The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-04-21

for $3.50, 1S5. then it would appear that the
collector has overpaid his account 500, 1853,
instead of $50, 35S SO, as stated
or course, neither of these statements are
correct. This memorandum is made to show
how imperfertly the accounts are kept.
The foregoing refers especially to errors in
accounts. There is nothing Of q fraudulent
character charged against the Auditor, unless
gross errors and Irregularities may be so con-
strued The diverting Of funds is an unlaw-
full act, but it may bs going too far to charac-
terize such acts as fraudulent.
We now proceed to report some facts which
have less OF the appearance OF mere errors Of
calculation.
The law nowhere contemplates that the Au-
ditor shall be the custodian Of the funds of
the State.
1t does not authorize him to receive nor to
disborse any moneys belonging to the State.
Yet we find that the Auditor did. in 1873, re-
gardless of the law, intercept large sums on
their way from the hands of the tax col,ec-
tors to the hands of the Treasurer, the legal
custodian of all the money belonging to the
State. His pretext for doing SO was that he
might have the means to buy up the depre-
ciatel outstanding warrants of the State at
market value, and thus save the discount
the reon for the State. We have found no au-
thority Of law to authorize such an assump-
ton Of power, and we have failed to find the
proof that the State received the benefit OF
the trans action.
By reference to exhibit B it will be seen
that the Auditor did receive from the several
tax collectors at various times during the year
1873 taxes amounting to S77,6l IS. which
he had not paid into the treasury on the Goth
of March, 1874 NOR any part thereof, and up
to the present date there is no evidence that
any more than 49,, 227 63 of said sum has
found its way into the treasury. We are COM
PEELED to infer that the Auditor still retains
S45, 1872 IS of said amount, which in the first
instance he received in violation of the law
and now holds in fraud of the State.
By Act No. 50 Of 1874, ON page LOG, the
Legislature appropriates the necessary
amount" to pay the Legislative vouchers.
warrants and checks issued by the General
Assembly during the years 1870, 1871 and
1872, which have been approved by any COM
| mittee of the Senate or House of Representa-
tives appointed or directed to examine said
outstanding warrants, vouchers or checks.
Under this clause the Auditor issued war
rants to the amount of S138, 557 80, notwith-
standing the fact that this clause of the act
was considered to be unconstitutional and
| void under article 1O4 of the Constitution,
and notwithstanding the fact that the issu-
ance of warrants under this provision of the
notified thereof before they were issued.
(See exhibits G and O.
Certain circumstances attending this trans
action would serve to stamp the character of
the act with fraud.
His Excellency, the Governor. early in the
year 1873 advertised in the official journal
and in other daily papers notice calling upon
all FOLDERS of Legislative vouchers of 1870,
1871 and 1872, to present the same to the
Auditor for examination and approval, if
found correct, and he stated in this adver-
tisement that he would sign no bill appropri.
ating money for the payment of same, unless
the vouchers had first been examined and up.
proved by the Auditor.
In response to this public notice there was
presented to the Auditor during the year
1873, for his approval, in amount S41,9N SO;
of this sum the Auditor approved $37, SOP so,
and disapproved $398S. (See Auditors re.
port, page 81.
It is we'll known that many fraudulent
vouchers had been issued of the character
here referred to, hence the notice given by
the Governor to holders of Legitimate vouchers
| to prove up their claims before the meeting
of the General Assembly in 1874
1t appears that only $37, SOP so of Legitimate
vouchers could be found outstanding after
advertising for more than six months in the
public journals for holders to present them
for approval. Yet the very day the general
presented to tho Auditor $138, 557 80 of these
vouchers, which had not been before pre-
scented, and warrants were promptly issued
for them.
Another remarkable circumstance in con.
nection with this affair must not be lost sight
Of 1t is q notorious fact that the Auditor re
fused to warrant for vouchers he had ap
proved, and to avoid holders who were ready
to demand warrants he kept out of the way
until an injunction could be prepared and
served, prohibiting him from warra nting fo
them. Notwithstanding his manifest reluc
lance to warrant for claims which he had ap
proved, he readily warranted for $13S, 557 70
which he had not previously approved. These
warrants, issued, as they were, in violation OF
the Constitution, and in contempt of the or.
der of court restraining their issuance, wer
subsequently funded, at the instance of tn,
Auditor, by the Funding Board, of which thu
Auditor is, and was then, q member. (Se
exhibit c.
Section 3 of Act No. 3. of 1874, reads thus
| "That if any member of said Board O
Liquidation should knowingly audit and fun.
any illegal claim against the State, he shall b
deemed guilty of misdemeanOr, and shall
on conviction, be fined not less than fiv
thousand dollars, at the discretion of tn
court, and any person knowingly procuring
the same to be done, shall be subject to tn
same penalty"
1t will be seen by exhibit D, from copies o
letters attached to the testimony Of Mr.. Gin
ton, that the warrants, although dated Marcl
II, 1874, were not delivered till after Angus
! q, 1874, and by reference to exhibit G, whicl
is the testimony of the secretary of the Fund
ing Board, that Mr.. Clinton had not signe,
|: these warrants at the time he proposed t
fund them, which was nearly six month
after they were dated. Also. by reference t
exhibit E, which is the testimony of MI
} Mooney, who was warrant clerk in tn
Auditors Office, and whose duty it was
draw all warrants, that the writing in the stu
of the warrant book is not in his handwriting
7 Another suspicious circumstance connecte
with the issue of these warrants is the fac
that they are all dated the same date, an
| numbered respectively 1858, 1904. 2345, 1885,
I041l and C444-siY in all