The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-14

| they have made d law unto themselves to q
| the case before them, and this say as mo
destly as ever man did speak OF law VINO !
| not lawyer.
But, purely for the sake Of argument, le
| us admit that this Is the fully applicable law
In the case, and will show that the Assist
ant Attorney General and the Auditor hav'
grossly violated 1t.
1. The law says: "Whenever the Audito1
shall be satisfied, either from his own knoWt
ton or writs Of .ferG faCias, that the STATE
cannot make the amounts due, etc.
| But the Auditor does not act on his Uwr
knowledge OF fact, MOI. on any. such returns
He simply eonsults the Assistant Attorney
| General and acts on the State might
lose the entire tax, 100000" No argument d
premises, no theory, no statement oil weak
nointa of the State, no appeal TO the reason oi
the Auditor, whom the State contemplates
being a reasoning and responsible being
but "the State nigh! lose The entire tax.
Yes, and the Auditor had as well compromise
with all Of us for five cents on the dollar, for
an earthquake might" occur tonight and
swallow oil of Louisiana except the offices Of
the Auditor, Treasurer and Assistant Attor-
ney General.
bonds or obligations upon payment Oh por-
tion thereof"
Nothing Ia clearer to my mind than the
patent fact that the law eontemplates nothing
more nor less than the payment of O portion
Of The rnoney due Never-never for one mo-
ment did the creators of that law contem-
plate the reception OF warrants, and IT Is g
gross outrage to thus distort the meaning OF
the law. Constituting the whole law legiti-
mately az applying simply to bonds given
the State, this clause never contemplated re-
Ceiving warrants from defaulting bondsmen.
Constituting It illegitimately, for the sake OF
argument, If 1t contemplated application TO
the taxpayer, ii would have said that such
and such warrants should be received in COM
promise. Thus would the taxpayer have
clearly seen his way and the State hers, 80
far as the use Of warrants goes.
But must close by asking few questions
of the Auditor and Assistant Attorney Cen
eral.
How long is It, gentlemen since the deci-
sion of the Third District Court has become of
secondary Importance In your estimation as
compared with the Assistant Attorney Cen
erals ''might lose the entire tax I"
How long, gentlemen, since 1t has become
more important TO gather into the treasury
$4,000 worth Of almost worthless State war
rants than to fix the great point whether the
State has the power TO tax all the capital OF q
bank, no matter how Invested?
How long since, after suits are brought Tor
the State and judgments procured, 1t Is only
then discovered that the State should COM
prOmise2
How long since the obtaining of iudg-
ment weakens rather than strengthens the
faith Of the attorney in his case2
And one question TO the bank:
You are corporate institution; you are
created by the State. get every privilege from
the State, and are protected by Che State; you
are, In the law, q public institution. Why
should you object to telling what you paid for
warrants, II you bought them : You would
not do an unclean thing, Of course; nor would
you conceal uncleanness outside your walls,
yet involving you. How can 1t hurt you to
Aay itISt how much money YOU raid out, or
how much you paid for warrants
9 Finally, IL this matter has been settled ille-
gally, It must be the duty of the Executive to
look into It, Oh. DEMOCRAT.