The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-11

Bnuf and Crocodile Navigation Com.
pany. This report was handed in on
the last day OF the session. and In the
hurry OF the occasion the House neg
lected to order 1t to be printed, and 1t
has thus been excluded from the jour
nails. The document, however, is on
extremely interesting one to the tax
payers Of the State, and we have OBJ
tanned, and this morning print, certi-
fled copy OF it. The country drained by
the BGuf and Crocodile bayous is
quite extensive and may be classed
among the richest in Louisiana. It in
cludes many fine plantations and leg
islative appropriation for the improve
mem OF tho navigation Of the bayous
might have been expended to very great
advantage to the State. Under the
plausible pretext Of improving the navi-
cation Of these important streams, Re-
turning Board Anderson log-rolled a
bill through the Legislature in 1869, au-
thorizing the State to issue bonds to the
amount OF $4,000, payable in twen-
ty years and bearing interest at
the rate OF per cent per annum,
as u loan to the BGuf and Crocodile
Navigation Company. The testimony
taken by the committee shows that the
bonds were sold in New York for eighty
five cents on the dollar, less one-quarter
commission, by Mr.. Thos. G. Miller, OF
the firm Of Burbridge Il Co., netting In
cash, $67,s3o Mr.. Miller, in his state
ment, which we publish with the report,
declares that he placed the proceeds of
the bonds to the private account Of
Thos. @. Anderson, and that Anderson.
on his own checks, at different times,
drew the whole sum. Gentlemen
we'll acquainted with the bayous
In question, inform us that the money
derived from the sale OF these bonds
was amply sufficient, had 1t been prop
erly and honestly applied to It's legiti-
mate purpose, to have made the bayous
navigable throughout the year, and to
have vastly benefited a rich and extern
sive portion OF Louisiana. It has been
discovered by the committee, however,
that the funds were not thus applied.
On the contrary, the committee declare
that from the evidence adduced, 1t
has been discovered that the most
liberal estimates do not figure the
cost OF the entire work performed,
up to the present date, at more than
eight thousand flvevhundred dollars"
And the meagre work thus far done, in
stead OF improving, actually, we are
told by gentlemen well informed on the
subject, tends to Distract the naviga-
ton of the bayous. The question arises,
what has become of the balance Of the
sixty-seven thousand dollars?
Mr.. Z. CAN'T, who claims to be Presi-
dent Of the company, submitted to the
committee what purports to be an &C
count OF the expenditures Of the con-
Germ, and this ingenious gentleman
shows that something over $4,000 has
been invested In work which
an intelligent committee OF honorable
men declare, at the highest estimates,
to have cost not over $500. Mr.. Gantt's'
account is an interesting and remark
able document. 1t purports to give q
statement OF the expenditure by cor
poration Of over sixty-seven thousand
dollars Of public money, and yet he has
not been able to accompany 1t with a
single voucher. Not single date is
given, and only two or three names are
mentioned. Expenditures OF thousands
Of dollars are thus claimed, and yet we
are given no vouchers, no dates, no
names. Nine-tenths Of the items, also,
are ludicrously extravaganza or palpably
absurd. In short, Mr.. Gantt's
account has simply made the matter
worse It shows on Its very face, and in
its analysis, that 1t is the cover Of an
swindle. 1t Is simply a
miserable dodge to cover up fragrant
piece Of rascality. But the individuals
engaged in this affair had not a Radical
House Of Representatives to deal with.
The committee meant business; they
meant to learn the whole truth, and
they seem to have got pretty nearly at
the truth. The account OF Mr.. CAN'T
does not account satisfactorily
for the money for which
the $4,000 OF State bonds were sold.
The report Of the committee accounts
FOR $500 Of the sum. What has become
Of the balance, about $59, 300? Mr.. Mil
Ter, Of the firm Of Burbridge Il Co.,
states that the money was placed to the
private account Of Senator Tom Ander-
son, and that It was drawn out on Sen
ltor Tom Anderson's personal checks.
It devolves then upon Mr.. Anderson to
account to the public for this money; to
explain how 1t has been expended; to
explain how it has required over $67 900
10 do $500 worth of work.
Mr.. CAN'T, in his evidence before the
stated that he was the presi-
lent OF the company; that Anderson
vas the secretary and treasurer; and
hat he, Anderson and King, the latter
Anderson's attorney, were the directors.
The original stock OF the company was
fifty thousand dollars; he did not know
low much of this was paid in. Part Of
we know was paid in. What has be-
come Of this? Mr.. CAN'T further testi-
led that the stockholders had not held
Al. NCryn. L l