New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-11-02

mocracy throws the entire RESPONSE
bility for such a monopoly upon
the men who sold it. This is very much
as if a man seduces the confidential clerk
of merchant to commit forgery, but
where the man gets away with large
sum. Democracy would acquit this re-
ceiver entirely, and pile all the blame
upon the clerk, who had been so weak or
dishonest as to sell his trust.
But we wish to inform our readers,
and we hope there may be Democrats
among them, of how certain New York
Democrats have plundered the State treas
ury. Upon what authority shall we affirm
this? Not upon that Of Republican pa
per- 1t would be denied by the Democ-
racy. We could not find anything more
than the report of facts in a Democratic
paper. We will, therefore, take from the
New York Tribune, an account of the Lord
swindle. The Tribune is neither Repub-
lican nor Democratic. 1t can, therefore,
expose Lord & Co. with immunity. Here
is the Iribune's version:
1t is interesting to hear again-as read
ers of the Tribune heard long ago-that q
committee of the cana board, consisting of
Messrs. Robinson, Raines, Pratt, Sweet
and jackson, four of whom are members of
the present board, awarded $il9 900 extra
compensation to George d. Lord on vOuch-
ers which they only partially examined.
This transaction, compared with the omis.
sion of duty for which Messrs. Beach and
Richmond have been 30 severely criticised,
was as Mount Washington to an ant hill.
No mandatory act ought to have compelled
these men to cOnsummate swindle SO
barefaced as this. Fay, the canal commits
sioner, in sympathy with the contractor,
estimated the excess due the contractor at
$53, 600; Behn, engineer, and partner in the
dredge, put 1t at $50, 900; George D. Lords
brother appears with pile of vouchers for
$ll9,2O 40. or double the estimate of
the officiale, and the board awards
that sum to a cent! Mr.. Lord found this
business so profitable that he seems to have
devoted himself to it. He obtained relief
awards on no less than seven of these con-
tracts. How far the amounts paid on any
of them represent the value received may
be inferred from the statement that Of
$l5l 900 paid on one, the contractor is en-
titled to but $50, OOO and of single sum of
$4,000 $65OOO was sheer fraud. Often
the thin formula Of compliance with the
law which this little fraternity of rogues
kept up was completely broken through, as
when Mr.. Fay used $4,000. to which he
had no more right than to the deposits of q
savings bank, to do do work which Z. b.
Van Dusen, the contractor should have
been compelled to do. Altogether il is q
tale to bring rage to the bosom of the tax
payer
There is wider range than this, how.
ever, to this almost incredible history. For
the first time we are given glimpse of the
extent of the dry rot which has made the
politics of our State a national scandal. Here
is State official connecting conspiracies to
defraud the State and sharing the proceeds
bleeding single contractor of SIS 900 in a
of the canal board, gaining advance pay
ment on huge award by two or three con-
versations with the Auditor and charging
$4,000 for the service. All this is enough to
reconcile the people to the prospect of a
general massacre of public men. in which.
doubtless, there will be innOcents to perish
with the guilty. But the effrontery of the
corruptionists has passed the stage OF pro-
clamations and flags of truce, There must
come now fire and the sword and the hon
combatauts must fill with the rest.
We have published this incredible fraud
for the purpose Of showing that in nulli-
flying the negro and his vote in Louisiana,
in order to commit our affairs to the
guidance of the Democracy of New York,
the Democracy of Louisiana will commit
great error.
No citizen, whatever his politics, will
hesitate to unite in our litany upon read
ing the Tribune exposure. From such
politicians and politics, good Lord de-
liver us.