New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-15

vious trial, viz: that he was chief clerk o
the Auditor. experimenting all the bust
ness; it was not his duty to examine claims
sometimes aid is and made out warrants {.
facilitate business; there is q regular war
rant clerk; knows George G. Beuham7 made
out the warrants for him March II OF lS
according TO his memorandum; don't know
where they are now. but believe they were
funded; Mr.. Clinton had gone away at the
time: had said be should go away few
days before: don't know where he went he
was como about week; Mr.. Benham
brought in his vouchers March Y or JS
can't tell which day; presume the vouchers
have been in the Office ever since; not my
business to watch them.
The Attorney General here asked who re
ceived the rest Of the warrants.
Mr.. Semmes-We object. You have i.
dicted 10 for an act you allege was unlaw-
! ful. FOu are now to try that case and not
any othe- case. The testimony must oe
confined 60 the warrants of Benham--not
| any others-we don't care what others.
Colonsl Fielt-L wish to show exactly
what / wished to show in the Superior Dis
trict Court. It seems that now ] am to meet
| with the same sort of opposition. wish to
have the whole matter go before the jury.
ALI Of these are Of the same class of
vouchers; they are connected directly with
each other; all within the knowledge of tho
Auditor; the Same man, Benham, divided
them up. so raany for Ccwees, 20 many for
Lowell, etc. The State could have alleged
oil these # it chose, but has selected this
one to show the purpose.
Mr.. Semmes-That is aot the kind the
Attorney General means. We have tried
one case. and it is still undetermined. IF
the Attorney General had chosen he could
have indicted Us for issuing all these
vouchers, but he hasn't done it. He might
have included the Wands and Oglesby and
others if he had chosen; alleged that we
issued warrants without authority, but he
has chosen not to do so. He threatened US
with these indictments il tho Superior Dis
trict Court, way doesn't he file them! We
will meet them. He prefers the George C.
Benham warrants; tho name Of George G..
Benham rings more sweetly in his ears; be
loves to repeat it better; it falls easier from
his lips, but because it is so sweet to him is
y, reason why he should introduce evidence
of other cases. Whatever the motive of
George c. Benhsm WAC in dividing up these
warrants 10 nothing 70 Charles Clinton
The Auditor 10 charged with uulswfully is
suing $3f, 500 to George C: Benham; know
ing it was unlawful the act was corrupt;
prove that il you car. Suppose there were
others, would evidence convict Us on this
Would cot the Attorney General enter q
nolle prceequi in tho case Like the civil
suit the proof must eUnform to the allega-
tions.
Colonel Field desiring to reply, Mr.
Semmes objected, and Judge Braughn
seemed about to stop the discussion, but
allowed it to go on, though Mr.. Semmes
said the rule ought to Se followed and the
case would be got through quicker.
Colonel Field-Well, sir, if you drive me
to it, as told you before, will file these
informations tomorrow morning.
Mr.. Semmes--And l have said do not
care for these threats that the Attorney
General made in tho civil suit. Bring in
your Indictments care nothing for them.
Colonel Field-I don't intend to be thrown
oil my guard in this case; am not moved
by vindictive feeling OF revenge. This is
the legal propositions: Did the Auditor
have guilty knowledge. That's the essence
of the case. Just as in receiving stolen
goods the guilt is in having knowledge that
they are stolen. wish to show by this
witness that this whole batch Of el3S. 900
were George C. Benham's. and if that name
seems sweet to me before I get through, l
will suggest some names that may be as
sweet to the other side. He, Benham, and
not the Auditor, made this distribution by
assignment. Now. cir, it follows that
George c. Benham got all the warrants
all went into his Golfers. The question bears
directly on the res ges'e. If l allege $1,000
were improperly issued. can't I prove
$4,000!
Mr.. Semmes contended the issues were
separate and distinct and tho case was
different from one of receiving stolen goods.
The essence OF the crime was the separate
acts Of audit and not to 10 proved in parts:
one part to convict on the act of another
part.
Judge Braughn said the State mus: be
confined to the attempt to prove all the
warrants we're the property Of Benham.
and not those of other persons. and Colonel
Field said it seemed as if the cour: misun.
derstood him.
Mr.. Semmes-Weli, let's have it dis
tinctly understood. You wish to show these
all belonged to Benham:
Colonel Field-I propose to prove these
other persons never saw them.
Mr.. Semmes-Go ahead.
Mr.. Sholtz, continuing-George c. Ben
ham brought the vouchers March II or IS
1874; he was alone; received them and
examined them in Q couple OF hours or less;
I made out the warrants according to the
memorandum he gave me; I considered the
vouchers came within act No. 50 OF 1874;
the act had been published before I made
out the warrants.
10 LOo cOuEt~M0Oe OOt tue WARRANTS t00
same day.
Colonel Field read tho stub book, and
Mr.. Sholtz said it was in his handwriting
and was correct; Mr.. Benham's warrant of
S34, 500 is first; q comparison Of the num-
bers of the stub book and the warrants will
show they are alike. The figures of the
amounts were altered because they were
not made according 70 the memorandum at