Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-02-16

consequent upon repeated changes o.
venue on the one hand, and on the other
of great hardship to parties prosecuted
from malicious motives and insufficient
causes. This class of suits, as well as
others, could be called to trial in portions
of the territory distant from the home Of
the defendant, and through frequent
changes of venue taken by the prosecu-
ton, tedious delays, costs of court and ex-
penses of travelling, finally weary him into
submission.
! To illustrate, suppose man is served
with an ejectment suit from land which
he occupies and OF which he believes
himself to be the rightful owner. The
prosecuting claimant can institute suit in
the proper county-then take change Of
venue from one county to another, till the
the means of the defendant are
exhausted and he is forced to abandon the
unequal struggle; or he may be forced
into the United States court, and then by
summary process into prison, under this
bill, and one who perhaps had, in COM
parison, not shadow of title in the land,
becomes the possessor through the finan-
cial inability and the peculiar provision
of this bill, of the far more probable
owner to defend his right.
Every man in the territory occupying a
home, or a disputed grant, no matter
what the nature of the title to such grant
might be, could in this way by harass-
ing prosecution, be finally evicted
aand robbed of whatever value he might
be possessed of in such home, and he
would be utterly without recourse in
law. That is precisely what this change
of venue and enforcement of trial in the
United States court not only might, but
most certainly would, do in many cases.
The courts of this territory have had
experience of the mischievous operation
of laws providing for forced change OF
venue. Prior to 1884 the absolute right
to change Of venue was provided by
law, though in far less Objectionable
form than this, and from which resulted
most serious abuses. Attorneys, by
drawing sffidavits declaring against num-
Der of counties, would secure q
trial in some county where their clients
had special advantages, or where they
could contest the juries. Even when this
did not occur, a change of venue became
a part of the public proceeding in defense
of every criminal. Delay, if it could be
procured, was likely to produce disper.
sal of witnesses, or a forgetfulness of facts
which lessened the chances Of conviction,
and when all other means of delay failed
recourse was always had TO change Of
venue. The counsel for defense produced
the affidavit which no criminal ever re.
fuses to make, and the court was power.
less to prevent the change and consequent
delay, though itwere patent that the rea
son alleged for the change was groundless
and a mere subterfuge for delay. SC
notorious became the abuse of this privi
lege that in 1882 the legislature unani
mously changed the law and made 9
change Of venue discretionary with the
court, and that is the existing law which
this bill now proposes to displace, as did
a somewhat similar bill to this, introduced
in 1884, but failed of passage.
Taken all in all, this bill is an uncalled
for and dangerous departure from the
system Of jurisprudence as recognized in
all the states Of the union, and marks the
beginning of period of retrogression in
the history of the territory instead of 9
period of enlightened development and
progress. EDMUND G. Ross.