The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-09-05
THE TREASURY INVESTIGATION, :
r. DURUCLET, CASHIER, AND LAU-
WENTE AUGUsTE, SOLICITOR AND
ADVISOR, ON THE STAND.
Ana They say There WAS Not Any Back
Door Business Transacted.

The committee TO investigate the affairs OF the
State Treasurer's office met yesterday. Present,
Senators White and Representatives Buck and
| Keeting. The first witness called was
r. puBuoLET. CASHIER
In the office named. In answer to various inter-
rogatories propounded he stated that he had
occupied The position OF cashier since October,
1863: that his duties were to receive moneys an
disburse the same has q general supervision
over the office was familiar with the business Of
the office, except the individual work OF the
boekkeepers.
A diagram Of The Treaaurer's Office was shown,
which the witness identified az correct, with the
various entrances, location Of desks, private Of
foe. etc. II WAS the witness business to settle
with the tax collectors; did that upon the order
OF the Auditor. As far % practicable made, de-
posits on the same day settlements we're made.
The Treasurer determined what, under the law,
| was receivable In cash or warrants. II was my
duty TO make that distinction. Payments in
money to the credit Of the general fund has al
ways been inadequate to meet the general fund
warrants. Have tried many ways to
GIVE sErEfAU SATISFACTION
in paying out, but did not establish uniform rule.
| If we made q rule to pay out IS they came in,
some warrants would have been too large. Have
tried every rule imaginable. Act 81 Of 1872
established rule, but that was abolished by an
order of oourt--that was the first. Another WAS
| to pay on presentation, but rs it Disseminated
against country warrant holders it was changed,
| but cannot give the exact date. Then through
the suggestion of parish judges and others in the
| country, those warrants were deposited In the
office in my hands. That, think, was in 1876.
When the second rule was In force there
WAS NO DEVIATION.
Don't think it would have been possible. Dur
ing that time cannot recollect any person having
access 10 the private office when settlements we're
being made that would have derived any advsn-
| tage by being present. There was at the time
some friends, every Office has its friends, who had
access to the Office. will give you list. Settle
ments are made in my Office and warrants are
paid there. Don't recoleot OF case where tax
| collector made settlement with one or two
friends present when the public were excluded.
There may have been occasions where
demand was made upon me as soon ss
| the settlement was made with the collectors.
| Don't, however, remember anyr suoh cases re-
| Gently. IL may have been done year and q
| half ago. The public desk is in the outside
Office and the public could not be allowed on the
| inside when settlements we're made as I was re-
sponsible for all errors. There was always war;
rants on hand to absorb the money paid in TO the
credit Of the general fund. In case one was at
| the public desk with warrant 1t WAS sent in to
me by special messenger and determined upon
| them. In my position / am most likely to be
called on rs the cashier more frequently than any
one else in the Office, and yet my Office ia in the
back room fsrthest from the public desk. In
many cases parties have made demands
| WHEN SETTLEMENTS WERE MADE,
prior to year and half ago, up to the decision
of the Supreme Court. Don't know how much
was drawn out in this way, tbs records will show;
the checks will show what was paid out, and the
Auditors orders what was received. Sometimes
cash was paid and sometimes checks we're given.
The warrants will only show who they we're made
out to and not the party to whom the money or
check was paid, but the check book will show to
whom every check was made.
| Generally require the last holder OF warrants
to indorse them when paid.
| Don't suppose great deal of money was paid
| out in that way. Since the rule adopted
| have had on file
LARGE AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND
warrants. We tried to make the distribution as
| fair a. possible Some would have large sized
warrants and some warrants for smaller
amount, and was obliged to pay them as l could
with the funds. Another rule was to make an
equal distribution, rs far "a possible, but the
change of rules did not materially affect the gen.
eral dissatisfaction. This rule left II mostly with
me to Judge as to what warrants should be paid.
and did II to the best OF my ability.
BY Senator White In case there we're S10,0 900
in warrants file in your Office, say nine Of $1,000
| each and two Of $500 each, which would you pay
irst2
q
fret, and in selecting next would select judges
warrants we're they to come in the next day;
would select the smallest warrants. We're the
TREASURER DISHONEST MAN
he might in that way discriminate. It is known
throughout the State that this rule was estab-
lished.
In the last report, 1876, the item of 1877, 9A II,
paid on account of 1876 was paid in different
amounts One printing warrant, remember, for
$4,000 was held Tor year and over and then paid.
Small warrants were also paid. Cannot remem-
Der whether they were paid over the counter or
not The warrants filed are Always in excess of
the funds on hand. Always gave preference to
those on file. III one was paid over the counter
when this rule was in force the rule was not fol-
lowed any farther than was practicable, or as
long as
PARTIES WERE NOT SATISFIED
and took the law To compel payment.
Generally the Treasurer yielded to the de-
mand, deciding for himself. and because he was
compelled 10 90 30 by HtAtute. Ii De nhu uOue 30
the country officials would not have got their
warrants cashed. Warrants filed could be with
drawn when desired. There was no rule that
would give general satisfaction and we followed
them as far as possible only. We kept no record
Of the warrants presented. In some cases the
Tro has told the tax collectors that If they
would take certain warrants-judges, etc.-he
would receive them in settlement. Don't know
Of any order being given to any party not a
State officer to the effect that warrants that he
might purchase and present would be paid and
know OF no note to tax collector from the
Treasurer to the effect that such warrants would
be received in settlement.
In no case Ia q
WARRANT PAID IN CASH
unless the name Of the person to whom it is paid
is indorsed on the back. The witness explained
that, as to the rule, there was an Influential Off
cial of the present State government whose war
rant for even last months salary had been paid
while there were similar warrants on file of older
dates. The official insisted on its being paid,
and IL the Treasurer refused he would have made
a personal enemy. perhaps. had he not paid the