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

Va u W. -AIlStIOuR Al W. - uCllOu, anu utsO
no existence in act. (See exhibit c.
And, further. this warrant was drawn for
supposed expenses of the House against the
funds appropriated for the use of the Senate,
and drawn, too. after the unexpended balance
of the appropriation had apsed, rs provided
in Act No. IA of 1872. page 70. That che
Auditor has drawn warrants on the Treasurer
not authorized by law has been shown. That
he has misappropriated funds is fully illus
trated by exhibit 1.
Section 1874 OF the Revised Statutes read az
follows: "No warrant shall be drawn by the
Auditor, nor paid by the Treasurer unless
the money to pay the same has been previ-
ously appropriated by law" and section 19t;
reads thus: "Should the Auditor knowingly
issue any warrant upon the Treasurer not au-
thorized by law, or should he wilfully neg
lect or refuse to perform any duty enjoined
by law, or be guilty of any oppression or
extortion, or receive any fee or reward for
tho performance Of any duty net allowed
by law, or should he by color Of his office.
knowingly do any act not authorized or in
any other manner than is required by law, or
illegally use or misapply any money belong
ing to the State, he shall be deemed guilty of
misdemeanor in office, and upon conviction
be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned
not more than five years, and be dismissed
from Office"
Exhibit X is the testimony Of T. F. Monroe,
who was clerk of the committee appointed at
the session of 1874 to examine the Auditors
books, etc. The committee made no report,
but the clerk testines to the fact that
the tax collectors paid to the Auditor ON
account of taxes and licenses for 1873. $780,
7S6 IS more than the Auditor accounted for
in his annual report for that year..
He also tes.ifss to the fact that the Auditor
retained money in his possession ninety days
before paying it into the treasury.
Exhibit L is the testimony of L. Guichard.
who also figures large discrepancy between
sums paid by collectors and receipts reported
by the Auditor.
Exhibit F is statement of Theodore Lip.
shutz. He shows that the Auditor paid
eighteen clerks of committees OF the House
more than the law allows.
He also shows that the difference between
the accounts Of the House Committee on Con-
tingent Expenses and the Auditors warrants
for same expenditure is 5000 76.
Exhibit S is the testimony Of G. G. Dumas.
It relates to suit No. 26,226, Superior District
Court, entitled A. P. Damas ct al. vs.. Charles
Clinton, by which certain assessments were
reduced ST. 500. 600. This is suit in which
Mr.. Clinton was a party, and yet his books
show no record of the proceedings had.
. Your committee has been engaged recently
in examining into the management of the
school fund, aud as = specimen of the con-
fusion therein displayed, you are referred to
exhibit U for q specimen of the bookkeep-
ing in vogue in the Department of Accounts
in the State of Louisiana.
The discrepancies shown to exist between
the receipts into the treasury as reported by
the Auditor are truly remarkable. aud as tho
Treasurer can not receive money into the
treasury except upon the order Of the Audi
tor. How does it happen that he received
$7139 Is more than the Auditor reports?
This can only be accounted for upon the n.y.
pOthesis that the funds are misplaced by
design.
The discrepancies are not, nor can they be,
classed as simple errors.
The fact is. the funds are Incorporated,
and then subsequently an effort is made to
adjust the fraud.
The law provides for the transfer annually
from the general fund to the free school fund
of a certain sum ofmoney.
1t also provides that the interest on certain
bonds, or its equivalent, shall be applied to
school purposes.
Sections PIG and PIT of the Revised Statutes
read as follows:
1.-THE interest ON the United States deposit
fund shall be appropriated to the annual sup
port of the public schools, as provided by the
Constitution, and it shall be the duty Of the
Auditor and Treasurer, annually, to transfer
from the general fund of the treasury, to tho
current school fund, the sum of $2S, 795 IA,
tho amount of said interest"
The next section reads thus:
1.-THE interest on all the bonds which are
now, or may hereafter be held, or belonging
to the free school fund, which may remain
in the treasury, after the payment of interest
sections to the various townships, rs provided
by law, shall be annually appropriated to the
supporter public schools.
These plain provisions of law have been
disregarded.
The Auditor has q bad habit of diverting
funds. He orders the Treasurer to distribute
money on an arbitrary principle Of his own,
and to suit his own notions and ends, and
this is done without authority of law. (See
exhibit L.
As q sample of the Auditors mode of dis
tributing the different funds we will examine
briefly the figures of his report of 1873. The
total aggregate of taxes collected under the
assessment, deducting all collections from
miscellaneous sources, is So, $50, 1913 95. The
| rate of assessment: General fund, four mills;
interest tax, nine mills; current school fund,
two mills; special levee tax, two and one-half
mills; levee construction tax, two mills; levee
repair tax, two mills.
Mr.. Clinton distributes the gross amount
| COll0CtcU 8S lUllOWb.
To the general fund ...:... 1881, $40 Al
Pro rata actually due. .............. GO),9G7 ~
General fund gained. ............... s23O,G43 -
| To the current school fund he dis
tributes s253,3 43
Pro rata due current school fund . 800, 4s3 I'd
Loss to current school fund . s47,172 II
To the interest tax fund he dis
|
Pro rata due interest fund 1852, 176 ~
Loss to interest fund .............. SIG, 1863 u
| To the levee construction fund he
distributes. ..................: " ,, 1913 70
Pro rata due levee construction fund 800, 4S3 gu
Loss to levee construction fund. s4A,634 81
10 the levee repair fund he dis
tributes, ........ s255, 1893 &c
Pro rata due levee repair fund. ... 300, 4s3 GO
s44, 634 "a