New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-12-18

10 explain the matter more fully the
Governor refers to act No. 3 of 1874. Great
ing the board to fund all valid bonds of the
State, and valid warrants outstanding at
that date. The board met Monday.
Wednesday. August 26, it was in session.
but 1t does not appear how or by what au-
thority it was convened. Four were pres
enf the Auditor presiding. August u it
| was again in session, and resolved to re-
ceive tie application of w. Sanford the
next day. August 49, no meeting. Au-
| gust %, the warrants were exchanged.
Sanford was an employe OF Benham.
Whether the Auditor should sign them or
not was discussed August 26 or y. Acting
Attorney General Dibble gave verbal
opinion that ho had authority to sign them.
The board did not see the warrants. The
Governor received no notice of the .uet =
| ing. and when he heard the warrants had
been funded, thought it was mistake The
letter OF the Auditor was prompted by his
deternlin ltion to bring these warrants he
lore the board. Dibble's answer says:
where an auditing officer has examined
/ ohA uPblpNNo q CldIlu Jitstubtu, lis ul5-
| cretioD is exhausted" and
The signing and delivering of warrant
is mere ,rinift rial act, the performance
| of which the person whose claim has been
| audited and settled has a right to demand
| Upon statement of facts contained in
| yOnr comm unicat;on it would seem that the
warrants could be properly and ought to
be delivered
The $22, 900 warrants" have not vet ap-
peared. The Assistant Attorney General
was evidently misled by the Auditor, think
ing he had audited and passed on the
claims, when in fact clerk, ignorant of the
duties of the Office except the mere routine,
had merely distributed the amounts and
filled up the blanks. If the warrants had
been andited March the case would have
been different. 1t is far from certain that
the acts were not subsequent to the niunc-
tion and in contempt of court. Dlbble says
nothing of the Injunction, and it would
have been au abuse Of power for him to
raise it without the order of the Governor.
| The funding board had nothing to do With
the signing of the warrants, and Dibble
was not asked as to the right to fund them.
| The liter did not remove the injunction,
and the Assistant Attorney Gene, ii could
not authorize the defendant to violate it.
Ia letter to Clinton, Attorney General
! Field said:
The answer ia clear that you can not
| issue warrants for claims of this kind uoder
| any of the provisions of he appropriation
| bill of the last session of the Legislature
unless the injunction issued by the Superior
| District Court is raised. No part Of said
| Injunction do | propose to suspend until
compelled to do 30 by the decision OF the
hightst court in the State
Governor Kellogg further sets forth that
the Auditor was uusccount ably anxious to
| free himself from the injunction; TO place
iese claims, not worth five cents on the
dollar, on par with valid Obligations, and
that complete answer to lrn portunity. was
their unconstitutionality. The meeting of
the funding board was not r. gular one.
The Governor, Lieutenant Governor and
Fiscal Agent were absent. Speaker Lowell,
who was preseat, was directly Interested to
the amount of $li,27S. The only obliga-
| tons to be funded were those outstanding
January u, 1874. The Auditor AMI Lowell
should be prosecuted under section three of
the funding act, for they knew on what
class of vouchers the warrants were drawn
In regard to the Armstrong warrants
| dated March 5, 1874, for contingent ex-
| penses of 1873 Governor Kellogg says if it
| had been valid debt no warrant could
! have been drawn after December 81, 1873.
No such firm as J. w. Armstrong & Co.
| was ever heard of. The claim was divided
into small amounts and $1,000 got into the
treasury. One OF them for 1896 rs was
| used in the settlement of the accounts of
Houston, who testified he received no war.
rants from taxpayers and paid none to the
Auditor or Treasurer, but only in money or
check. He was sent for aul in the Au
ditors Office, on request, and having no in
terest in them, indorsed sn unknown
amount OF warrants and November 3, 1874
the Auditor wrote the Treasurer he ac
cepted from Houston tor settlement of 1872
valid Auditors warrants amounting to
S3722 81. The Endorsements OF j. w. Arm
strong on the warrants are in three differ
ent handwritings, came in settlement with
TAX collectors, and must have passed
through the Auditors office.
The Governor concludes by saving the
case is one of ilagrant disregard and viola
tion of official duty by an officer placed be-
tween the funds Of the State and all who
pretend TO have pecunisry demands. He
allows $60, 300 to be Withdrawn without an
appropriation under a judgment obtained
tn nrDnl n his bo