The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-07-11
THE BOOKS OF AUDITOR
CLINTON.
Report Of the Experts.
Inaccuracies, but Nothing Grim
inal.

inal.
The Committee of Experts appointed tc
examine the books of the Auditor, composed
Of Messrs. L. II. Gardner, John Phelps and
P. J. Cockburn, have submitted their report
The committee starts off as follows:
NEW ORLEANS, July Z, 1875
To bis Excellency, William P. Kellogg Governor Of
In pursuance of your instructions directing the
examination of the books and accounts Of the
Auditor OF the State, we beg to report having
taken up as our more specially described duty,
the examination OF the charges set forth in the
report made by the Joint Committee of the Gen
eral Assembly, Hon. E. F. Herwig, Chairman,
dated March 3, 1875.
AS was the case with that committee, our atten-
ton was arrested Immediately upon entering
upon the discharge of our duty, by the imperfect
kept.
Neatness, order, and accuracy are not by any
means their prominent characteristics.
The ordinary tests OF ascer tanning their cor
rectness are, to a large extent lowing to prac-
ticed system Of record rather than Of bookkeep-
ing), inapplicable in an examination.
The fact that this system has been used by the
predecessors of the present Auditor does not
give II character, ana among tn9
REFORMS NEEDED
may now be recorded, that of system of keep
ing the accounts of the State such as will pi E.
vent the occurrence or facilitate the ready detec
ton of such abundant errors and discrepancies
IS are now justly complained Of.
The Joint committee, in their report, make
allusion to the fact that
CLERK HIRE
alone in the Auditors office costs the State $25-
900 per annum. If the accounts were properly
it would be remarkably small expenditure for q
clerical force III charge OF the books and &C
counts of the State.
We are Of opinion that the State will find it
more economical to pay double the amount,
inaugurate q system of book keeping, and let the
employees Of the office be selected with more Of
view to their capacity and integrity than for their
political procivities.
Before leaving the subject, we would strongly
urge upon your Excellency the propriety Of and
the necessity for your Immediately appointing
one or two practc Il business men who are ac-
countants, charged with the duty OF inaug uratng
system of bookkeeping in the Office of the
Auditor and Treasurer at once, inclusive of such
checks against fraud and error as any intelligent
banker or merchant would adopt in his private
business
As in their judgment may be most practicable,
your appointees should revise and re-write the
books from January /, 1875, or begin by transfer
from present books on July l, 1875.
can not be remedied otherwise, and is rather
perpetuated. Short Of this no full, detailed and
absolutely correct statement OF the accounts OF
the state can possibly be made.
Presuming that tedious recapitulation Of err
rors found is not what is expected OF US, we do
not give it, merely remarking that We find in
none of them just ground for our impeaching
the integrity Of the Auditor. His accounts may
be, they are confused, aud exhibit very many
clerical errors /; and he has assumed an author
nv in with which % To- W doaa
not clothe him. but we find nothing in his
records or in his written unwritten transactions
(as far as the latter have come to our knowledge)
which di=honorably reflect upon him. We now
speak more specially OF errors, and the manner
Of keeping his books; Of special charges we
hereinafter give special report.
The report then reviews the report of the
special legislative committee, taking up the
charges as preferred in the report, reciting
the transactions that led to them, and in each
and every instance sustaining the Auditor.
Referring to the Pinckney Smith warrants,
the committee say
WARRANTS ILLEGALLY ISSUED.
The facts connected with the issue Of the lot Of
warrants, sl3S557 SO, are briefly as follows:
Act SO Of 1874 provides for certain legislative
vouchers. This act was promulgated March IS,
1874. An injunction issued against certain pro-
visions thereof, which injunction was served on
the Auditor on March 10, 1874. Prior to the SER
vice of the injunction upon the Auditor, certain
vouchers provided for in the act named were pre-
scented to the Auditors chief clerk, (Mr. f. N.
Scholtz), who himself, and not the warrant
clerk examined them, cancelled them, and filed
up warrants for them without consulting the
Auditor.
Upon the warrants being presented to the
latter for signature it was refused and the chief
clerk was censured. These warrants remained
unsigned for some five months or more, and
advice of the acting Attorney General Of the
State.
These warrants were subsequently funded at a
meeting of the Board of Liquidation, held August
20, 1874. The minutes Of the board show that
the warrants were presented, or taat the ques-
ton of funding them was discussed on August
2Sth, but that no final action was taken on that
day. although other business was transacted.
The board merely voted "to fund the Sanford
the next day at 10 o'clock" On the
twenty ninth they did meet and transacted no
other business than the funding of the warrants
in question. There we're present at these meet
ings, the Treasurer, Auditor, Secretary Of State,
and Speaker of the House. Absent: the Gov
ernor, Lieutenant Governor and Fiscal Agent.
The warrants were all presented by Sanford
and we're:
No. 2259-G. c. Benham. .......... 1874 500 90
No. 2304-J. b. Wands ................ IA 372 w
No. 2345 w. Devices. ............. 27,50O 90
No. 2586-O. W. Lowell. 14,27S 90
No. 2414-J. s. Matthews. -............ 1850 90
No. 2i44-J. Fl. Oglesby. .............. SO, 407 SO
$1sS, 557 SO
Examination of the stub warrant book in the
Auditors Office shows the mum bering and dating
Of this issue to have been irregular. Warrant
1859 and all the others named above are dated