own war
rants drawn by the Auditor of Public Ac.
counts upon the State Treasurer, in pay
ment of their salaries for the quarter end
ing March 81, 1872; that the relatOr, Duvig-
neaud, also holds and owns a warrant
given to him for the preceding quarter.
They allege that they have many times,
either personally, or by agent acting dl-
rectly for them and authorized by them,
presented their said warrants to the State
Treasurer for payment, but that he has re-
fused to pay the said warrants on the
ground that there was no money in the
treasury to the credit of the fund on which
the warrants were drawn, whereas, the re-
latOrs allege, in truth and in TACT thousands
of dollars, out of which said warrants could
and should have been paid, have been re-
ceived into the State Trsasury since the
date of the issuance of said warrants and
their first presentation; and even while re-
lators or their agents were standing at the
counter of the treasury presenting their
said warrants and demanding payment.
The petition then declares that if moneys
so received since the issuance of the
said warrants are not now IN the treasury,
which is not admitted, the Treas
II 'er can not be heard to allege
such fact, since the said moneys could not
have been legally paid out to others in pre-
ference to relatOrs, who were waiting, and
demanding payment before, at the time and
after the said moneys we're received. And
the relatOrs allege that they are cOnstitu-
tionaI officers of the State, and that the
State Treasurer is bound to pay them in
preference to the ordinary creditors of the
State, out of any funds not otherwise spe-
cially appropriated.
The petition then recites that the reiators
are credibly informed, and expect to prove,
that the State Treasurer habitually allows
State tax collectors, sherlffs and other col
lecting officers of the State illegally and cor
ruptly to evade the laws, which require
them to pay directly into the treasury the
moneys which they have accounted for to
the State Auditor as collected by them; that
such collecting officers, when they come to
pay money into the treasury, instead of do
ing so, and instead of acting as bona fide
agents and officers of the State,
they simultaneously present the war
rants they may hold, and assert
the right to set off said warrants
against the money they are accountable for
as sworn depOsitaries and tiduciaries of the
State; and that the State Treasurer allows
them to retain said money, under pretext of
satisfying debts due them by the State; or,
what Is the same thing, he pays them with
one hand what he is receiving from them
with the other, to the prejudice of these re-
1atOrs and other bona tide creditors of the
State, and to the ruin of its credit. The
relatOrs show that fiduciaries and deposit
aries are prohibited by law from commit
ting such acts.
The petition further sets forth that the
law prohibits the collecting agents from
receiving from the taxpayers taxes in war
rants, in order that the cash may come into
the treasury, to be fairly and equitably dis
bursed; but by the said practice, the col
lecting agents surruptitiOusly use the
money of the State for their private
purposes, and make for themselves usur-
lous speculation, which is refused to the
people.
The relatOrs allege irreparable injury;
that a mandamus is the only remedy, and
pray that the writ of mandamus may issue
commanding the State Treasurer to lmme-
diately pay the warrants held by the rela-
tors and to compel him TO exact from State
tax collectors, sheriffs, and other collecting
officers of the State, in every instance, a
full, complete and bona tide performance
of their duty, to pay into the State treas
ury, in cash, the moneys certified by the
State Auditor, as payable by them, accord
ing to their accounts, without allowing the
said collecting officers to present any war
rants or demands against the State as
set-off or compensation for themselves and
others, or to retain any funds they are re-
quired to paw into the State treasury, under
pTetext that they are holders for themselves
or others of the warrants or other demands
against the State, and without directly or
indirectly allowing the said collecting Off
GERS to enjoy preference in the order of
payment of any demand they, for them
selves or others, may pretend to have
against the State, and without postponing
the payment due to these relatOrs In order
to pay other warrants or demands. They
pray that the State Treasurer be command
ed to pay petitioners cOncurrently with the
other constitutional officers of the State in
preference to all other demands against the
State out Of any fund not otherwise spe-
cially appropriated.
The Attorney General makes return for
the State Treasurer and says:
l. There was no money in the treasury
when the warrants Of the relatOrs were
presented. A
son of their being constitutional officers. to
be paid by preference.
4, D. That under the constitution Of the
otate OF Louisiana and the laws all warrants
on the State Treasurer for money drawn in
accordance with law are entitled to be paid