The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1872-09-21
Arrest and Imprisonment OF State Auditor
Graham.

Graham.
State Auditor Graham, for refusing
to pay certain claims held against the
State, but believed by him to be fraud
ulent, payment OF the State having
been ordered by q decree of Court, has
been imprisoned in the Orleans parish
sents to obey the order of the Court.
The history of the proceedings, and the
sentence of Judge Cooley committing
Mr.. Graham to prison, are furnished by
the Republicans:
The assessors, by sections forty-nine of
act No. ~ Of 1871, are allowed the COM
mission of five per cent on the total
amount of the tax levied on the assess
ment rolls. The total amount Of their
rolls for 1871 was $l5s, ,214, 1864, and COM
missions on the tax on this was $l14-
67S 65, which they were paid, the rolls
delivered to the Auditor and became
the property of the State, and receipts
given by the assessors.
Subsequent to this, in January, 1872,
the Auditor, in accordance with section
eight of act No. AZ of 1872, levied n
tax of six mills to pay the interest on
the public debt. In March, 1872, the
assessors, except one, were removed by
the Governor, and in May last claim of
SIT ,464 80 was made by the old board of
assessors, being the commission OF five
per cent on the tax to be derived from
the levy of six mills made by the
Auditor.
The claim was refused, not only on
account of the alleged illegality on its
face, but on the further ground that the
appropriation was exhausted, and be-
cause such refusal was warranted by the
decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of the State ex rel. Golding VS..
Graham, decided in December, 1871, q
case precisely like the present one,
where the Supreme Court called the
claim ga preposterous, frivolous and
vcxatious one, and regret their inability
to make the relators pay damages"
Upon the refusal of Mr.. Graham to
warrant for the present claim, man
damus was brought in the Eighth Dis
trict Court. 1t was defended by the At
torney General and taken under advise
ment. Judgment was rendered by
Judge Dibble on the 18th June,
1872, in favor of plaintiffs. An appeal
to the Supreme Court was taken by
Messrs. Hornor and Benedict, attor-
neys for Graham, Il few days after, they
acting under an appointment of the
Attorney General given them before
his departure from the city, and also
under an appointment by the Governor
to act during the absence OF the At
tOrney General. The appeal was taken
up and filed in the Supreme Court on
the twenty-fourth of June. In July
rule was taken to set aside the appeal.
1t was tried before Judge Emerson,
and the appeal declared void, notwith-
standing the above authorities. No
action was taken under this judgment,
the relator evidently considering it of
no eff ct.
But now comes another part of the
story. On the fifteenth day of August
the Attorney General signs a written
consent to withdraw the appeal in the
Supreme Court, without notifying the
Auditor, the effect of which, il legal,
would be to compel the payment OF this
entire claim. a rule was then taken
to compel the execution of the judg-
ment. 1t was tried before Judge Cooley
a rew days since, and the judgment or
dercd to be executed. We published at
the time the answer to the rule and the
Judges opinion.
1t has already been decided that this
appeal, which the Auditor sets up as an
excuse, was Withdrawn by consent Of
the appellant.
Judge Cooley's 'ssentence is as follows:
! find myself in a very awkward po-
sition. That is the honest truth about
it. believe, as much as the Auditor
believes, that the judgment in this case
should not have been rendered. My
own impression is, that it is incorrect.
But there is judgment, and / consci-