The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-03-12
A PETTY BUT MIsoHIEvoUs FRAUD,

A singular illustration of the great i'm
portance of extreme care in the engrossment
and enrolment Of bills occurred near the
close of the late session of the General As
sembly, in the bill intended to restore to the
city of New Orleans the entire and exclusive
control of drainage It ia bill of very con-
siderable Importance, and calculated to save to
the city large annual expenditure, sum at
least half of what is now paid for excavation
of drainage canals.
This bill originated in the House. 1t was
introduced by the energetic and painstsking
member from the Ninth Ward. 1t had the
favorable Endorsement of the Special Com
mittee on City Affairs, of which the member
from the Ninth Ward and district was
chairman. It was carefully drawn bill,
and it passed in the House without any
change whatsoever. The House engrossed
copy differed from the original in no respect.
The bill, as it came from the hands of the
sngrossing clerk, was passed by the House
and sent to the Senate for concurrence. The
Senate passed the bill without amen I'm emit,
and the House engrossed copy was sent back
from the Senate duly Endorsed by the Secre-
tary as having undergone its several readings,
and as having passed without amendment.
The bill was. accordingly sent to be enrolled,
and after enrolment it was signed by the
Speaker Of the House. and by the President
of the Senate. It was approved by the
Governor and duly promulgated in the
official journal Of February 26th as act
No. 16, approved February oath. 1876.
After its publication singular error was
discovered, being change in the fifth Sec
ton of the bill, by the substitution of the
word thereafter for the word thereafter. :"
as it was plainly written in the engroSsed bill
of the House. When the House engrossed
bill came back from the Senate there was
buneling and awkward letter est" inserted
before the letter oh" in the word "here-
after" making it read thereafter
and changing the whole sense of the
section. The engrossed bill was neatly writ
ten in plain, bold. fair hand. The fraudu-
lent little ct" was unlike any letter "t in
the remainder of the bill. Il had an upward
initial hair stroke. such as any other ST. in the
bill had, and every initial letter OF every word.
The body stroke of the interpolated st" was
not parallel with the downward stroke of every
other letter in the bill. The curvature at the
bottom was different, running across the up
ward initial hair stroke of the letter Ssh" and
into its body stroke, which occurs in no other
place in the bill. The fraudulent st" has q
cross twice as long as any other "t' in
the bill, and unlike every other cross of that
letter in the bill it is not parallel with the
blue ruled line Of the paper, but in an as
cending angle. The space between the
word " that" and the word which
was hereafter is eramped and crowded by
the insertion of the obtrusive and rascally
little consonant. No such crowding or
cramping occurs elsewhere in the bill. We
have inspected the original bill as presented
by Mr.. Wilt. with the favorable Endorsement
Of the Special Committee on City Affairs;