Note 119 — Part II
Reading edition
The report consisted of answers to the following questions:
1. What was the condition of the accounts of the Treasurer connected with the verification of the entries of such accounts as well as ascertaining by such verification whether the receipts had been correctly entered and disbursed, and the cash properly and legally applied.
2. What mode of settlement had been established by the Treasurer in receiving revenue turned in by tax collectors.
3. What discrimination, if any, had been exercised in the payment of warrants.
The report in part was:
"Beyond these matters your committee find the books of the Treasurer to have been kept in an orderly manner; the disbursements have been regularly entered, and the cash presently all accounted for up to the first of January, 1877, to which period this report alone extends. These vouchers and orders are all on hand and the warrants for each payment are properly canceled....
"These figures do not of necessity import proof absolute and conclusive of any undue favoritism, although by circumstances and legitimate inference they point to that conclusion. Warrants being negotiable it has been impossible to ascertain who held those outstanding, and therefore impossible to fix a proper proportion of payment, but the fact that the multitude of payments made to the same person, while other warrant holders were forced to wait, and the intimacy existing between themselves or their employees and the Treasurer are, undeniably, circumstances which, unexplained, justify at least a suspicion that these parties have enjoyed facilities, preferences and privileges at the Treasury over the general public, to which they were not entitled.
"It is true that these figures are explained by statements that the proportion paid the respective persons mentioned were only in proportion to the amount which the warrants held by them bore to the whole amount of outstanding warrants, but this explanation in itself merits notice and explanation, because of the fact that the persons named were the holders of such a large amount of warrants imply some inducement on their part to invest in them, more especially as by avocation the majority of them were not brokers but employees in the Custom-House. Some of them have testified that all the warrants they held were paid. Another has refused to disclose for whom he collected. A third was a relative of a personal employee of the Treasurer. One has been shown to be a constant frequenter of his office, and must have been an intimate of the Treasurer's from the fact that he appears to have been the payee of a check for $75,000 illegally drawn, as mentioned before. They point, at least, to the necessity of such legislation as may be adequate to prevent even possible suspicion of favoritism in the future. Under the provisions of the acts of the General Assembly, passed at the session of 1877, the danger of favoritism has been very much safeguarded and needs supplementing in only minor particulars.
"The Treasurer certainly by comparison deserves commendation for having accounted for all moneys coming into his hands, being in this particular a remarkable exception. Edward D. White, James D. Hill, Sam H. Buck."—Report of Joint Committee to Investigate the Treasurer's Office, State of Louisiana, to the General Assembly, 1877, pp. 7-12, Majority Report.