New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-18


ter cents; have bought as high as seventy
cents; declined because there was NO appro
priation; to get a bill for them would coet
more than they were worth; they are valid
claims and hold some of them now.
To Colonel Field-Have held 5000, 900 at
time; pay for vouchers from Legislature;
get warrants from the Auditor, sell them
for five to ten per cent profit OF turn them
in for taxes; knew of the appropriation of
200; was too late to get anything; 9TH
ers got in ahead; think the warrants were
made out before the bill passed; knew
nothing Of Benham getting pay for Pinck-
ney Smith warrants till heard of this case;
never knew any one had got 60 far ahead;
you bet, = ould have been there first. if DOS
sible.
Mr.. Semmes-That closes our case, sir.
Colonel Field said he wished to introduce
the letter he had presented in the Superior
District Court, but objection was made, and
Judge Braughn excluded it as new fact.
A recess was taken for the purpose of re-
lieving the jury a little, Judge Braughn
saying the arguments must be finished and
the jury have the case.
Immediately after recess Mr.. District At
torney McPhelin addressed the jury:
May it please the Court, Mr.. Foreman
and gentlemen of the jury, am glad we
have now nearly reached the conclusion Of
this case. 1t is seldom that so important
an officer as the Auditor of Public Ac-
counts is charged with violating tho laws of
10 fotn -
ends, will tend to restore public confidence,
and all the State asks is fair and just YER
dict, founded on the law and evidence.
There is no prejudice, no interest, on the
part Of the State, except to present the
case to you; and it then devolves on you to
say if the Auditor be guilty or innocent.
lHe then read r. S. 81 That is the law.
The State has introduced to establish the
violation Of this law, the Injunction Of the
March II, ls74o sl3s,ooo Of warrants,
eDjoined by this court, were given
Geo. G. Benham; that they were issued in
the absence OF the Auditor; that they
remained In his clerks possession till Au.
gust. Mr.. Sholtz testified he had received
no instructions from the Auditor, and vet
he passed these vouchers. The first point
of the State is. why did he audit these un-
less the Auditor was in collusiou with par.
Ulo0 "AO WcIo couepATluE W OOtdlD tnlb
money from the treasury! Mr.. Sholtz had
no authority to perform this act; it was not
usual with him; the Auditor was away,
and in two hours he passed $l38 900 Of
vouchers. The warrants were not signed;
the Auditor returned; tho injunction was
delivered to him. and in Augustine in
junction still in torce-:he warrants were
signed. All this the State must prove by
going into the Auditors sfice. Why in
A Hho nd
anxiety for the opinion Of Assistant Attor-
ney General Dibble when the Attorney
General was absent? Why. was he 80 much
interested in che funding! I'll tell you why.
It was because Benham was in his debt,
and, therefore, it was his interest to have
these warrants funded; and for this, if
these obligations were funded, would he
receive, as his clerk testified, el2, 1000 in new
bonds given to George G. Ben.
ham, and by George G. Benham turned
over to Charles Clinton on this very day OF
August %, 1874. Now another
point. Mr.. Benham first instructs Sholtz to
issue certain amounts tn Lowell. Wands
and the rest, and to himself $34, 500. Where
did he get his authority to do thisl Who
rave HIM power of attorney to do it!
The defense hasn't shown any. Did
Charles Clinton have any authority
rom Devices or Wands or Lowell
~ give WArTAutS III tucI DAMcs "
Benham? Does not Charles w. Lowell
estify be never had any conversation with
he Auditor, never saw the receipt signed
Charles w. Lowell by George C. Benham
ill he saw it in court? There is the testi- /
nOny Of the warrant clerk. Mr.. Benham
l8d private accounts with the Auditor.
rhe clerk is intelligent, as you saw. yet Mr..
Sh0ltz could not trust him to make out q |
eceipt the day before the Injunction was
erved.
Mr.. MePhelin then reviewed the testi. |
nony of tho brokers oD the values Of the |
ouchers, showing they we're not worth |
1ore than fifteen cents. He also claimed |
hat the Testimony OF Judge Dibble and
fr. Sholtz did not tally. Would Mr.. /
holtz, if he did not have authority from |
be Auditor, dare to pass these voucberss
[e closed by saying the State desired only
,stice and right.
Mr.. Semmes said the defense would mako
o argument
Colonel Field then said he would close,
nd on Mr.. Semmes objecting, said he had
,e right to close the argument and insisted
q it.
Mr.. Semmes said there was no argument
} answer. It was trick on the part of
10 prosecution. The opening was not fair,
r it had not disclosed the case of the State.
here could be no close if tho defense made
o argument, for the State would have
,thing to reply to. /
Colonel Field said the defense might be
ght in saying the opening was not fair.
there was any trick it was by tho de-
nse, and he had been aware Of it. Sus-
,ctipg it, he was willing to say the open
2 was not fair, and would make one now.
Mr.. Semmes said it was only trick on
@ part of the prosecution; there was no
'ening. |,
Mr.. Voorhies said he had been prepared
lth notes of an argument; it would be
led out by the failure of the State to make
opening; the defense did not choose to
ply, and therefore the State could not
AXE another speech. I,
Colonel Field offered to make an opening,
rather follow up the opening of Mr.. ,
,Phelin, and. the defense answering, he
'uld reply. |,
Mr.. Semmes declined.
Judge Braughn said similar question
d arisen in capital case. He had wished :
avoid deciding it, and counsel had
ped it, Here, he would rule, the State
wing opened the case with an argument, =
wing announced the closing of the testi-
ny, and having made an argument after
It, it had had the opening and closing.
Q District Attorney had made the last Z
,ument Il