New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-06-30
sUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT.
Auditor Clinton fin Trlni.

| - N"o eAttoIucv Ooneral 10 the AUuIIoE "
produce vouchers for all the warrants
Issued, the stub books and books of entry.
| sald. anything the State chose to call for at
any stage OF the proceedings would be pro-
| duced at any time. A subpoena aaces
| 'ec"n. was alse issued to the Funding Board.
little more sharp sparring followed with
ONT any one getting very much excited.
Judge Cotton opened the case with the
I long petition setting forth that the amounts
mad been issued on warrants 20 James
| Longstree'. George c. Benham J. &.
"ands, E. W. Devices, C. W. Lowell, James
3. Matthews. J. H. Ogiesby and J. w. Arm
strong 4 Co. Mr.. Rice read the answers of
| defendant and his bondsmen alleging legal
! grounds for the issuing of the warrants.
| The defense admitted the correctness of the
bond sued ON as set forth in the petition.
Attorney General Field called for the
vouchers foc the issuance Of the $i3s. 900 of
| warrants, and calling Colonel c. w. Lowell!
| to the stand, selected from the envelope
bearing his name what appeared on its face
to he receipt from him, per George C..
Benhar,. for $li.2:s. presented i. to :he
witness.
Mr.. Lowell testified that he was and had
been member Of the Legislature: N March.
1874, was sick abed in New Orleans. and
had never seen the paper before.
The Attorney Genera! desired to iave i.
filed, marked A, as a receipt.
Mr.. Semmes objected. The defense had
mn - fnr
neither that nor voucher.
Attorney General Field asked what j: was
produced for.
Mr.. Semmes said: As a memorandum OF
the contents of the envelope from which 1t
was taken. Each envelope. according to
custom Of the office. contains Memoran-
dun of this character of its contents. made
out by the same hand. and though it pur-
ports to De receipt. is no: SO. is not claimed
to be. nor produced as such. But only as a
memorandum. The defense did no. propose
to be put in the attitude Of offering in
evidence document of character which
did not belong to !: nor claimed to belong
to it.
Colonel Field said this showed that the
defense intended to rule out all his ev;-
dence. He had called for vouchers on which
the warrants had been issued; not for mem.
oranda. He read the paper. and asked if it
was not a voucher and receipt. 1t was
not copy and must be an original. If the
evidence called tor was not to be produced
the State might as we'll abandon the case.
Mr.. Semmes argued that it was not proper
for the State to separate the documents
called for, and use one as a voucher when
it was mere private memorandum. It was
not claimed by the defense that the paper
was anything at all. 1t was like the en-
velope, designed for the safety of the con.
tents. convenience. and to prevent com
mingling. The defense could not be forced
to adopt as evidence what it did not claim
to be true.
Judge Hawkins said the documen: might
90 in for what it was worth. It amounted
to nothing and was yalueless to establish
the fact OF the petition. The State could
not make out its case that way. It must
prove its demand IN the same way as would
be required in a suit between 4 and B. and
not seek to convict by confessions. The
State could introduce any papers it chose.
and the court would consider its effect.
Mr.. Lowell further testified that he knew
nothing Of the warrant OF $l4..38 until
August. 1871, when it was presented to the
Funding Board by Mr.. Benham. He knew
nothing of il. except that Benhan had
bought the vouchers and the warrants we're
issued to the persons to whom they were
to belong. The money had been
borrowed from the Louisiana National
Bank. As this was all told to the witness
by Mr.. Benham. it was ruled out. Witness
had never had anything to do with the war
rant. never had called on or had any bust.
ness with the Auditor about it.
Cross examined by M. Semmes, the
vouchers in the envelo4r being presented
to him.-These are Hpislative warrants
signed by Speaker df.rter. Chief Clerk
Vigers. Chairman Yorcce and Warrant Clerk
Pinckney Smith: TIM seem genuine: are
not familir with all ting signatures.
Mr.. Semmes otfersli them in evidence.
Colonel Field obi aed that they were not
admissible and TI;erred to the Auditors
report and the GTnirnor's proclamation in
1877. calling on persons to present all
evidence of ndeH odness of the State to the
Auditor to repoyn upon. The Auditor re.
ported in lS73ile37 900 valid and between
s 1000 and $5Ofsc invalid. At that session
the Legislatur{ ur{a,appropriated $4,000 for
such claims at,e everybody supposed the
State had do&n with them and the debt
was extingui4 3D. Yet in 1874, in the
second sectio5. of the appropriation bill,
after exhaustiny all the revenue of the
State, the Lef lature appropriated for the
warrants OUT landing uf 1870, 1871, 1872.
$50 much as d Y be necessary" This was
a fraud and q ,ry body knew it. The sec
ton was emil led in suit No. 1863 and the
Auditor prob lSinted from issuing any war
rants on it, 1t oe Supreme Court perpetu.
ated the il ption and declared the sec
ton unconi ltional 1t was not com.
peten. now he defense to avail itself OF
these docums. ary frauds. Here was
$l4 900 issued u "a man who had never seen
the warrant 4 71s was strange defense.
Mr.. Voorhies said it was stranger on the
part of the StIss3 to attempt to separate
documents, to 9s,l one receipt that was
only a memorial Eaum. and refuse to admit
the remainder. The State must take all it
calls for.
Judge Hawkins said the court understood
the question. The State might introduce
any portion of the document it chose. 1t