New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-09-14

wrong. I believe that the Auditor is
morally right, but legally he is wrong, and
of course he has to bear the consequences
| The order will be entered according to the
| prayer. Let the rule be made absolute, and
| let the Auditor be confined in prison until
he execute the order of the court.
And all was over. Honest James Ora
ham was condemned to the Parish Prison
for an indefinite time, until he was willing
to assist in depicting the State treasury.
The case is so plain that we can not pass
the opportunity of laying the facts before
the public, that they may see for them
selves.
The assessors, by section forty-nin of
act No. AZ of 1871, are allowed the commits
sion Of five per cent on the total amount of
the tax levied on the assessment rolls. The
total amount of their rolls for 1871 was
$l58,2I4 1854, and their commissions on the
tax on this was $ll4,978 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 1871, levied 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 this claim of $47, ,464 80 was made by
the old board of assessors, being the COM
mission of five per cent on the tax to be de
rived from the levy Of six mills made by
the Auditor.
The claim was refused, not only on ac-
count of the alleged illegality on its face,
but on the further ground that the apprO-
priation was exhausted, and because such
refusal was warranted by the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of the State
ex rel. Golding VS.. Graham, decided in De-
cember, 1871, a case precisely like the pres
ent one, where the Supreme Court called
the claim "a preposterous, frivolous and
vexatious one, and regret their inability to
make the relators pay damages"
Upon the refusal of Mr.. Graham to war
rant for the present claim, a mandamus was
brought in the Eighth District Court. 1t
was defended by the Attorney General and
taken under advisement. Judgment was
rendered by Judge Dibble on the seven
teenth June, 1872, in favor of plaintiffs.
An appeal to the Supreme Court was taken
by Messrs. Hornor and Benedict, attorneys
for Graham, few days after; they acting
under an appointment of the Attorney Gen
eral given them before his departure from
the city, and also under an appointment by
the Governor to act during the absence of
the Attorney 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. It was
tried before Judge Emerson, and the appeal
declared void,. notwithstanding the above
authorities. No action was taken under
this judgment, the relator evidently consid-
ering it of no effect.
But now comes another part of the story.
On the fifteenth day of August the Attor-
ney General signs written consent to
withdraw the appeal in the Supreme Court,
without notifying the Auditor, the effect of
which, if legal, would be to compel the
payment of this entire claim A rule was
Judgment. 1t was tried before Judge
Cooley a few days since, and the judgment
ordered to be executed. We published at
the time the. answer to the rule and the
Judges opinion.
Considering the Importance of the case,
the imprisonment of high constitutional
officer, and the action of the Attorney Gen
eral, there is a sufficient warrant for laying
these facts before the public.