The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-09-03

| General Field, warrants on the State Treasurer
| to Mr.. George O. Benham, amou ting to twen-
tytwo Thousand and some odd dollars. Before
they l3.y were signed was compelled to leave the
CITY. and upon my return demand was made
upon me to sign and deliver said warrants; but
IN view Of an Injunction being obtained against
enia eatno approximation dudng my absence. de-
iam gain tmportnned to deliver said war;
"a tan.s. ana respectfully request your opinfan as
| 70 my duties in the premises.
Gov. Kellogg's brief alleges the "Arm-
stroDg warrants to have been dated March
., ana Inc Benham not to have been signed
pe1ore 1 re March n or %. They purport to be on
ser aer az M6. o. % 81 March IT, 1874 Surely the Audi
ney General that on the fifth of March, before
tne passage OF the act, In advance Of any ap-
prrop,rlatlon, rp, ne had audited and approved and
tllleu up warrants Tor claims in favor OF BEN
nam, 70 De paid out Of the appropriations OF
that act Benham did not want S22, 900 but
Sl38,00O, which he got, his share being S34. 500.
| tious.
To explain the matter more fully the Gov.
ernor refers to act No. Of 1874, creating the
| board to fund all valid bonds of the State and
valid warrants outstanding at that date. The
board met Monday. Wednesday, August 26,
| or by what authority 1t was convened. Four
We're present, the Auditor presiding. August
| ~ 1t was again In session, and resolved to re-
ceive the application Of w. Sanford the next
udy. August 20, uU HppGInQ. August ~ the
warrants were exchanged. Sanford was an
employe OF Benhafn Whether the Auditor
SnOuld sign them or not was discussed August
26 or 27. Acting Attorney General Dibble
gave verbal opinion that he had authority to
sign them. The board did not see the war
rants. Ihe Governor received no notice OF
the meeting, and when he heard the warrants
had been funded, thought it was mistake.
The letter OF the Auditor was prompted by
his determination to bring these warrants be-
fore the board. Dibbles answer says:
where an auditing officer has examined and
approved a claim presented, his discretion is
exhausted and
The signing and delivering. of warrant is a
the person whose claim has been audited and
settled has q right to demand.
Upon statement e OF aels contained in your
could be properly and ought to be delivered
The $4,000 warrants" have not yet ap-
peared. The Assistant Attorney General was
evidently misled by the Auditor, thinking he
bad audited and passed on the claims, when
In TACT a clerk, Ignorant Of the duties OF the
office except the mere routine, had merely
distributed the amounts and filled UP the
blanks. Ii the warrants had been audited
March the case would have been different
1t is far from certain that the acts were not
subsequent to the Injunction and In contempt
of court: Dibble says nothing Of the injunc-
tlon, and It would have been an abuse Of
the Governor. The Funding Board had Moth
ing, to DO with the signing of the warrants,
and Dibble was not asked as to the right to
fund them. The letter did not remove The In
.a,,id nj a.ha. th as usn5IaI
# IN latter 10 Ginton Attnr,ex, - naaa7 s.Oaac
Field said:
The answer. is clear that you cannot issue
warrants for claims OF this kind under, any OF
last sessinp IF tha s + Ua me
junction issued by the Superior District Court
pose to suspend until compelled to do 80 By
she decision of the highest court in the State
Gov. Kellogg further sets forth that the
Auditor was unaccountably anxious to free
nimgeIf from the iniunetion: ia nlaee these
Claims not worth five cents on The dollar. on
} par with valid OBLIGATIONS. and that 4 enm-
olete answer to importunitv was their mn
The meeting Of the Fund
ernor Lieutenant Governor and Fiscal Agent
we're absent Sneaker I.owall. who z wac
present, was directly interested fIi the aTnount
II S14,27S. The only obligations to be funded
AUDITOR and lowell should he rrnsecnfpd
lnder section 3 of the funding act for fhev
new on what class Of vouchers the warrants
rere drawn.
March s. 1874. for contingent exnenaea al 1s7a
sov KELLOGG says If II had haen q valid dahf
q warrant cnuld have been drawn altar T na.
ernber 81. 1878. No such firm az i ". Arm
7as divided into small amounts and S709o cof
,fn fine treasure Dna ~ fhom fo, soc ? 1s
7as used In the settlement at the acco,srts III
Iouston. who testified he received no war
ants from taxnayers and Daid none ii the
uditor or Treasurer hmt nnlv in noonev or or
heck, He was sent for. and in the Audifor,a
flee ON renuest. and having IN, intarasf n,
nem, indorsed an unknown amount Of war
,rote the Treasurer he accepted from Hous-
anffIamant of 1870 uaIfd kr1dito7s,c