The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-14
Mr.. LusHER's STATEMENT.


Mr.. LUsHER's STATEMENT.
| 1. The State Superintendent Is not the lega
| custodian Of school funds. and therefore he has
not, and cdstaot hare in his possession, the bal
anee of the appropriation for the teachers and
other employees OF the city shoots. viz: 10000 oil
2. In conformity to law. the State Auditor. BY
the request and uthorlty OF the State Superln-
tendeDt. holds In the State treasury. TO the
credit Of the city Of New Orleans. six thousand
dollars OF said school revenue OF 1877. which
has been paid Into the treasury since the sixth
day OF February, 1879. 1.-THE date OF the payment
8. Payment Of this amount of six thousand
dollars, or so much thereof as may be neees-
sarg' to satisfy such teachers and others on the
payroll as hare remained olcners Of their claims
since heU mere tegnUy certified to he due will be
authorized by the state superintendent, as soon
as be shall have received satisfactory Evidence Of
The amount actually needed TO pay such claims
4. What the State Superintendent has to do
with the matter of turning over the appropria.
ton to the treasurer Of the city school board
clehrly from tho following provisions 1T the net
making the hppropriation-tAot No. Is Of Feb
SECTION /. BE IL epncted etc. That the follow
Ing sums. OF so much thereof as may be aeces-
snrv be and they are hereby appropriated to
cover deficiencies of former years:
Appropriations for the relief of the New Or
leans School Board out OF the current school
funds OF 1877. $4,000; out of the current school
THAT the Superintendent of Public Eduea-
ton be authorized to place to tho credit Of the
city OF New Orleans the first moneys collected
from the back taxes OF the respective years
to The school funds: prouided thai no
payment Of any l0arrasn against the school funds
of The said years shall bemdde except to those ,1l,o
dreHte otrhers and original payees. and hare re-
u1ained the o,cBers % said enTonts from The
issue thereof to tte ppDgnent Of he same to be
,na ads 70 ePp ,s BY as eua dorsed o" the
Constituting the term warrant" technically,
or according to the pr9babie intent OF the hon
orahle author Of the. proviso twho was doubt
out, that it would cause but little detriment to
the country schools, or the schools Of his par
tsh), 1t is obvious that it was the duty Of the
city school board. or its officers, Immediately
after the PRONUNCIATION of act No, Ii. to aseer-
tain and report which OF the teachers and other
the warrants given them for their services In
conformity 70 section eleven of the school act of
March &c. 1877. so that the State Superintendent
could have determined and certified the exact
amount necessary TO be placed to the credit Of
said city board for the payment OF such
warrants.
!seotion 20l authorized the city board to substi-
tute pay rolls" or Checks in lieu of war.
rants Tor the pawn ent OF teachers and other
employees. the state Superintendent construed
the proUtso with as much liberality or equity as
the nature of the law allowed and only inssted
as Ut ,oGs ms duty TO do. that paym ents on the
pay rolls OF the board should be made ont Of
NE special State appropriation only 10 such
teachers aud other employees as actually re.
NAMED bona fde owners Of their claims from
explicitly required bU the promise.
. Annexed copies OF the letters Of the. State
Superintendent. marked "A" 81 and 70"
- what extent his CO.'S ttuction OF the law facil-
tated The Adminisrator of Finance In paying
ne g, rolls for October and November. 1873.
, There is no truth In the statement that the |
state Superintendent declined turning 5000
over to the Treasurer because he understood |
hat i was the intention Of the school dire tors
nf hn Grxf.If
1Wed money to brokers. bankers or friends |
Nlth the inferred purpose Of compelling the |
he desired Information. the board would re-
iuire each and every teacher employed In the
Iublic schools to make affidavit concerning his
= "a her statusn relation to The money lenders"
emit OF the affidavit required In the law. The
tate superintendent has never known any
he matter. and he hos certainly not expressed
ny intimatlon of what those directors pur-
,osed to do In the premises. His communica-
ions were made only with the secretary of that
appended)
The affidavit required Of teachers Is pre-
eriPed peither by the city board, of directors
hoon ~ Me Ian. for The guidance Of all school
Ulcers. The secretary of the city board is III
possession, Of a form, for thai affidavit, drawn
at In obedience TO the propiso; and. when the
ecretary shall have reported the amount need
q OF the revenue Of 1877 to pay such teachers
- :. e,nptoyees Of ne city board as subscribe that
ftdara IN conformity TO the lao. the State Su-
Mt will cheerfuly authorize payment
such amount to be made to the treasurer of
ne school funds for the city,
The State Superintendent is not responsible
Or the wording OF the law. by which the GEN
raj Assembly Of tbs, State rendered partial re-
"a to the city board OF directors: but 1t is OBJ
iously his duty, as guardian of The interests Of
d,tcdtton throughout the State to see Hatthe con-
h0ns of epen relief measure are faulfulIu
nd strictly complied nth
ROBT. nj. LUSHER,
Atnts As,r is ,Ia~t