New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-26
Answer-Yes, if they could get them

6uU AOUl0 MUCH OoeQ D8lO inc amount OF
their claims?
Answer-They have not yet been paid;
the warrants now on hand are not enough
to pay off the debts of the hospital; have
these warrants in my possession: if had
had enough money I could have settled
100000 Of debts with $4,000 in cash;
when these creditors expressed their will
ingness to make deduction from their
claims equal to the expense or sacrifice in
CURED by the board in obtaining the war
rants from the Auditor, they said they
would take warrants at forty cents: that Is,
they would take s. 50 in warrants to pay
for 81 Of their claims.
Question-Who employed M. otoute
%yer:
aestion-Was there all Injunction of
court specially against this appropriation
Of $4,000.
Auswer-There was not. excepting an in
direct one which prohibited the State
Treasurer from paying any warrants, other
than constitute Al warrants, until the lat
ter we're all paid.
TESTIMONY or MR.. ALFRED SHAW
Mr.. Alfred Shaw, being interrogated as
to the legal obstacles in the way OF the de-
livery of the warrants. said:
Early in 1875 g registry system was
adopted according to which warrants were
issued only eg eihst money as 1t came INTO
| the treasury; the hope Of getting cash war
rsrts was small against the revenues OF
| 1874, there being many warrants already
out against them which were issued before;
| certain litigants had contested the registry
! eys!en; it was sustained in the Superior
| Distric. Court and they appealed to the
| Supre NE Court; if they should succeed the
| Charity Hospital would also benefit by the
! decision and obtain it's warrants, unless
| rev questions were sprung aud new cblec-
| tio.:s raised, these Hjigants pressed their
cases as fast as was possible, and there
| was reasonable hope on the part OF the
| friends and creditors OF the hospital that
i, would De relieved: but of course this
| was al uncertain contingency OF the law
! and Il I'd to De waited tor. In the mean
| time prcceedlogs was taken, which seemed
| TO ma ke il Questionable whether, in the IN
certain event OF the issue of the warrants
to the hospital. they would not By that
| time ba worthless.
Two iniuuctIons were taken oat against
| State Treasurer Dubuclet, restraining him
from paving auy warrant drawn on MIN,
| rayable cut of the general fund, against
| revenues of 1877 except warrants drawn 10
| paw tbs salaries Of constitutional officers,
| and the III cage and per diem OF the mem
bers Of the General Asse mbiy, and except
warrants held by the plaintiff III injunction,
until all such warrants had been paid The
court took the ground that all present and
! urospeCtive revenues tor 1874 were covered
hy outstanding warrants or those lssuaoie
for constitutional salaries. There was 70
rel.et TO be got from court, nor from any OF
the executive departments in time to 90
any good: and being much pressed By cred-
tors and by Mr.. BonzanO in their behalf;
| [ frankly told him and some OF them not to
rsly on me, but bring to bear any IN
tuerce or secure any other legal ser
vices they chose. [ anu not asked to
detail the errands, interviews and refusals
by and through which l was led to this re-
suit. a -umor being circulated that the
hospital could sell its warrants at fifty cents
On the dollar, l advised the board to do 80
quickly: hut there was no truth in the ru-
NOR. / believe the hospital creditors Will
be kent out Of their money vet. although a
more sacred debt never existed.
TESTIMONY OF ISAAC n. sroUIEMlER.
Cuestion-Do you know anything about
| an Injunction against the appropriation OF
$50 900 made by the Legislature in favor OF
the Charity Hospital. under act NO Il OF
1879
Ansxer-I believe it only covered section
two of the appropriation bill
| QuestiOu-At whose instance was tnls III
junction taken
Answer-Isidore Newman and others:
Mr.. John Ray was their attorney.
les.ion-On what ground was 1t en-
io.ueGi
, Answer-The appropriation was n excess
| of tho revenues.
Ques'ion-Were you employed as counsel
to dissolve that injunction
Answer was employed to OBTAIN me
warrants; l was applied to repeatedly ny
} Mr.. Bonzano TO obtain them; he stated that
the creditors OF the hospital were pressing
their elaine; did not see the creditors;
/ conferred only with Mr.. Romano; ny con
) tract Wa. with him; l held him RESPONSE
: bic for ny Ell. pioyment as attorney; II was
} at the option of the plaintiffs above namec
Newman and othersl to release the IN nnc
Tor, 60 tar as it affected the Charity Hos
: uiral appropriation: undertook TO do It FOL
$500 in cash.
Ouestion-What process did you employ
How did you 60 it
? AusHer-I fest interviewed the Auditor
\ 70 learn what his objections were; no stated
; | i. hsd no objection, but he did not care Il
put himself III the position OF being IN con
TEMPT of court; that there was an lDIdnc
| | ZION taken out about a year before agalns
, this appropriation, and that it was still il
force. he said he considered that the SUI!
| Rad essentially served its purpose, but
vet existed. and he could do nothing unies!
DIaintitfs agrt ed to it: this injunction was il
= nr,yate suit; Mr.. John Ray was the attoI
;,ay for plaintiffs: | went to- him and h
| stated that he was merely the attorney IL
| the casa. but no did not think his client
had any serious objections to releasing thi
: sppropriation | had number OF inte
) | views with him, and the matter stood tor
J | week OF tive; then MIR. John Kay tod N
his clients did object; that they refused t
release the hospital appropriation from tn
Injunction; then | went and saw them my
self ana tried to induce them to releas
that item, and got Mr. Ray TO e
With ne: they persisted IL thel
refusal but finally, at my soiic
tasion. they consented to release o
condition tLat tho warrants should not
mt on the market Immediately. as they ha
J. some judicial warrants (some $4,000 or $1,000
r thew wanted to realize or first; told theI
n I thought it would serve the purpose OF n
r | clients to agree TO such condition, an
n ! ,cnk the responsibility as attorney {
q binding nv clients to that condition, hu
e nv individual agreement was supercede
r By q subsequent one entered into bet~ee
the hospital aud plaintiffs; upon that agree
> ment NJ. Raw moved the Superior Court I
"a dissolve the Injunction; then Judge HaWi
:. ;ns refused unless they would ask for dll
is solution Of the entire injunction; l the
"a ! vent to see Judge Hawkins, and represen
IL ed that this was private suit, under tn
a control of the plaintiffs, and that | did M
| sae how the court could prevent them frol
is Diminishing the suit if they wanted to 90 q
- that was not the opinion of Judge Hawkin
and he refused to dissolve; he said, how
.r ever. that the suit had served it's purpos
and all he would do in case any appllcatio
~ was made to him would be to refuse a ma
g. dauus on the Auditor; that in this case Il
" aDnropriation was a matter entirely IN u
r. discretion of the Auditor, and no one eli
D. had any thing to do with It. =,
le Question-Did he formally dissolve II
az aeCfiCn two