Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1889-01-31
DONA ANA VS.. SIERRA.
Legislative Investigation and Supreme
Court Decision.

1t is charged that the original act Great
ing Sierra county shows that it has been
tempered with and debt unjustly forced
upon it. The records of the house and
the senate show but one amendment to
the original bill, and that was offered by
Mr.. Cooney, of Socorro county, and is as
follows: "Section 3Sl. Provided, that
the property separated from Socorro
county shall not be exempt from its share
OF taxation to pay the bonded indebted
ness OF Socorro county" On page l54,
journal OF the house and council OF the
Goth legislative assembly appears the fol-
lowing;
"Mr. President: Your committee to
which was referred house bill creating
Sierra county report the same back and
recommend its passage without amend
ment. JOHN A. MILLER,
"Chairman of Com. on Counties"
Mr.. Miller, upon the third reading,
moved that the bill be passed. Vote,
yeas 3; nay ;.
IL ullN ObllcI W d5 dtttlttl III
the council it is alleged it was never re-
ported back to the house for concurrence.
On the face of the bill is posted what is
now Sec 32S and two others of the Com
piled Laws. 1t is claimed that two sec
tons were added to the bill during the
time Of its transit from the council to the
governor, and that these two sections con-
tanned the provision compelling Sierra
county to pay its proportion OF the exist
ing bonded Indebtedness of Grant and
bona Ana counties. Sierra county peo-
pie claim that the bill as originally passed
never contemplated saddling debt upon
them in behalf of Grant and Dona Ana
counties, and Messrs. Foster, Sanchez
and Snitfen have heen named as a special
committee on behalf of the present lower
house to investigate the matter. The
committee has sent for Hon. Amado
Chaves, speaker of the house during the
26th assembly; Hon. Nick Gales and
Hon. John A. Miller The latter is alb,
sent from the territory and could not be
found, but the former two will be here in
day or two to present their testimony
before the investigators.
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
In this connection it is worthy of note
that the supreme court has just handed
down suit touching this matter.
The opinion is by Justice Reeves an(
the decision OF the lower court is affirmed
The Dona Ana county board of commits
sioners, in their bill of complaint, set w
that on April 8, 1854, the legislative as
sembly Of New Mexico passed the &C
creating the new county of Sierra an(
thereby cut off and deprived Dona An.
county of large portion of its territory
and made it portion of the county o
Sierra, and therein providing that the in
debtedness Of Dona Ana county existing
at the date of the approval OF the &C
should be apportioned between the county
of Dona Ana and the county of Sierra or
the basis of the last assessment of prop
erty made for the purpose of taxation il
the county Of Dona Ana, as the SAME
stood at the date and prior to the passage
of the act, and in proportion to the
amount of taxable property taken from
the county OF Dona Ana.
The Dona Ana county people sued TO,
| 14,4l0.50 as the proportion of the in
debtedness due from the county of Serrs
by reason of the apportionment, ant
prayed for $4,000 as damages, togethe
with interest and costs OF suit. The lowe
court found that Sierra county was in
debted to Dona Ana in the sum O
$14, 065.95, with per cent interest anC
costs of suit. The cause was taken up OF
several pleas of error, but Judge Hen
derson's decision in the district court wa
sustained,