New Orleans Republican., 1872-05-21
THF sTRAUss WARRANTS.
The Case AppeaIed-The Transaction Re-
yeaIed.

/
! The Case AppeaIed-The Transaction Re-
| vealeds
The suit of Jacob Strauss, by mandamus
to compel the recognition of the warrants
held by him as valid and payable, has al
ready been alluded to. The case was ap-
pealed Friday morning, and viii soon be
up before the Supreme Court, where the
decision of Judge Emerson affirming the
liability of the State for these warrants
will be reviewed, and perhaps, revised.
Governor Warmoth, to defend the State,
has secured the services of Messrs. Se7nmes
g. Mott. The Attorney General answered
the suit by denying that a mandamus could
lie against the Treasurer compelling the
recognition of warrants; that these were.
forged, and a debt the State is not bound
to pay, and that no appropriation has been
made. These we're the same warrants Mr..
Strauss tried to legalize by legislative act,
whiSb failed on two different occasions.
The large amount of testimony preeludes
more than a passing notice. The following
witnesses testified: Jacob Strauss, II. New
gass his clerk, H. w. Benjamin, broker, E.
P. Boyer James Campbell, F. G. Llorens
and j. H. Peralta. The last named two
gentlemen were clerks under Mr.. Wickliffe.
Newgass testified Mr.. Strauss was the
owner, and acquired the warrants in regular
course of business, and paid ninety-on and
one-quarter cents, the market rate, for
them. Mr.. Strauss testified to the same pur-
port. The remaining witnesses testified that
these were made as warrants usually were,
and signed in the same way. Mr.. Peralta
testified that the warrant was not in Wick
liffe's writing, but the signature was his
own. He knew the signature. The follow
ing is the Auditors sworn statement:
About the beginning Of March, 1870 fifty
three warrants, calling for $780, ,S98 62, or
thereabOuts, were presented at the Auditors
Office for YerifcatiOn. OF these, forty-three
warrants, calling for $50, 42S 81, or there
abOuts, were presented for Mr.. Jacob
Strauss, the holder; the remaining ten war
rants, calling for $50, 465, we're presented by
S. Friedlander, the holder. ne
After an examination. which took several
days, the whole of these warrants we're
found to be spurious, on the following
grounds:
There was no entry in the warrant book |
Of the Auditors office, nor in any other
book therein, of any of the warrants so |
presented.
Among the vouchers on file in the Audit
Or's office for warrants issued, there were /
none for the warrants SO presented.
The titles of the amounts, as specified in 1
the warrants so presented, were in most
cases enormously expressed, varying con-
siderably from the correct statement of /
such titles as specified in the books of the
Auditors Office, which is followed as an in
variable guide by the Auditors clerks in
drawing warrants.
Every person named as payee in the /
said warrants, who, at my instance, called |
to examine the Endorsements of their names
made on said warrants, pronounced such /
Endorsements fOrgeries
The warrants were not written in the
handwriting of any persen who had been
employed in the Auditors Office during Mr.
Wickliffes administration thereof.
They were marked by me IN such man
ner as to guard the public against the pos
sibility of their being ever negotiated, and
they were subsequently, returned to those
them.
The only witnesses who could testify to
the negotiation of the warrants, and that
they were purchased, were Messrs. Strauss
and Newgass, interested applicants for the
mandamus. Judge Dibble recused himself,
and Judge Emerson sat in his stead, decid-
ng, in short, that the State is liable to pay
sl39,89 For some time it was given out
these warrants were unquestionably forged.
The statement of Auditor Graham shows
hat they do not tally with the books.
Every person whose name was on the war
rants pronounced their signature forged.
In the face of all this, is the State to be
made tablet Governor Warmoth has taken
5he proper steps to have the whole matter
sifted. and To Drotect the State