The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-17
Of his warrants. They were signed by the

Auditor
"The question presented to the Assistan
Attorney General was: If the Auditor signs
these warrants, will the board fund them ?
"Judge Dibble was in the building and was
sent for.
Stanford was sort of confidential clerk o.
Benham's. know Devices and others claimed
an interest in the warrants. l only know from
the records that the bonds were given to San
ford.
"The Governor was sick when we hello
these meetings, at least 1 was so informed
I daughter
81 can't tell you where Wands is. I saw
him three days ago on Carondelet street, wheT
the case was opened. / asked him if he was
coming down to court, and he said he had ne
business there, as he had no subpoena.
81 don't know that the Auditor had been
requested to audit vouchers like the Benhan
ones and refused before. Benham never
owed me $4,000, never that amount o.
money"
Cross Ecdmination-"H He didn't owe me any
specific amount
"When warrants are funded they are in
dorsed by the party in whose favor they are.
l Endorsed mine, Oslesby his, etc. The re
was an arrangement with Benham about
them. Benham said to me one day that
warrants could be got at reasonable rate,
and asked me if I would furnish the money.
Powers told me one day that there was a
movement in warrants. He purchased S3S.
| 900 worth.
"The vouchers were delivered to me by
Powers. Benham told me he was acting
for the Receiver of the Crescent City Bank
at the time of the purchase. I have the re-
ceipt here.
1.-THE receipt was for the Pinckney Smith
vouchers. These I hold in my hand are OF
the same class, but one is only in the receipt.
"The matter of the issue of these warrants
and their fundabiltty was pressed by Benham
before they were funded upon the members
| of the board. | don't know that he pressed
| the Attorney General
cat the time the application of Sanford
was made to the board sample of the war
| rants was also shown"
Re-Lrect-" Benham when he told me 1
could make some money, he did not say how.
| didn't care how so he made it. He only
said be had chance to make some money
that's all.
81 purchased only $4,000, but l don't
know when he got the balance. Banham and
the Auditor at that time were quite intimate
He was in that Office frequently. When 1
sold got check. From that time up to
August Benham told me he had filed them
with the Auditor. 1t was either the day the
appropriation bill was signed or just after.
He told me all the time abont these vouchers.
For my services was to get something I
voted for the funding of them expecting to
get one-ffth. There was big debt against
them money borrowed from the bank"
Re Gross" Benham is q man of wealth.
His credit was good. Iasked for settlement
with Benham."
Mr.. Dubuclet, cashier of the Treasurer,
testified: 81 have the Injunction served upon
the Treasurer from the Superior District
Court"
On the question being asked whether
he would pay any warrant under this I'M unc-
ton, Mr.. Semmes objected, and the matter
was discussed and the question was withdrawn.
"On the Goth March received, in the same
case. entitled State of Louisiana VS.. Charles
Clinton, enjolning payment of warrants un-
der section 2 OF the Appropriation bill of
1874"
Mr.. Boyer-"I am broker in coin. Have
been here sixteen years. I am familiar with
State securities here.
Mr.. Semmes objected to Col Field show
ing how Pinckney Smith warrants stood on
the streets He said that the accused was
charged with illegally funding certain war
rants, but the general value in tine market
had no bearing on this case.
Col. Field responded. He said that he was
glad the witness Lowell had shown up as in
mirror the rascality of that time. In the
latter part of 1874, as part of the conspir-
acv, Bsnham, member of the Legislature,
who took part in the passage of the very law,
goes to member of the Funding Board
(LowelD and procures the funding of these
securities. This, he said, shows how affairs
were carried on at that time He thought
the value of this trash ought to be shown.
Mr.. Semmes retorted that he thought there
was some deep secret behind the pros ecution
of this case. There seemed to be some OBJ
stacle in the way of somebody, and the Aud
itor was to have the vengeance of the crowd
vented upon him because he was in the way.
The mode of prosecuting the case would
seem to indicate this.
The Court-The question must be confined
to the vouchers in this case. Their value alone
can be shown, but it must be confined to the
Benham vouchers.
The witness being shown vouchers, says:
"These kind of papers were worth when
first issued something, but afterwards were
considered unstable. Afterwards demand
was created for them. They ruled at about
fifteen cents on the dollar.
Cross Examination - "Auditors warrants |
then did not sell for more than forty cents. |
The vouchers l sold can not say had been |
Endorsed by the chairmen of com mittees, but
think they were l know certainly they |
were signed by J. Pinckney Smith. 1 only
sold one, and that is my criterion of their
value"
MIR. P. Galloway on the stand:
II am broker and Spectator since 1864.
In 1874 Pinckney Smith warrants were worth
rom ten to sixteen cents ON the dollar. Prior
20 that they were considered worthless. In
1872 he committee approved SIG, 1000. re-
member buying. I presented warrants I re-
,eived from Gen. Longstreet's checks, when
lie peremptorily said: 4 warrant nothing
out for staff officers l feel when off the
tand a hostility toward Clinton, but not on
he stand. You Mr.. Semmes would feel a
hostility towards him if you had been treated
" him as have"
Mr.. Galloway was asked the cause of his
hostility and he entered into long and
Energetic account, and was applauded by the
obby once.
Mr.. H. Newgass being shown vouchers,
avs: "There were very few parties buying
hese warrants. l sold some at about thirteen
II fourteen cents. The Pinckney Smith war
ants were also considered fancy. Nobody
new what they were issued for"