The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-03-30
THE STATE AUDITOR.
ING STATEMENTS or PUBLIC
OFFICIALS.

Meeting Hon Allen Jumel State Auditor yes
terday, a representative Of the DrmoURAr re-
| called to that gentleman's memory the incl
| dents OF the trial Of Mr.. Geo W. Dupre ey State
IFduter In the Superior Criminal Court. and
asked OF him an explanation of the circnm-
stances established by his testimony. upon
which the district attorney declined to further
prosecute the ease.
1t will be remembered thai the Indictment In
that case was based on what purported to be q
sworn statement. signed by Mr.. Dupre. to the
justice and accuracy of the accounts and the
amount Of money due him by the State for
work DONE which statement was attached to
| the accounts.
The grand jury. assuming upon pa~te tes-
tImony that the accounts were incorrect and
eEoibitant. and that tho warrants for the
amount claimed could be Issued only on a
sworn statemsut. found n true hill charging
Mr. Dupre with perjury When the case came
10 for trial It was discovered that the statement
Of Mr.. Dupre. while oouched In the language OF
n sworn asseveration, had no iuret attached and
merely bore his own plain subscription. Mr..
Tunnel was placed on the stand as the FIRST wit
meas and testified that he had not admin istersd
an oath to Mr.. Dupre and that that gentleman
had not sworn, TO his knowledge TO the nc
counts. Upon this evidence the district
attorney promptly abandoned tae case
TO this Mr.. Dupres counsel objected.
on the ground that the eravamen of The ffsnss
charged lay In the alleged obtaining Of m1nsy
not due on fraudulent accounts. declared them
selves willing to stand Cor trial on the state
ment as If 1t had been sworn to, and insisted
upon going into the merits Of the case. to-wit.
the accuracy and Justice of the accounts. This
demand was overrued by the court. and the
jury brought In q verdict Of acquittsl under In
structiona from the Judge
This short recital Of the facts of the case will
enable our readers TO understand the bearing
of the question propounded TO the Auditor az
we'll ss the import Of his replies. The gue stIon |
Was. bril- ay. How d d It happen that you Is |
saet Mr. Dnprn lhew rans GA t y, q, accounts
To which Mr. Jumnl answered.
Simply because had every confidence In |
Mr. Dupra, believed his accounts to he corr set |
and the sum claimed by him to be- due"
But" Inquired our .reptese ntative. Is not |
the law Imperative. and are you not forbidden
TO Issue warrants except upon sworn state
Not at all, !" replied The Auditor: THAT Is a
thor answer refer You to section 1871. Revised
Statutes which reads as follows:
SHc. isl. Whenever the Auditor may think il
necessary for the proper settlement Of any ae-
count he mnV examine the parties and others
on oath or affirmation. touching any fact ma
terial to be- known In the settlement Of such ae
count and for that purpose HHy issue sub
Ipuaee or commissions, or eomppl Witnesses
to attend before him. and give evidence In sueh
manner and b. such means as are allowed by
cou rte Of law.
This" continued The Auditor, is the VIII ole
law benriug In the case. aud from this you see
that whether or not IN account shall bs swoi n
to before the warrants therefor are issued Is
left entirely to my own discretion [ did net
make the requirement of Mr. Dupre because
did not think II necessary"
From this showing It IL apparent that the
failure to exact n sworn statement from Mr..
Dupre was not an informally on the part of the
Auditor. accidental or othet wise. II
MIR. Jumel further said that he was not an
swerable to the courts for tho manner In which
he chose to exercise his discretion. Fly section
lpe. Revised Statutes. parties dissatisfied with
his actions were referred to the Legislature for
relief. and the courts had no power to revise
bs decisions.