New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-07-16
advocated the funding of the sl3s,OO0 OF

1 "o0 OlueIenG one Gnan A0 expected Inat
it was whether Auditor Clinton made the
motion 20 fund. Colonel Field should not
ask the witness that unless he showed him
l the testimony.
Judge Braughn remarked the witness
said he could answer the question. and
suggested he be allowed to do il.
! Mr.. Drury then said all advocated ;t:
! there were four present, and all voted fOc
| it; can not say what meetings were caused
| by notice; the record should show: if a
| special meeting was called notice was sent
| to every member: if the meeting was an
adjourned cne no notice to any one was
sent: can not swear whether the meeting of
August "a was an adjourned or special
| meeting; if the latter notice was sent to
| all: there is no necessity OF notice on an
| adjourned meeting; one member could call
. meeting then, and il being q special
| meeting notice was sent.
Judge Braughn-The question 10 whether
| this was special meeting OF not, and the
| witness says he can't tell except by the
| record. If it was special meeting he
sent notice: if An adjourned meeting ne
did not.
Mr.. Drury-The date Of the twenty eighth
of August for Saturday is = clerical error;
| it should be the twenty-ninthi there was
nothing before tho board then but the ap-
plication Of Sanford: on that application
the board resolved to fund; there were 10
warrants there that saw; I should like to
explain this; the Assistant Attorney Gen
eral-
Judge Braughn assented, but Attorney
General Field objected, saying he did not
want hearsay. The State did no: want any
explanation.
Mr.. Ssmmes-f do.
Judge Braughn-The witness Was asked,
was there anything else before the board
except the application of Sanford He has
answered categorically. no. He has now
the right to explain.
Colonel Field must except to the rul.
ing. The witness will go on to tell what
tho Assistant Attorney General said; that
the matter was discussed; that he was sent
for, etc.
Mr.. Drury explained. The suu9ec of
these warrants were discussed at two meet.
ing. At the first Mr.. Clinton explained that
the vouchers had been passed and audited,
and the warrants made out but not signed
previous to the Injunction; that he had been
absent at the time
Colonel Field-1s is not proper for the
witness to tell the whole transaction Of the
Auditor.
Mr.. Semmes-The question 10 the explana-
ton of the witness to his answer, that there
was nothing before the board except the
application Of Mr.. Sanford; it is proper as
an explanation; part Of the res geste. The
Attorney General has read the penal clause
of the funding act. II that has any effect
in the case. this explanation goes to the very
foundation Of the case-the vital part. It
is proper to show that these gentlemen,
Lowell, Dubuclet and Deslonde, discussed
this question, and that they were governed
by the advice they received.
Colonel Field said his ingenious friend
had wandered from the question. There is
. distinction between the action OF the
funding of the warrants and the auditing
Of the vouchers, knowing they were not
valid claims. The funding board is not on
trial and can not come to the aid of the
Auditor with advice. Not even the fund
ing board nor any other officer, not the
Attorney General nor Assistant Attorney
General, nor double assistant attorney
general can protect him from a violation of
law. He can not invoke the opinion that
Lowell had and gave Clinton that the San
ford warrants were all good. It would be
a nice pretext for you to say that would
be legal justification of his act. The oh.
ject of the State is to show that the Auditor
not only violated the law in issuing the
warrants, but followed up this violation to
the funding board, and shared with the
recipients the proceeds, and that after
ward they were found in his possession.
That is the theory of the State. If you let
this >witness 60 on
General.
Mr.. Veorhies said tho defense did not OBJ
ject to the ruling of the court, but did TO
the palming of defense By the Attorney
General: which was no. intended to be
offered.
Judge Braughn said counse; on both sides
had wandered from the question. The wit
ness was going too far. The information
does not charge illegal funding. The charge
is simply issuing, and the evidence must be
confined to it. Evidence of funding was
allowed to show tho whole $l3s,000 in one
batch. IL is enough for the purposes of this |
ease to show the matter was discussed.
Mr.. Semmes said he had not objected, be
cause he had not chosen to, and because it |
seemed to him it was q legitimate right of |
the State. Now that Colonel Field had !
opened it, he wished the whole matter to be |
brought out.
Judge Brauehn-Let tho witness go Oh.
Colonel Field said he wished to seem con-
'istent; the warrants were not issued before
he Injunction.
Judge Brsughn-HeHe is Benham' receipt
0r March IL.
Colonel Field-That 10 not the fact The
'eceipt is go dated, but they were not
ssued till August 26, and it 10 60 alleged
n the information. There d no design ON
he part of the State to cut of any part of
he defense. But the State is satisfied with
he answer of the witness that there vas
lothing before the board except the sppli.
aticn of Sanford, and there is no reason
or an explanation to relieve the implica
ion.
Judge Braughn said the funding was a
ollateral question. and told the witness to
% on