The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-02

lake the case rec1teQ Dy the gentleman.
It Ike horse" he said-I believe it was
stolen-"h avn't we right to sue before
civil court for the use of the animal p
1--WE can not in one day prove everything at
once; we must first prove the bond; that we
have done; then prove the breaches of the
bond; We want to do that now, and then the
damages. A stipulation on the part of Mr..
Clinton and his sureties is that in case he does
not do his duty they are liable in the amount
Of $4,000. 1t is liquidated damages"
He referred then to the petition, and read
the alleged breaches of duty. "Look at the
diversion Of the school fund; read our allegs-
tons. Did the State lose nothing by Mr..
Clinton's action? How many, perhaps, were
denied the benefit of education by this alb.
straction of that fund. don't mean to use
that word Extensively.
"Now as I understand this matter these
several funds are set apart for certain puf-
pose, and the moneys of the State are appro-
priated for the payment of specific debts.
Now we say to MIR. Clinton these funds have
been diverted and the State has suffered.
Now they say sneeringly what has the State
suffered? Suffered! suffered !! Is not the
credit of Louisiana by-word in the markets
of the world? Do not our people have to
wait upon the sweet will of the Auditor Is
not our credit ruined? Is that Of itself moth
ing? Take the other allegations. This 6i-
version of the school fund, is not that dam
aging to the State, when that fund for the
education of our young is diverted to pay an
other debt of the State ?
81 ask, is there single allegation in the pc
tition showing that Clinton violated his bond?
If there is, the Court must hear it. It does
not stand in Cinton's mouth to say you can
show the State has suffered no damage.
tS1 hara enter 1nlQrnv nrOfact Tn
the assumption that this public official can
divert public funds and then bid defiance 10
the people and laugh in their faces, saying
what has the State lost? Such an opinion
is damnable in morals and false in law"
A recess of fifteen minutes was then taken.
On reassembling, Mr.. Mari asked Mr..
Semmes to please state the grounds Of his OBJ
lection.
He said he objected to the admission of tes-
timony in regard to the school fund or the
retention of tax collections, on the ground
that if it was true it didn't amount to row
of pins. the prayer of the petition being to
recover from the sureties S1O,O from Gin
ton 100000
The bills of exception were then taken to
the ruling of the Court refusing to hear
further testimony to support the above ALE
cations.
Testimony of Mr. Scholtz resumed:
don't know the amount of taxes received
in our office from February l, 1873 to Decem-
Der 81, 1878; the books would show. I don't
know the amount. know of the warrants
issued to Gen. Longstreet in August, 1874.
Mr.. Semmes said they admitted the fact
that the Auditor did issue them, and objected
to testimony proving it.
The defense based their defense on q judy
ment of the Court.
The Attorney General said that the defense,
it seems, ought to have moved to have
stricken out the whole petition, as it would
have ended the case sooner.
The Court said: "You can't raise by wit
ness question of law. This whole Long
street matter has nothing to do with this case.
The question is whether the Auditor had
right to issue this warrant, wh;chts one of law,
and you can not by testimony make the law
any stronger or weaker"
The objections of Clinton were sustained
and bill of RECEPTIONS taken by the State.
Scholtz-I have the decree of court autnor-
izing and ordering the issuance of the Long
street warrants. On referring to the stub
book find when the warrants were issued,
No. $3.50 to 1863 in favor of Longstreet for
$50, 200. The vouchers were made out by
Mr.. Meunier. The receipt for the warrants is
made out in my handwriting. The signature
is Longstreet's. I do not know who made
out the warrants; it was the Warrant Clerk,
presume
Cross Examined = To Mr.. Semmes The
documents you hold are the vouchers and
on which I issued the warrants to
Gen. Longstreet.
Mr.. Semmes-I offer them in evidence.
Col. Field-Let me see them. (After look
ing over the papers)-Why do you introduce
them?
Mr.. Semmes-I introduce them as the
vouchers and authority on which the warrants
were issued.
Col Field-But it is not your time to intro
duce evidence
Mr.. Ssmmes- you called for them,
and now l propose to introduce them in
Mr.. Marr-But you have no right to them.
We introduced them for the. Identification of
q certain paper.
The Court-It is only question of time.
They can be introduced hereafter.
Col. Field-We object to the introduction,
on the ground that they are an absolutenul-
lily.
Mr. Marr-And that you Ito Col. Semmes)
have no right to introduce evidence at this
time.
Col. Field-Yes, and that the defense have
no right to introduce evidence at this time.
The Cours--Let the papers be made part OF
the record.
The point was reserved.
Gou. Kellogg was called and testified as fol-
lows:
1 am a member of tie Funding Board. l
know something about these warrants of
s13S, 900, which were funded.
Col Field-Tell what you know about it.
Mr.. Semmes wanted to know whetherthe
he (Kellogg) was about to give was
from his own knowledge or from documents.
Gov. Kellogg Mostly from documents.
He then went on to say that he had ad-
dressed communication to Clinton in refer
ence to warrants, and that Clinton in his re-
ply had stated that $13S, 900 had been funded.
Continuing, he said: 1t was toward the last of
September my attention was first called to it.
was about preparing q message, and wrote
TO the Auditor to ask him the amount of war
rants aud bonds funded, and he replied that
S13S, 900 had been funded. Afterwards, in a
with the Auditor, I expressed
surprise that such a large amount had been
funded; l told him thought it must be
mistake. The warrants were funded at q
special meeting.
l was not present. think all the members
we're present but myself, the Fiscal Agent and