The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-15

| Cash balance Oh January / .-.. .$912.7 6t ~
4 Expenditures same time. .....-... 351, 6s6 d
| On hand al that time as disclosed by the
| books, was:
Outstanding checks. ......."!... 1850 4e
s532,775 90
| Balance interest account ~ %
| Old State notes ..4-.....!. 1850 0l
Herron,s protested check .,...-..,.. 2.171 ~
| Not on hand or out Of bank ... 9,1a %
1851 o75 "a
| Tho amount not on hand had thus In
| The month Of February materially decreased.
which was caused by a deposit of S94 2OS 35
on the twenty sixth of February. without
authority, because the receipts for February
| were $21, $50 50. and the payments and de-
posits as follows: Deposits, s9372 43, war
slightly in excess of the receipts.
AS we have already stated the illegal
drawing out Of public money, the presump-
ton is that this deposit was made to make
good an existing deficiency.
From the first of March TO the twenty --third,
the receipts were $l4s5s3 80, and the dsbulse-
ments Sl53471 AZ; showing an excess OF dis
bursemellts over receipts OF 1887 90.
On March % thnre was deposited $4,000 an
excess Of nearly $4,000 over the funds IN
to meet an existing deficiency.
The excess Of $4,000 or Whereabouts was not
suffered to remain for long period, for eight
days thereafter q balance struck disclOses the
disappearance OF the excess and an enefOach-
ment or unwarranted drawing out OF money
to the extent of $50, TO 60.
This deficiency however, by the fifteenth Of
April had been made good, and u testing Of
The books thereafter shows the correct amount
always on hand. All the foregoing figures
simply show Irregularities growing out OF the
unauthorized payment OF the public money, rs
.already referred to.
These unauthorized payments were reported
IN part in 1876 and were i'll part eX posed by
committee of the House OF Representatives..
They were then explained by the Treasurer in
testimony given, rs an application made by
him of the interest and other funds to the
payment Of theomilitia without warrant OF
law, these payments having been made under
the personal pressure of William z. Kellogg,
then acting as Governor Of the State. o
In addition to the foregoing, your commit
tee find that at various periods and In the gem
eial fund Of Different years. .overdrafts
Carried from day to day.. and Tor va
urer's accounts. These oyerdrafts
of which q detailed exhibit is annexed, are
said by the cashier Of the Treasurer to have
been the result of oversight or error incidental
nectlon your committee call attention to the
fact that they more frequently occur in favor
of particular persons, and therefore whilst
not necessarily Intentional are not clearly ac-
cidental. @
Beyond these matters your committee find
the books Of the Treasurer to have been kept
in All orderly manner; the disbursements
have been regularly entered and the cash
presently all accouted for up to the first of
January, 1877. to which period this, report
alone extends. The vouchers and orders are
all on hand, and the warrants for each pay
mnnt pTpDIrly raf1nelaI
2. What mode of settlement had been eSer-
cised by the. Treasurer with tax collectors
In 1874 and 1875 the rough records in which
such settlements are primarily entered not
being in existence or being, according to the
statement Of the cashier, mislaid, nothing
definite could be ascertained thereon.
In 1876, it is found that tax collectors were
frequently allowed to make their settlements
For instance, on May 81 1876, Il settlement
was made with B. III. Lanier. Tax Collector Of
Carroll parish. which amounted to Stag 30. |
OF this amount there was paid in warrants,
according to law, $500; in cash, S22f 30: in
check. S1125; total $174G 30.
The check was the Treasurer's own check
drawn in Lanier's favor by the Treasurer, and |
shows clearly the payment OF the warrant to |
Ianier at the time Of making the settlement. |
Many other similar INSTANCES are reported |
Treasurer or his cashier, in testifying, report |
these cases as payments not made to the tax |
collector himself, but as payments made to
The tax collector for account or other parties,
Tor whom the tax collector was agent for col L
lection. In many cases they testify that they
were the original holders of warrants who
had instructed him to pay tax collectors for
heir account The non-production of such
joined with the frequent oc-
Of such settlements, seem to give
plausible. ii not certain, negation to this
statement.
In 1879 1875 the records disclose that $4,000
vas paid tax collectors simultaneously In
making their settlements out Of tho general
,nd Of 1874 paid in 1875; $22, 752 was likewise
10 paid, and IN 1876 $4,000. These large pay
nents, joined with the fact that in partc-
llaT instance a tax collector has testified that
ash certain warrants with a promise that
hey would be received in settlement Of his
accounts, create o strong presumption that
jhe habit existed in receiving from tax col
ectors. of allowing them to make their set
dement's in an unauthorized and illegal way.
This presumption finds cumulative proof in
jhe fact that among the warrants paid was
'ound seven with tbs following Endorsement.
paid to Thos. G. Anderson by authority of
lhe State Treasurer
"FRANCIs L. DUMAS,
"Tax Collector
These warrants were not legally receivable
orotaXes, and they appear as having been
paid in cash, without check, by the Treasurer,
Oh the fifth of June, 1875 on which day the tax
collector making the Endorsement made his
settlement with the Treasurer. A somewhat
similar Endorsement by other collectors and
a like coip1cidence of settlement has been dis
covered.
Besides this. on March 20, 1876, settlement
was made with N. G. Folger. lax Collector,
which, as it now stands on the books-having
been altered from it's original entry-as fol-
lows: On March 20, 1876, the Auditor issued
his order, No. 241, to N. G. Folger, to pay intoa
the treasury for licenses Of 1876, SO, 752 95.
The settlement was made by the Treasurer,
and he received in payment that sum of war
ran tbs wfcn f Tor ems q
having made two settlements in the interval
the Auditor informed the Treasurer that
there had been q clerical error, and that
SO, SS2 Sc of the amount was for taxes ofsl
1876. The Treasurer thereupon changed his
books, and by this means $i0S82 Sc were re-
reived in warrants, not properly receivable
therefor, in lieu Of cash.
s. What determinations If any, had been
made in the payment of warrants?
The proof OF favoritism, IL any existed, is a