The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-03

warrants were on the table. l don't know
how many there were; there might have
been fifty. have got final receipt.
A receipt in settlement was offered in evi.
dence.
Mr.. F. Galloway was recalled In 1874 ]
sold warrants to Col Carter
Objected to and objection sustained.
The Attorney General-It is we'll enough
now to understand exactly what the rulings Of
the Court are. / understand that nothing
can be heard of the various allegations in our
petition except that the Auditor drew illegally
warrants from the Treasury.
The Court-That is so.
Col. Field understood further that the
Court ruled that if Clinton had received
money from tax collectors he could not be
held liable, but the tax collectors are
The Court-That was the ruling yesterday.
Col. Field now desire to have this taken
down, that the State desires to- prove that
Clintoureceived and diverted funds, and the
Court refused to permit.
A long bill Of exceptions was then dictated
by the Judge, and both sides referring to
what was stricken out of the petition.
Col. Field have the highest respect for
the rulings OF the Court, but believe am
right.
The Court-Courts are sometimes wrong.
Col Field-I know that, sir, very we'll.
The balance left of the petition'is the Long
street warrants.
Mr.. Semmes-Come down to the hard pan.
Col Field-Yes, we are coming down to the
hard pan now. I call upon the Treasurer for
communications referring to an opinion OF
the Attorney General
A letter Of A. Dubuclet, addressed to DID
BILE, asking whether it was his intention to
appeal the case of James Longstreet, and SET
ting forth that he had not the means of en-
ploying private counsel. was then introduced
Here an intermission of some fifteen min
utes ensued, consequent on the retirement of
the Judge aud attorneys, both for the State
and the defense. There was no motion, but
it was, no doubt, by unanimous consent, as
they all returned wiping their lips, and it was
whispered that refreshments were over.
Col Field offered the journal of the Senate
Of 1873 to show that there was no debt for
the payment of which the Armstrong warrants
could have been drawn, and that the appro-
priation for contingent expenses of the House
against which the warrants were drawn, was
before the warrants were issued
and that the Auditor knew it had been ex-
hausted, and that he drew against the contin-
gent expenses of the Senate.
Objections were raised by Mr.. Semmes and
overruled by the Court, and Mr.. Semmes
took bill of exceptions.
Col. Field laid his statement before the
Court, and Mr. Semmes again objected, and
this time the Court sustained the objection,
and Hon. E. F. Herwig was called to the
stand to prove the report of the committee to
examine the books of the Auditor and Treas
urer as contained in the Senate journal. He
said:
am a member of the Senate. was, at the
last session of the Legislature, Chairman of
the committee to examine the books of the
Auditor and Treasurer. We found that there
was an unexpended balance for appropriations
for 1873, of S2l, 900. l made report of that
[und in the Treasurer's Office. The Auditor,
N preparing his account, made difference of
some $1,000. I wrote to him about the dis
,repancy between the Senate account and the
Auditors account, and he sent me abatement
including the Armstrong warrants for $40, 900.
They were charged against the Senate &C.
count.
Cross Eramined-It was commended it was
i mistake, and was told that the error had
been corrected. These warrants were drawn
n 1873, and 1 was on the committee of 1875.
LII. Weymouth was next called find in
exhibit B of the Auditors report for the year
1873 to the Legislature of 1874 that $2l8,OOO
we're expended under Act 81. There were
bl3S, 900 drawn against the appropriation for
he House, exclusive of the Armstrong war
ants. If the Armstrong warrants had been
lrawn against the House it would have been
n excess of the appropriation. The exhibit
Doesn't embrace the Armstrong warrants.
No CROSS examination.
Jas. Campbell. bookkeeper in the Treas
Irers Office, was called on to prove the distri-
'ution of the appropriation Of 1873, and Mr..
'emmes called for the books
Witness stated he could not say whether or
lot, at the time of the drawing of the Long.
treet warrants, there were any funds to pay
hem.
Here Mr.. Semmes objected to the line of
as the same that had been pre-
iously ruled out by the Court, and the Court
ustained the objection, stating that it would
lot stand in suit for the recovery of money.
Mr.. Campbell was instructed to produce
lis books this morning, and for the time his
Examination was closed, there being no cross
Col Field then proposed to introduce
Iouis Morel and Major Eaton, brokers, both
bsent, but expected to be present to-day, to |
rove that the same Identical vouchers on
'hich the $685. 900 were drawn, or portion
them, were sold to George II. Bsnham
uring the year 1874.
The defense having alleged that the vouch-
rs were in possession of the Auditor in
larch, 1873, when the warrants were issued,
ne Court ruled that such testimony was in
dmissible. as it was irrelevant.
MIR. Semmes wanted the Court to under
and that the defense did not object to such
The Court nevertheless maintained its po-
tion.
Mr.. Semmes, in answer to question from
le Court, announced that the defense would
ltroduce no testimony.
The Court adjourned by consent until IL
clock to-day.
The testimony will no doubt be closed to-
az, but the argument will go over until next
eek.
Prickly heat disappears before Marsden's
aysaparilla.