Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-04-09
OFFICIAL AND POLITICAL.



The legislative assembly, at the session
just closed passed a law known as coun-
Gil bill No. ia, entitled ''An act with
reference to the offices Of solicitor general
and district attorneys, and for other pur-
poses" Under this law the territorial
senate appointed and commissioned dis
trict attorneys for the six districts OF the
territory Among others, Major Salazar,
of Las Vegas, was appointed, and when
he appeared in court and presented his
certificate, Mr. A. A. Jones also appeared
and objected to the recognition by the
court OF Mr.. Salazar as district attorney,
Gov Ross, appointing Mr.. Jones district
attorney for said district. The latter
named gentleman also asked to be al
lowed to proceed with the discharge OF
the duties OF said office. Hon. T. B.
Catron and Col. g. w. Prichard appeared
for Mr. Salazar, and Judge VIM. A. Vim
cent for Mr. Jones, and full argument was
heard as to who should be recognized as
prima facie district attorney. Appended
are extracts IRON Judge Longs decision
recognizing Major Salazar as the duly APP
pointed district attorney;
1t is conceded that Mr..
Salazar was, under tt e authority OF this
law, duly elected by the council and that
he holds whatever legal right such cleo
ton and the certificate hereunder and
his oath of office give him. 1t is claimed
by MIR. Salazar that the legislative assem-
bly, had full power to enact this law, and
the council power to elect under its pro-
visions; on the contrary Mr.. Jones denies
such power OF the council to elect without
the consent OF the governor. Upon such
an informal proceeding as this one, where
no Issue is raised and where no right is
adjudicated, it can not be expected the
court will enter into an exhaustive exam
ination Of the point involved, but rather
that it will determine only who seems to
have prima facie the better right, post
poning more thorough consideration to
such time as the question may arise upon
q legal issue. Espe tally must this be
done because of the further fact that the
matter arises here, so far distant from any
law library, and with duties OF a term of
court requiring immediate attention. n
X X n n
1t is not claimed in this contention that
council bill No. ia is not upon a rightful
subject of legislation The commission
held by Mr.. Jones comedies that, because
:. recognizes the district created by that
| t, and undertakes to fill it with an in
aumbent of the governors selection. 1t
il not contended by Mr.. Jones that the
legislative assembly is wanting in power
to create districts within which district at
torneys shall perform their duties, but he
contends when the district is created it
can not be filled by an officer selected by
the council alone. If section 1912 oper-
ates to enlarge the power of the legislative
assembly conferred by section s, his con-
tention must fail, and that it is in legal
effect IN amendment OF section seems
to me very clear.
. In the case OF Territory vs.. Van Gas
kin, 6, Pac. Rep. 80, the supreme court
of Montana considers the power OF the
legislative assembly under section 8. That
court quotes as follows; Gan township
district and county officers n ~
= such manner as may be provided, by
the governor and legislative assembly,
And then proceeds to determine whether
: under its power the assembly and COVER
nor may appoint by law county commits
sioners. The court says "The governo
and the legislative assembly have thu
power to provide the manner of appoint
ment; therefore they have the power tt
k appoint directly. The law was the man
: ner of the appointment
Ii the legislative assembly may provide
that an election shall be held by the PEG
pie to select district attorney, may it no
. also provide such election shall be held by
the council? By express act Of congress
the power to determine the manner o
election or appointment is given to thu
legislative branch of the government. Car
there be any doubt but after the passage
OF section 1912 that the legislative assem-
bly, could pass any law, being upon
rightful subject of legislation, if two-thirds
Of each house concurred, over the COVER
nor's objection? Certainly not Where
did the power to do so come from? Clear
ly from sections and s, modified by sec
ton 1912.
What line in section 1912 limits it.
operation to subjects other than the man
ner of election or appointment to office o
county, district, or township officers
Under that section, without the governor
consent, the assembly may define anC
: punish crimes, impose burdens and pro
vide for taxation, and so it may legislat,
with respect to district Offices.
Suppose the assembly in tn,
case here, instead Of itself exercising thu
. power of election, had provided for al
election OF district attorneys by the peopl,
of the several districts, is there any doub
that it may legally have done so over tn,
governors objection? Or suppose it hat
provided that the governor himsel
should appoint the district attorneys
without the concurrence of the as
sembly, it is to be doubted that th
executive could legally have per
formed that duty and that he would
also have exercised the power
Bearing in mind that thu
people are competent to intelligently ex
ercise the elective franchise and to cleo
officers Of their own choice, the assembly
, might well have RENTED the selection o
officers to direct vote of the people, bu
because that body, acting upon its owl
judgment Of tie public welfare, has pro
vided different manner of election, the
law is not therefore void for want o
power Congress has in my opinion con
ferred in express terms on the Legislature
the power to determine the manner il
which district officers shall be appointed
or elected, subject OF course to the limitec
check given to the governor to interpose
his objection. When such objection is
interposed to the manner OF appointment
b1t m ont ~ tho accop, bl,, o,,al