New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-09-12
or in any other manner, and they would in
fLinoa nn M enn sti tinnnI rinLt

or in any other manner, and they would in
| fringe on no constitutional right
! But there IS a greater reason here. This
| would be true if the proceedings were
| against the Auditor personally. But in this
case the suit is not against him personally :
! he Is sued simply as the agent Of the State
! of Louisiana 1t is virtually a suit against
| the State of Louisiana The State is the
! only one party that can be injured, except
! the REALTORS. And it is only to such proceed
lng5 that the statute No. q applies, where
| the Auditor of Public Accounts is brought
! into court by a claim not due by him per-
| sonaIly, but due by him as agent for the
| State, IN possession Of the means TO pay.
| such claims. 1t is the State who is really
| the defanGant, and the form of proceedings
| has been adopted in order to get over the
! theory that sovereignty can not be sued,
though It's agents can be, and thus it is sued
through its agents. 1t is none the less the
State which is really the defendant, and
net the Auditor Can not the State direct
its agent in proceedings against itself, that
ne should take the services of such and
such an individual as his legal adviser and
counselor, to appear IN court for the bene-
tit Of the State? If the State can not do
that, and If they tie up the State in that
shape, then the State would be in worse
position than any ordinary individual.
If an ordinary individual constitutes A
or B his agent, lie can say to him: "If you
happen to be brought into court about my
interests, as my agent, you shall employ,
and only employ, such and such lawyer"
There would be no question about the
power OF the principal to bind his agent in
such a case. Yet here it is stated that the
State OF Louisiana has net that right that
the Auditor OF Public Accounts or the
treasurer, if either Of them be proceeded
against judicially on account of claims due
Dy them as agents simply of the State, not
With5tanding the State has said they shall
only employ the Attorney General, that
they still have the right to employ other
counsel.
l believe that is stronger doctrine than
can maintain. l do not see any interests
involved except the interests of the State
and of the relators. The Auditor of Public
Accounts has none whatever. 1t is the
money of the State which has been robbed
from the treasury of the State, if any has
been committed, and it is not the Auditor
who is robbed.
Of course, it was the duty of the Auditor
to see that the State was not robbed. and |
believe that the record here will show that
the Auditor has gone much further than the
law required him. He has done everything
he possibly could to prevent the payment
of what he considered an unjust claim. If
it has to be paid it is not his fault. His
conscience can be easy on that subject. He
has exerted himself more than the law re-
quired, The law only required him to send !
the papers to the Attorney General; he has |
not only done that but he has employed |
extra counsel.
Notwithstanding all oft his efforts the
Judgment has gone against the State.
Whether that judgment be correct or not,
it is not my province to determine. The |
only question before me is whether the pro
ceedings have reached that position that
the judgment shall be executed, and wheth-
er there is any escape from the judgment
now before the Supreme Court herein, and
therefore that the Judgment rendered,
whether it be rightly or wrongly rendered,
must be executed.
The rule, therefore, must be made alb
Soluta.