The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-01-09
JACOB HAWKINS.

| We understand that u committee now
has under investigation the conduct oil
Jacob Hawkins, who, for three years
has been running the judicial branch
of the Radical State Central COMMITTEES
It Is proper that we should direct the
attention of the committee TO the record
Of suit No. 25,O53 Of the docket Of the
Superior District Court.
This suit arose from tho now famous,
or perhaps we should rather say IN.
famous. act by which the Legislature
OF 1871 sought to change the constitu.
ton by adding twenty Ave hundred dol
lars to the salary Of each of the judges
OF the Supreme Court session acts No.
30, p. 80. Act No. ~ OF the same session
made an appropriation in accordance
Herewith. and net No. %, Of the session
OF 1872, did the same. The regular up.
preparation act Of 1873 (No. 56) made
provision for only the constitutional
salary; but little act OF four lines (No.
1881 was subsequently passed., or, ut
least, certified as having passed, making
an appropriation ito pay the additional
salary as allowed hy law to the Supreme
Judges Of the State" That act was
not approved by Mr.. Kellogg until De-
cember 9Th, 1879, audit is to be found in
the acts Of 1874, p.9 The appropriation
act of 1874 mo. 59) only made provision
for the constitutional salary, and no
supplementary enactment remedied this
defect. Section 1874 of the Revised
Statutes prohibits tho Treasurer from
paying any warrant, unless the money
to pay the same has been previously
appropriated by law; and section 1888
makes the violation Of this law misde-
meanor punishable by q fine OF not less
than $1,000 and Imprisonment at hard
labor for not less than five years. When
the Treasurer read these enaotments
he hesitated to pay the warrants Of the
Chief Justice for the excess above the
constitutional salary. twas then neces-
sary to resort to Jacob Hawkins to over
come scruples which he had neither the
intelligence nor the conscience to ap-
preciate. Then 1t was that Mr.. John
Ray filed, on behalf OF the Chief JUS
tice OF the State, q petition, In the suit
OF which we are speaking, for man.
damus to compel the Treasurer to CON-,
nit crime. The proceedings in the
court, as evidenced by the record, show
conclusively that they were merely
collusive attempt to shield tho Treas
urer from the penal consequences Of
the act. The case was tried on the
same day on which the petition was
filed, and the mandamus, of course,
was made peremptory. There is
the record. Examine, gentlemen Of
the committee, the papers on
file, the docket, and the min
utes Of the court. II any further
light be needed, 1t can be furnished by
Mr.. John Ray, Mr.. A. p. Field and Mr..
A. Dubuclet. Doubtless, too, the Chief
Justice, and the other judges OF the Su-
preme Court, would gladly seize the OPP
portunity Of explaining to you, and
through you to the people OF this
country, their connection with, a, trans
action which places them the highest
guardians OF public justice, sworn to
protect and defend the constitution
the disgraceful position Of having, for |
the miserable pittance Of twenty five
hundred dollars IN "rdg money" vio-
lated that oath. The policy Of ST.
lence, /" which they have hitherto pur-
sued in regard to this shameful affair,
Is not less destructive to their. own
character than It is to every public In