The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-03-17

trumpets, headlng ts aIOicle.
Democratic Scarecrow Dismantled. /"
It is somewhat suggestive that the Re
publican looks upon every effort to OK
nose the rascalities which have been
perpetrated in Louisiana during the last
seven years as Democratic movement
We do not clearly see how the appoint
ment of the committee to investigate
the affairs of a corporation holding pub
lie funds can be regarded as partisan
measure, or the report of the committee
exposing the fraudulent appropriation
Of the funds Democratic move. unless
il is conceded that the issue in this
State is between rascality and honesty.
and that the Democracy are making the
fight for honesty against Radicalism
and rascality.
The reply of Mr.. Anderson to the re-
port of the committee is OF the thinest
texture. A large portion OF il is de-
voted to an effort to show that the re-
port is not an official document. be-
cause it was not formally received by
the House and entered upon the jour
nal. Mr.. Anderson must have keenly
realized the force of the exposure Of the
relevant facts of the matter when he
thus seeks to divert attention from
them by raising an irrelevant question
as to the official or unofficial character
OF the report. The committee was regu
larly appointed by the Speaker OF the
House, in compliance with a resolution
adopted by the House; 1t conducted its
inquiries into the affairs of the Naviga-
ton Company under the authority OF
the House, and its report, based upon
the testimony taken, was regularly pre-
pared for presentation to that body.
The mere fact that the report, thus pre-
pared, was handed in too late to enable
the House to dispose of it in the usual
way, will not affect its tstatus with the
public. We do not care, however, to
argue with Mr.. Anderson upon the
official character of this report. The
gentlemen who made it are we'll known
i'm the State as honorable men, and the
mere omission Of a matter of form in the
matter can detract nothing from the
force and influence of their statements.
The real question to be answered by
Mr. Anderson Is, "What has become Of
the sixty-seven thousand dollars realized
from the sale Of the eighty thousand Of
bonds loaned the BGuf and Crocodile
Navigation Company by the State The
committee. after thorough investiga-
ton, have been able to discover only
about eight thousand five hundred dol
lars worth Of work which has been done,
and they declare the expenditure of the
money Of the State by this company to
be one of the most deliberate fratids that
has been perpetrated upon the State.
We have read over the testimony taken
by the committee, and we must say that
it fully sustains the conclusion Of the
report. There is testimony show
ing that sawmill and other property
was purchased with a portion Of this
money; but there is also testimony
that the sawmill is now in the
possession Of a nephew of Mr.. CAN'T,
and has been run by him for
several years on private account,
and that other property purchased is
on the plantations Of and in the use of
Messrs. Anderson and Can't. The tes-
timony shows that very feeble efforts
were made to carry out the purpose for
which the bonds were loaned. All eff
forts were abandoned in 1871, though |
only portion of a lock, costing proba-
bly, less than $500, had been construct
ed. Mr.. Anderson affirms that two
freshets swept away the timber of the
company and damaged the work.
there were freshets, but
Mr.. Curley, the last man who contracted
% work on the lock, does not account
or the suspension Of the work as does
Mr.. Anderson. Mr.. Curley says he quit
he work i'm 1871 only because he could
ret no money from the company to
AIRY it on. There is a very great dis
'repancy, therefore, between the ex-
,arte statement Of Mr.. Anderson and
he sworn testimony of Mr.. Curley, as
o the cause Of the final suspension of
he work.
Mr.. Anderson states that Mr.. Gantt's
'SSouhe VI euc eApcHultuLcS VI tIlc
ompany, amounting to $73,5OO, "is a
lear and detailed statement" With
he committee, we differ with Mr.. An
erson on this point. Mr.. Gantt's ac-
cunt Of expenditures, of which we have
copy before us, is anything but "a
lear and detailed statement" The
ems mentioned, 1t is true, foot up
1850; but 1t would have been just as
asy for Mr.. CAN'T to have made out an
ccount showing expenditures Of $780,
10, or 100000, or Of any other sum,
nd the account might have been just
3 clear and detailed as the one made,
nd it would have been entitled to just
) much credit. The account gives no
ates, and it is accompanied by no
Duchers. Except in very few cases,
ven the names Of parties from whom :
rticles are claimed to have been pur-
lased are not mentioned. The c
count is patent fraud it is just such t
account as any stupid fellow, who ,.
nd Incorporated funds that did not !
elong to him, would have got up to c
reen himself. 1t is not worth the /
aper it is written on, and as Mr.. t