New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-20
communicated.
The Picayuue ON the Auditor.

Indeed, it is worthy of remark that the
original crushing array OF counts and
charges against the Auditor dwindied away
under the light of judicial scrutiny to the
single transaction of the $l35, 900, for
which Mr.. Clinton issued warrants by ad-
vice of the acting Attorney General, and
which warrants were atterward funded.
August %, 1874.
This is an extract from an editorial in the
Picayune of Sunday, the eighteenth instant
Coming from the source it dOes these com
rlents are exceedingly refreshing. What
other paper urged on the investigation into
the official affairs of NJ Clinton with
greater zeal than the Picayune, Who clam
ored more vigorously for the joint commit
tee report while the Legislature was in
session! No one. And when the report was
first made public, it was considered too
tame. 1t scarcely elected comment from
that former advocate OF those taxpaying
citizens
The excuse for this remarkable CONVEX
sion the Pic would have its readers believe
il the fact that the thrty-three hundred dol
lar report completely annihilated the legisla
tive committee. Now, will that. aged ior-.
nal point ont one item set forth in the joint
committee report that has dwindled away
under the light of judicial scratiny. or has
been defaoed one iota by the report of the
executive experts7 A liberal reward is Of
!. fered for such an item.
Further on the Pic saye:
No one can compare the bristfing report
OF the Herwig legislative committee with
the present scope and proportions of the
criminal prosecution growing out Of that
report, without recognizing the almost ride
ulous disparity existing between the two.
What does the PIC mean by the "brist-
ling report" II would make its readers
believe this report was very savage in tone
and formidable in charges. But what will
the reader say when told that the word
charge does not appear in the whole report
except in one place. and then it is used
negatively.
The committee stated facts. and these
facts are supported by sufficient evidence.
It was the Attorney General who made the
charges. Neither did the Herwig commit
tee draw differences. It was the executive
corps Of experts who drew inferences. The
HerN < committee presented what 10 had
discovered, and the executive experts drew
differences from these discoveries. They
refuted NO fact set forth by che Herwig
committee. Neither can they. There may
be some apparent discrepancy in figures.
These can be easily xeconci'ed, for they
were taken from different documents and
at different datee. These discrepancies are
non-essential TO the question Of Clinton's
guilt or innocence. Yet if the PIC or any.
body else desires to press the question of
accuracy the writer is ready, willing and
able to support the trutbfulness OF the Her.
wig committee report.
There is certainly one feature in the Pic
ay,,ne's advocacy of Mr.. Clinton, to use its
own words, worthy Of remark" The Pic
alleges that somebody attempted to rob the
State, but did not succeed. This unknown
party then should be indicted, tried, con-
victed and sent to the Peaitontiary. But
"A the party is unknown to the Pic it sug-
gests that the Governor cali upon the At
torney General to i1dict some member of
the Herwig committee a. substitute for
the unknown. Who says this is not good
logic! 1t is the easiest thing in the world
to prove that a cat has three tells, but the
trouble is to get sensible people to believe
II j. N. WEYMOUTH.