New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-02

Tho Board Of Audit.

The attempt of Speaker Estilette to
change this board by appointing seven
| new members in place of those appointed
by Speaker Ham, has given rise to consid
cradle discussion as to his right, under the
law, to make the change. The board, as at
present constituted, having its doubts
about the matter, referred the credentials
of the newly-appointed members to a
special committee, for the purpose of hav-
ing an investigation of the law upon the
subject, and reporting the result to the
board at its next meeting. In furtherance
of this object, Hon. j. Henri Burch, mem.
Der of the Board of Audit on the part of
Senate, and chairman of the special COM
mittee to whom the subject was referred,
addressed the following letter to Alfred
Shaw, Esq, the attorney Of the board:
New ORLEANS, April q, 1875.
Alfred Shaw Esq, Solicitor Board of Audit
SIR-Speaker Estilette has appointed, on
the part of the House of Representatives,
seven persons as members Of the Board of
Audit, in place of seven previously ap-
pointed by Speaker Hahn during the re-
gular session of 1875. As chairman of a
special committee to whom has been re-
ferred the credentials of the seven ap-
pointed by Speaker Estilette, l desire, on
the part of the special committee, your
opinion as to whether or not Speaker Es
tllette possesses the power under the act
creating the Board of Audit to appoint
any person as a member OF said Board of
Audit except only in case of a vacancy.
Respectfully.
Chairman Special Committee.
The following is Mr.. Shaw's reply, which
very clearly denies Speaker Estilette's
power to change the board by making re-
movals and filling the vacancies thus made
by others:
New ORLEANS, May l, 1875.
Hon J. Henri Burch, Chairman Special Committee
Board of Audit:
The question has been referred to me
whether the recent appointees of Speaker
Estilette are entitled to admission as men,
bers of the Board of Audit, vice former Az
pointees removed, and written answer is
requested by to-day May y, at your SEES
sion.
Act No. II of 1875, creating the Board of
Audit, provides that it shall be composed of
joint committee OF seven members Of the
House and five Of the Senate, to be ap-
pointed by the respective presiding officers,
and the Auditor and Attorney General
are added. 1t shall organize, etc, and it's
sessions are limited within ninety days from
the fourth Of March, 1875.
But one appointment of members and
ono organization is provided for, or ap-
parently contemplated, by the act. Once
done, the power is exhausted, and there is
no further power of appointment vested in
the Speaker unless in case of resignation
or a member of the Board of Audit ceasing
to be q member of the House.
Upon organization they became a
statutory board, and nothing short of a
joint resolution or statute can alter it,
There is no power of removal. express or
implied, vested in the Speaker of the
House, and the attempt to exercise it in
this instance can only be regarded as
experimental.
If he has the power to change the board
at all he could do it every day, which
would be absurd. The short period the
board has to complete its work requires
and close attention, and does
not contemplate changes Of members, as
new ones would have to reinvestigate pend
ing questions and accounts. The question
Of policy or impolicy of change Of men, |
bers for political or other reasons is not
change so that the board be not considered
One-sided in party il can be effected by
and appointments to till va
cancies occurring thereby.
Respectfully submitted,
ALFRED SHAW, Solicitor.
AS 1t is probable that Speaker Estilette
has been governed by political reasons
mainly in seeking to change the bond and
these were not included in the award of the
New York returning board, it is possible
the law will have to take its course. In
hat event the only way Speaker Estiette
ian effect his purpose is the one suggested
oy Mr.. Shaw.