New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-15
TRIAL OF. AUDITOR CLINTON
SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURT

SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURT
First Day.
! BY ten o'clock the courtroom was wei
I filled, though but few spectators wert
present. The same counsel-Hon. T. j
Semmes, Hon. A. VOORHEES, and Charles s
Rice, Esq.-appeareG for the Auditor al
had represented him in the Superior Die
trict Court. W. Il. Whitaker, Esq, took q
seat with them for short time. Attorney
General Field was without the formidable
array he had in tho civil court, and seemed
perfectly satisfied to rely on District Attor.
ney McPhelin. Colonel Field complained
of being i'll, but said he was ready to 60 on.
Auditor Clinton was absent and 30 were
other witnesses, bat he put in an appearance
on tho adjournment of the funding board.
Colonel Field commented on the absence Of
Mr.. Wands He said he had forwarded .
subpoena to him at Amite, by mail, and there
was 40 doubt he had received it. Judge
Risnghn said that was not . service, but An
oSS"SAAAOAG AAiSut IBouO 0uU on OIIC0I U0
sent up with it. Colonel Field then gave
notice that he asked for the clerk and books
Of The funding board, but did not AJAX tor an
attachment.
On the calling Of tho jury there were
challenged for cause, II. NJ. Lefoy, who had
read Of the case in the Superior District
Court, but had not expressed an opinion;
p. NJ. JOY, who had formed and expressed
an opinion from what he had read-had
read the report OF the committee of in
quiry, and his impression was strong; Ben
jamin Jorsm, who knew nothing, and had
never spoken of the case; Marks Isaaes,
Joseph Helly. s. B. Haush, J. S. Manner,
Thomas E. Leefe and C. N. Moore, who all
had . fixed opinion. James C. Jenkins
thought he could not make good jurymsn;
Charles Keller was challenged peremptorily.
Henry johnson and John Harmon were re.
fused by the accused. and so was Albert
Bertrand, who had never heard Of the case.
The following we're accepted: William =.
Lewis. Jeremiah Okeefe, Fred Krost, John
McNamara, 8. Esnard, Michael Grinnen,
Henry A. Hamilton, John Mullen, Pierre
Cazanave, Martin Kramer, Emile Lang and
William Joyce.
Lionel Adams, Esq, the deputy clerk,
then read the information charging, sub
stantially, that Charles Clinton. State
Auditor, unlswfully audited and warranted
the claim of George W. Benham, Of 3d. 500.
August 90. 1874. On motion of the Attorney
General. tho information was amended by
correcting the clerical error Of the name to
George G. Benham. Colonel Field then
opened the case, and said it was his duty
to lay before the court and jury tho grounds
relied on by the State to obtain convlc
ton, to read the Law and indicate the
course Of the evidence. 1t is rare that suck
high officers are arraigned for the connie
sion Of such misdemeaners as are contained
in the violation Of one Of tho most import
ant financial duties. I can congratulate
the State and the defense that the question
is to be tried by twelve men, whose minds,
in these times Of high excitement. have not
been poisoned by reading newspapers, and
that they have been able to say, on their
osths, that their minds are not biased. The
law is contained in section 81 Of tho Re-
vised Statutes, imposing fine Of not more
than $1,000, imprisonment for not more than
five years, and dismissal from office for q
misdemeanor committed by the Auditor. The
law is exceedingly broad and compre'
hen sive, and takes wide range. The in
vestiga:ion will be a long one. The gist Of
the offense is that the Auditor knowingly
issued warrants on q fraudulent claim of
George C, Benham. The information il in
two counts, both very much the same. In
the first place, these warrants had been ex.
cluded by any calculation from the lawful
debt of the State. Section l79, Revised
Statutes, provides the manner of presenta-
ton of claims to the Auditor. We shall
show that these vouchers then paid might
have been made by the trunkftl, and this
statute was enacted to prevent their pay
ment. These claims, $l3s, 900 of them, were
enioined BY the Superior District Court.
They date from 1869 down to 1873, when
act No. 50 appropriated $4,000 to pay
them, and it was supposed that the war
rants of Pinckney Smith. George G. Ben
ham and the Lord knows who would be alb
sorbed by it. June l9, 1873, the Governor
issued his proclamation requiring all who
held any such claims to present them to
the Auditor. and limiting the time. Under
this proclamation the Auditor reported
to the Legislature Of 1874 $4,000
Of vouchers as valid. This $l3S,000
formed no part of it. 1t was dead
until resurrected; $l3l 900 of these are to
one man, Pinckney Smith, long before out of
office. March IS, 1874. the appropriation
bill was promulgated. and the proof will
allow the inference the Auditor caused the
claims of George C. Benbam to be paid out
Of the ordinary course Of business. The
Injunction had been prepared in advance
asainst the second section of the DILL, the
Supreme Court declared this section uncon-
and void, the district court de-
clsred no varrants could issue under it;
but before this Benham comes with his
tl38, 900 of vouchers, causes the distribu-
tion to be made in other names, as the
State contends, as system Of perpetrating
\ fraud on the State. Before the ink Of the
Auditors signature was dry, these warrants
were gone, funded, and the money lost be-
yond the power of courts to bring 1t
back. This is about the substance Of
the case. If the testimony shows that the
Auditor of Public Accounts has knowingly
violated the law, has issued these warrants
without authority of law. he should be held
A.A,. 80 ooconrf II il like anv other