New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-18
TRIAL OF AUDITOR CLINTON
SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURT
Fourth Day.

Fourth Day.
Shortly after ten o'clock the parties, wit.
nesses and counsel began to appear. Ora
tuitOus spectators were few. At half.past
ten O'Clock the jury appeared and answered
the roll.
The Attorney General read Mr. Deslonde's
papers filed on the third day. referring to an
opinion of the Assistant Attorney General
on the validity of Mexican Gulf and Ship
Canal bonds, promise Of an opinion on the
funding OF warrants, and letter relative to
North Louisiana and Texas railroad bonds
These being filed, the case for the State was
closed
Mr.. Semmes first called upon ). Pinckney
Smith for the defense.
Mr.. Smith testified he was unfortunate
enough to yield to solicitations to be the
warrant clerk OF the Legislature; was such
IN 1870 and 1872; there is q great deal of DIFF
ference between what is known as Pinck.
aey Smith warrant and Pinckney Smith
voucher; warrants are drawn on the Au-
ditor; contingent expense vouchers are from
the co mmittee; the warrant is signed by the
Speaker Of the House or President of the
Senate, Clerk Of the House or Secretary of
the Senate, chairman Of the Contingent Ex-
pense Committee and warrant clerk; the
voucher 10 drawn on the warrant clerk like
2 check on tho bank; the warrant is drawn
on tho Treasurer; refused to check for J.
Willis Menard's vouchers, though Gov
ernog WsrmOth insisted on il; the d0cu
ments IN this case are legislative warrants;
they, and all bearing my signature, not
forged OF raised, are legitimate warrants
issued according to law; they were drawn
BY Order Of the Committee on Contingent
Expenses, and the funds were applied to
the payment Of mileage and per diem;
neves saw them till Friday last, when Mr..
Rice and self examined tho stub book and
found them properly credited. Mr.. Semmes
showed the jury voucher drawn on Pinck-
aey Smith and a warrant signed by him
Cross examination by Colonel Field
Gave d. w. G. Brown q warrant for
vouchers he purchased; drew all warrants
on vouchers Of. committees; drew $4,000
in 1871; was under the instruction of the
committee As q constitutional officer; the
warrants Of this case were worth sixty
cents; borrowed money from Louisiana Ma
tional Bank at thirty-three cents; they were
legitimate claims and 60 preferred to bor-
tow rather than sell; only spurious war
rants were raised ones on which insisted
ON prosecution; don't know how many war
rants are in circulatiop; these warrants are
Just as valid as any other Pinckney Smith
warrants; they are valid claims against the
State. y
Mr.. Smiths examination was very
lengthy, but both on the direct and cross
Questions his answers we're for the purpose
of justifying himself, and had little to do
with the case.
Mr.. Sholtz was recalled, and confirmed
his testimony of making out one receipt
March IL tor the warrant clerk to follow;
Mr.. Clinton was displeased because the |
vouchers had been Cancelled; he didn't find |
fault with anybody; he gave no instruc-
tions before he left; he went away before |
the vouchers were presented; don't know |
whether Mr.. Benham is man OF means or |
not.
To Colonel Field-Wrote one receipt out |
of six; there was no particular necessity Of |
it; often do it.
Mr.. William Viger, sw0rn-Was Clerk /
of the House of Representatives from the
time of reconstruction to the time Of COM
promise; have presented vouchers; have
seen these (those fled); che signatures ap-
pear genuine.
The cross examination was slight, as Mr..
vigers was speaking of committee books,
and obi ection was made.
Hon. H. c. Dibble sworn-The letter Tread
By Mr.. Semmes advising the signing OF the
is mine; was to act while AttOr-
ney General Field was absent; he sent for
ne and informed me he would be absent; l
was to attend to civil matters, Judge Cot
,on to criminal matters; do not remember
my special instructions; went before the
unding board several times after Colonel
Fields depar ture; once was asked to act
Nay %; to consult with committee, com.
posed of Lowell, Dubuclet and Clinton;
,nly drew bond of fiscal agent at that time;
he first advice given was after Colonel
Field left in answer to q letter; under tho
unding law all warrants anterior to Jan
,ary l, 1874, could be funded if the debt
'xisted, though the warrant was born after
vards; was present at the meeting OF the
unding board, and understood the ques.
ion was on the legality of signing; do not
emember that the validity of the vouchers
vas discussed; understood they were of tho
'irckney Smith variety; believed them valid
hen and do now.
To Colonel Field-Had not examined the
only generally; there is distinc-
ion between legislative warrants and
ouchers; passed on the question when pre-
idlng in Eighth District Court; opinion
7ss based on the third section of the fund .
,g act; not particularly the letter but the
pirit of the act; any other construction
'ould render the law absurd; all warrants
ppear excluded, those Of constitutional
f6cers must be admitted; if validity is
wen to the constitutional amendments and
10 law of the funding board
Mr.. Semmes interrupted. The opinion Of
,dge Dibble or any other lawyer was 4
orth nothing in the case. -
Judge Braughn-The objection is good. =, -
Judge Dibble continuin 6 said that any .
her opinion than that he had given :"
ould have injured the credit of the State;
D not remember that Colonel Field had IL
structed him not to disturb the injunc- W
N, but had acted precisely as If he had
o.-4 - . Co.. <r;u;o1 coaoa whpn th0 OF