The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1883-06-02
excepting the following:

excepting the following:
J. Alcee Gauthreaux, ........... $1e9936 81
Estate of W. P. Harper. ....... 41,0l8 s.
Thomas H. HANDY. 9,617 90
Allen Jnmel. 29,1S1 90
r. q Egan. 17,528 IA
Thomas Duly. ........ ......... o.4o4 -
Ben. Armbruster;. ....... ll,too 70 70
John Curry. $500 90
+ " Gnillotte. 10000 90
". q. Mcconnell. 2,40O co
Thomas T.. Maxwell. 2,400 90
Total. $2G7, 412 81
The basis of the injunction suits was the
alleged unconstitutionality of Act SO, and
the acquiescence of the Board is construed
by the Senate committee as an admission
on the part of the members of the Board
that the law under which they were about
to proceed was violative Of the constitution
and consequently null and void. That they
should consent to the operation of the in
functions against all claimants excepting
their special friends is rightly regarded
remarkable procedure, and the name of the
first claimant thus favored, coupled with
the large amount Of his claim, is sufficient
to confirm the suspicion of something
rotten in Denmark"
Notwithstanding the Board had examined
no claims prior to the 10th of May, on the
18th of that month it authorized the issu-
ance of 1858 certificates, representing claims
to the amount of $24s, S22 81. The Senate
4lpf r,hr,c
impossible for the Board to have examined
the claims as the law required or for the
secretary to have issued such large num-
Der of certificates within the time these
things purport to have been done. The
right of the Board to issue certificates is
denied, and this plan is characterized as
brilliantly conceived and skillfully execu-
ted scheme" g fraught with great danger
to the people," Had itemized bills been
approved as the law contemplated, the in
vestigating committee would doubtless have
been able to expose more fully the exorbi-
tant and fraudulent character of claims al
lowed by the Board, but no such bills were
to be found among the documents or rec
ords of the Board and the committee had
no data from which to form an estimate of
the correctness Or incorrectness of several
of the approved accounts.
Concerning the principal claims approved
the committee declares substantially as fol-
lows: That of Mr.. Gauthreaux was exorbi-
tant, several suits having been instituted in
many instances where one would have suf-
feed, and the costs frequently amounting
to from three to ten times the taxes sued
for. Those of ex-Sheriffs Harper, Maxwell
and Waggaman were prescribed long be-
fore the adoption of the constitution of
1879, and had no standing under Act 50.
That of Auditor Jumel was for redemption
certificates which were never issued and for
which the State is never in any case respon
sible. The claim of Attorney General Egan
was for commissions on the aggregate of
the judgments obtained against delinquent
tax payers, whereas the laws only allow him
compensation on taxes actually collected
and turned into the treasury. While fairly
entitled to some compensation for services
rendered, it was manifestly unjust to allow
him the entire sum he would have earned If
every dollar of the taxes for which judg-
ments were obtained had been collected.
AS may have been supposed, the scathi1g
report of the Senate ommittee-closing
with the declaration that its authors "have
never known of a more reckless expenditure
of public funds or greater abuse of public
confidence "-created a terrible shaking up
of dry bones among the members of the
Board of Audit and some of the beneficial
ries of Act So, and they rushed madly into
print to denounce the committee and deny
its conclusions in positive and caustic terms,
emphatic in their disclaimers. The highly
respectable non-oficial members of the
Board Messrs. Patton, Behan and Meyer,
all sought refuge behind the judgments in
the injunction suits, claiming that the
Board was commanded to approve the
claims therein enumerated and had no dis
erection save to obey the decree. The text
of the judgments shows the error of this
assumption: "that the defendants shall be
and are hereby authorized to audit, examine
and pass upon and approve Claims" etc.,
as enumerated above. They were author
lied, not commanded, to approve the speci-
fed claims, and were free to approve, re-
duce or reject them, as might be deemed
just and proper after due examination.
It was also denied that the DEGREES in the
Injunction suits were consent judgments,
and here again the plain language of the
documents interposes to shatter the plea:
''The court considering the law, evidence
and consent of parties," proceeded to pro-
hibit defendants, the Board of Audit, from
examining any claims under unconstitu-
tional Act SO, save those Of Gauthreaux ct
ais, which were specially exempted from
the prohibition "by consent of plaintiffs"
Messrs. Patton, Behan and Meyer are
gentlemen of high character, and while it is
not alleged that they participated in the pc
cuniary profits of Act 50, they can not es-
cape the odium Of having permitted the
of an outrageous fraud upon