Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-02-25
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
Territory of New Mexico,
Santa Fe. Feb. %. 1899.

Territory OF New Mexico,
Santa Fe, Feb. %, 1889. }
To the 2Sth Legislative Assembly;
Gentlemen | have the honor to trans
NIT herewith, to the house in which it
originated, house bill No. l6l, can act to
punish false PRESERVATION" without ex-
ecutive approval.
This bill is in the direct line of special
legislation, in that by special act it en-
larges the scope OF the act defining the
oIfense OF false PRESERVATION, and that def
milton is limited to a single subjert-thc
holding of two public Offices, established
or attempted to be established by the act
to which this bill relates and is supple
mental, instead of providing penalties for
all such offenses by general bill, appli-
cable alike to all public offices.
1t defines class Of crimes hitherto I'M
known to the law, aud that by . special,
and not Il general a2t-creating new
crime in two especial cases--the claiming
OF right to either Of two definitely
named characterization general and dis
triCt attorney.
If the bill were made applicable to all
territorial Offices instead OF two, this OBJ
lection might not apply, but being made
applicable to but two, it becomes Especial
act, and thus obnoxious to the interdi :
ton established in the act Of congress of
July 80, 1886, which distinctly declares
that
"The legislatures of the territories
shall not pass local or special
laws y for the punishment OF
crimes and misdemeanors, and that in
all other cases where general law can be
applicable, no special law shall be enacted
in any OF the territories of the United
States by the territorial legislatures there
of.
It is undcniable that a general law
could be framed to As fully accomplish the
purpose OF this bill as by a special act. 1t
is apparent, therefore, that this bill, if
passed into the form OF law, would be
simply imperative and void.
The practice of legisating by special
and local enactments is coming to be
discountenanced by the legislative bodies
generally of the country. In many of the
states it is positively forbidden by state
constitutions, where general act can be
made to accomplish the purpose. Its
vice is apparent, and the general trend OF
legislation is against it as vicious The
philosophy Of the growing demand for
general, and the discountenance of special,
legislation whenever the former will APP
ply, was ably and forcibly stated by Judge
CatrOn, OF Tennessee, one Of the most
eminent jurlsts OF his time, in an opinion
in which he said:
"The rights OF every individual must
stand or fall by the same rule of law that
| governs every other member of the body
polite, or land, under similar circum-
stances; and every partial or private
law which directly proposes to destroy or
affect individual rights, or does the same
thin gby aliording remedies leading to
similar consequences, is unconstitutional
and void"
"a general and public law prescribing
remedies and modes of redress
can certainly be constitutionally passed.
Can the same be done by a partial or
private law? This can as certainly not
be done, if the measure OF justice to be
administered is not according to the pub
lie law of the land"
A conspicuous vice of this bill is in
that it attempts to assume judicial func-
tons, and to iorestall the action of the
courts by determining in advance of adju-
dication by the lawfully constituted judi
cial tribunals, OF questions for which, in
part, those tribunals are created to adju-
dictate and determine. 1t provides, sub
stantially, that citizen, though holding
a commission from an officer authorized
by the organic act to issue such commits
sion, shall become subject to the pains
and penalties OF felony, for seeking in
the courts the establishment of o right
which he may believe the law and his
commission give him.
The bill is but one more of the several
attempts that have characterized the his
tory Of the current legislative assembly to
break down the barrier established by the
organic act between the three coordinate
branches of government-the executive,
| legislative and judicial.
| Previous efforts to pass beyond this
| fixed line of demarcation, by the legisla-
! tive department, have been confined to
| but one or the other of these branches,
respectively, but this effort becomes con-
spicuous in that it is directed to both the
others-an attempt at absorption to the
legislative department of the junction of
both the executive and the judicial de-
partments.
1t infringes upon the authority OF the
executive in that it seeks to take away
from that official the power to commits
sion, guaranteed by the organic act by
| declaring his commission to be worthless
in advance OF judicial determination, and
the assertion Of a claim under it to be q
crime.
1t infringes upon the judicial depart
| b,,r nriu, fnpo hn1l H.
| ing such commission to assert any claim
to, or shall claim to be the lawful pos
SCISSOR or incumbent" of either one of two
named territorial offices, and thus to
estop him from seeking justification in
the courts, and thus again to take away
from the courts the authority to adudi-
cate that question. The bare assertion of
that claim is made felony by punish
ment by fine and imprisonment in the
penitentary.
Every man holding commission from
the authority authorized by law to issue
such instruments has right to 60 into
court and seek to vindicate his claim, and
there is no power anywhere under free
government that can lawfully stop him
from so doing
If the legislative assembly desires to
provide especially for the punishment OF
intrusion into public office by methods
contrary to those it proposes to establish,
the far more manly way would be to
strike directly at the source of the alleged
oh'ense. If there is any oflense or Grim
inality in the preferment of claim or
right to given public office, that otfense
or criminality is vastly more in the official
who bestows the commission on which
CONTINUED on 1st page,
|
= g~s