New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-02

called in question, and if violation of dut!
IN one case was shown, it could be inferred
in others. The extraordinary fact was tha
tax collectors could hot reach the treasury
till they had complied With illegal condi
tions.
Mr.. semmes vas about to reply, bu,
Judge Hawkins said it was unnecessary.
The court said the time was being wasted.
Tho court Of last resort would settle the
pleadings. In the Nineteenth Annual the
subject was thoroughly discussed and do.
cided that the better practice was not to
demuf to or move TO strike out, but to ob.
lect to the introduction Of testimony on IT,
regular allegations This il an action on
the caase of debt. This court has no penal
or criminal jurisdiction; its only power 10 to
sender money judgment for damages done
IN the defendants official capacity. The
tax collectors are responsible on their bonds
and there il nothing TO absolve them except
payment Of collections 20 the State Treas.
urer. II the Auditor takes money in an un-
to render penal judgment, it vauld make
the court both prosecutor and executioner,
and the damage Of violation Of Law and in.
jury to tho judicial structure would be
tive times what 10 charged the Auditor has
misappropriated.
The Attorney General stated he was
somewhat at fault as to tho meaning Of the
court, and much irregular discussion fol-
lowed % to the difference between . penal
bond and civil bond With penalty. The
testimony was excluded, and the Attorney
General accepted, stating the defense had
better move 60 strike out the whole petition.
Mr. Semmes ten objected 20 the rec+p-
fion Of testimony on the allegations that
the snm Of $47 900 due The current school
fund, S269, 969 from the interest to the gen
eral fund, and $l6,741 sc from the school
fund to the State assessors.
Mr. semmes said that sll these alleea.
sions OF violations Of duty are merely pun
lshable in the criminal courts, if At all. and
the State has not suffered. Tho State has
received all Of its money, and 10 is not al.
legged that ono cent of tho money of the State
went into his pocket. in no instance does
The Auditor receive money. 1t he collu.
lively settles an account, and the State
oses. he is liable on his bond. If he illegally
ssues warrant, and tho State pays it, he
. liable. 1t he does an unlawful act BY
which the State loses nothing, he can be
punished criminslly, but the State can not
'ue him civilly when she has lost nothing;
'he can not sue for nero act Of lswless
less.
Mr.. Marf considered an officer was liable
"a mis- bond for his unlawful acts. The allie
cations are that Mr. Clinton did not per.
orm his duties as Auditor, receiving the
money. s25.00O. from tax collections and
it from the treasury unlawfully
vas an unlawful act on which the Auditor
vas responsible On his bond. The State
offers were not 50 pletheric that it could sut-
or this loss for year without damage. 1t re-
luced the value Of the State securities AMI
made the State OF Louisiana . by.word and
eproach throughout tho world. 1t pro-
uced a damage moro universal than the
mere loss by the detentieu, but the eacriice
f credit. The loss of the use Of money 10
damage - we'll 40 that of tho money
tself. No one can estimate the amount of
oss; it can not be told what damage the
tate has suffered. The order Of the things
, proving the bond, breach of it, and
hen the damages resulting. The bond is in
ho nature Of liquidated damages. The
tate is going regularly about tho work if
flowed.
Mr.. MARI read the petition, alleging an
legal distribution Of tho school and other
unds, and argued it was q derelicticn Of |
uty and damage to tho State. They are
unds set apart sacredly for specific pur-
oses, and the honor and credit of the State
equired they should be SO applied to avoid |
amage and dishouor in the markets of the |
7orld. 1t is admissible to prove breach |
+ duty and damage in solido 70 the ex-
ent Of tho bond. These funds suffered .
iminutiOn Of assets, and an action of this |
ind must not be confounded with crimi- |
al action fer $1,000 fine and five years i'm |
risoEment. The court 10 bound to hear |
roof under the petition Of allegation of !
reach of duty. 1t doesn'. lie in the mouth
an official 70 say no damage has been
roved when he has violated the Law and !
is duty. and he would now, once and for |
Il, enter his solemn protest against any |
ublic official to violate his duty to the |
tate and public and como into court and
ID defiance tor the outrage, and wrong,
nd damage to the interest Of the people by |
atering the plea that the State had sui-
red ne special damage. IL was dsmnable
principle and false in law.
Judge Hawkins said tho Testimony must
3 confined to the m aterial allegations of
amage suffered. The testimony was ruled
1t, and the Attorney General excepted.
Tho court here took recess, and Colonel
ield suggested to Mr.. Semmes that he had
'tter move TO strike out the whole peti-
on. Mr.. Semmes said no, the rest of it
as good, so far a. the allegations were
A. the State knew now exactly
at the testimony was 10 be confined to, !
o case would be got through With the
xt day.
Mr.. Sholtz's testimony continued-Knev
the Lohgstreet warrants.
Mr.. Semmes admitted the issue, pleaded
0 judgment Of the court ordering it. and
oved tho exclusion OF testimony. az it
,uld waste time.
Colonel Field objected to the exclusion.
10 warrants were unauthorized by law,
d there was no appropriation for them.
Judge Hawkins said General Longstreet
d nothing to do With the case. Tho wit