The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-01
the sergeant-at-arms in '72-7s, but in the ses.

Mr.. F. Scholtz. Auditors clerk, Was then
called-I have the desk Of the chief clerk. ]
have been since March, 1873; previously az
corresponding clerk. The filing in Of the
stub-book is in my handwriting. The date il
March II, 1874 I made the entry for the
Bnham warrant not in August, but in March.
gave evidence befoxe thee ommittee exam
ming Clinton's books.
the cause of the ensures in the stub book
is because the spportionment was not the
same as the parties desired it had the
legislative warrant before me. Mr.. Benham
presented this voucher. I made out the war
busy help him. He hay have been busy,
or out, don't know. I made out the war.
rants three or four hours after the voucher is
presented. did not issue the warrants to
anybody. I merely mode them out. re.
ceived memorandum from Benham as to
the parties and amountt. The Auditor was
down to his place. It was about two weeks
after March 4th when he left. The Audi
tor was absent when Benham left.
All the warrants were jim one package, and
I distributed them-some to Wands, some to
Oglesby, some to himself
When he (Benham) ha nded me the memo
randum I don't think he'told me exactly what
to do. I wouldn't state now under oath how
by Mr.. Luria cashier of the bank. These
warrants were in my possession until the
Auditor returned, and then delivered them
to him think. Whether to him or the War.
rant Clerk, cannot tell. I know what the
law requires about numbering warrants. ]
skipped numbers to expedite business when
issuing these. didn't know that the law re-
quired me to number warrants consecutively.
THE Court here put I'M that this was done in
order to avoid splitting warrants
I never read the law On the subject. was
ignorant entirely Of the|necessity for consecu-
tive numbering.
l issued these warrants under the act men
toned in the warrants, act So, 1874"
IA long conversation about the right to show
under what act the warrants were issued
The witness then read from the stub book
thatit was for Legislative vouchers for 1870,
"a, ", 70.
The Appropriation bill came in our Office on
the 18th of March, 1874. After the warrants
passed out of my hands I did not see them
until August.
don't know to whom they were delivered.
didn't know where Benham was at that time
saw him here in the city. He never asked
me for his warrants. He spoke to me about
them; something in reference to them. l had
the injunction from the Superior District
OouAV Nv sAne tAA4OS POtAllOuS O1uC1 duO AlIs i
have them yet. I didn't know what became
of the warrants after they were in the hands
of the Warrant Clerk. It was not my busi-
ness.
After examining the vouchers and the
Auditors report. I fnd that none of the
vouchers are mentioned in the report
The Benham vouchers I handed to the
warrant clerk, or Auditor. I don't know
word about the Armstrong warrants
can explain the fact that in the warrant
book, on one page, warrants are issued for
March IL, and several pages before that an is
sue is found for March Is, but this often
occurs. Bookkeepers do this frequently. I
can't account for it. Mistakes in dates occur
frequently. When Benham presented the
vouchers to me, examined the vouchers:
examined and passed them. That is my bust
ness. The warrant clerk Cancelled them, but
l can't tell when. I didn't know then that
they were Pinckney Smith vouchers. knew
they we're for the year 70.
can not approximate the time of canceling
vouchers. It should be Cancelled on the de-
livery or when it is made out.
can not tell now whether the Auditor ap-
proved or disapproved of my act I recollect
what testified before the committee. I did
not testify then that he approved or other
wise OF my act. think he disapproved the
of these vouchers.
The hour of 3 arriving, the court adjourned
until to-day at 10 o'clock.