The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-04-30
THE "TRUE INWARDNESS" OF THE
FUNDING BOARD.

gatber and in connection with others
yet to be brought forward, will prove
aonclusi vely that the Board OF Liquida-
ton. or a majority thereof. have been
guilty OF fragrant violations OF the Fund
ing act. and. therefore, OF the contract
antered into by the State with It's
creditors, as embodied in that instru-
ment. and have also, in repeated in
stances. greatly exceeded their powers.
These facts we're obtained mainly from
the report of the committee OF the
House of Representatives, who lnves-
tjgated the proceedings OF the board
presented at the last session OF the Leg
isIat,,re. The quotations contained In
article No. 4, published in our issue or
April 90, were copied. rerbdftm et
Hteratim. from the printed report OF
that committee, the names OF whose
mombsrs are sufficient guarantee OF
tbe carefuIness with which the inves-
tigation was conducted. and. we may
add. OF the absolute correctness OF their
findings and statements. Reference was
made. in the article above mentioned.
TO that provision Of the funding act No.
. of January "a, 1870 which authorizes
tho funding only Of those bonds and
warrants which had been issued prior
10 the date Of the act also to the com
mittee's statement that $i3S,557 80 OF
floating debt, including the warrants IL
legally issued by the Auditor on March
IT. 1874, in exchange for those known as
1, ,v,tn Ia
ably bad, had been funded on August
%. 1874, "clearly and Enthusiastically tsay
the oommittee) In violation OF the pro-
visions OF tho funding law" and, we
now add, funded as IL the board had not
the slightest regard for the authority
under which they acted, but rather con
sidored themselves as equal, IL not supe-
rior, to the law-making body Of the
State. We now take up the history OF
tho board, as given in the committees
report. at the point where the preceding
chapter stopped.
They 80 on q say
Judsins. by the evidence of the Nom crs Of the
Funding Board. no quorum rds present wnon
these 1874 warrants tor floating deht. KNOWN
ps- Sanford warrants, were funded me
soavotafy OF State tDcslondel ayers that luily
ten sessions were consumed in discussing the
question whether or not these warrants should
IN, funded but that he refused to consent To 1t.
20 the last He says that at the last meeting.
when they wore said 10 have been funded only
tho Auditor lC,intonl, Treasurer lDubucleU,
Sneaker of The House Loweill and himself. re-
NAMED discussing. but still leaving unsettled.
tho question OF funding. He left them still firm
in his dlssent. and the aen day heard thai The
funding had been agreed 10.
BY whomp The three remaining members2
-Four members are required for a quorum,
and the Governor, Lieutenant Governor. Secre-
tary Of state; Fiscal Agent and Speaker OF the the
Mosse deny ss'as Rsefsn nd and declare tn" ey
The Secretary Of State states that the Auditor
"c,gineged' his Jtiadn,g. aud issued Tie bonds
Board certainly had no right to fund the war
rants but why did The other members tacitly as
sent to by non action attsrwards1 4 not direct
add 3 i@s@ e sc & @ ssb @ oS State % eo@u %
four membors Of the Funding Board at the Fifth
Avenue Hotel. in New York city. The Secretary
Of state. Lieutenant Governor Speaker Of the
were present. From evidence obtained. 1t seems
that evidences OF floating debt OF some kind
--,yhethor Auditors warrants. or general vuuch- |
ers or Pinckney Smith !" warrants or
vouchers, IL unknown to the commttee-were
submitted. or talked OF as to be submitted |
Tor funding. The Fiscal Agent left before any
t.aadIns was agreed upon, and did not return. |
Tho Secretary of State left the room before. as
he says. any business was transacted or any
obilgatious were presented except what pur- |
nortsI 10 be s,oh IN an unopened package on |
atable. When he returned TO the, room. says
that the ashes IN the fireplace. to which his at
tention was called. were the remains Of the |
State obligations tabont si7oooo as Mr.. Lowell
destroyed. Messrs Lowell and Lieutenant Gov |
ernor Antoine say that the evidences Of debt
we're burned IA stated, but Mr. Desonde says |
tr has 40 kno,c'edoeot any burning or t,u,dog.as
does NJ Roid,c,,. M Deslonae denies haring
consented 10 anu funding. and SO does Mr.. Bald
law transact business and conclude n funding. |
OF d burning o. funded Obligations, and there IL
Board. or in tho auditors record Of funding and |
exchange Of bonds, OF what. II anything. was
funded in New York. Nevertheless. it is held
that the board at a meeting in New Orleans. |
after tna return Of the members who met in New |
York confirmed the action OF the board in New |
York III funding something what. is not stated. |
funded and destroyed in New York to the
Board OF Audit. about one year ago. but our
committee have not seen this list.
No consolidated bonds. however. have boon
issued In excban for the floating debt" said
TO have been burned in New York.
Notwithstanding the law, that only warrants
draw ,rier to Jan. "A. 1874 should be funded.
warrants OF tho year 1874. for claims of 1873 to
tho amount of 5257 ,226 80, have been funded In
the AUDITORS report for 1875 page g. It il said
thst of tho fundabe general fund warrants, M
ci.dsg tsarra,as issued dn'ing 1874. for claims
OF ssI3." tGera had been funded sT65. .2O2 g. leav
Ihs, % l,,4in Jir-, Jan. /. 1876, s4i1,636 49,
Ii relation to the warrants above
mentioned asiSanford. warrants, Lieuten-
ant Governor Antoine, q member Of the
Funding Board, testified as follows be-
fore tho House Committee. (See testi-
mony appended to the report of the
committee page ~ of appendix:
O. In regard to the Sanford warrants si3s 900
and odd were you present when they were
funded A. No. e.r, was not present
U, We're you Consepting to their funding? A
No cir, | did not know anything about it |
hoard some talk about il; we thought those
obligations that were funded in New York were
lust ss valid ii not more valid. than the Sanford
wsrrants and when they were presented we all
agreed not to fund them: | think we got the
opinion of the Attorney General in the matter
On the same subject Secretary of State
Deslonde testified before the committee
as follows:
BY Mr. Bayley:
o. IN regard TO the funding Of the Sanford
warrants. this s1ss 900, can you give us any in