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

~N-->> 49,
poses.
By Mr.. D. Martinez, H. B. No. 154
an act in relation to auctioneers-prO
hibiting side bidders.
By Mr.. Lucero, II. B. No. 1856, an act
in relation to school directors.
Adjourned to 10 a. IN. on Monday.
ANOTHER VETO.
The following was sent to the council
by Gov. Ross this forenoon:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
Territory of New Mexico, :
Santa Fe, Feb. Is, 1889. J
To the Council OF the 2sth Legislative Assembly
Gentlemen: have the honor to return
herewith to the house in which il
originated, council bill No. 50, can act
in relation to change of venue" with
out executive approval.
The first section of this bill is man
datory that "the venue in all civil and Grim.
inal cases shall be changed
when the party moving for change shall
file in the case an affidavit of himself, his
agent or attorney, stating that he believes
that such party can not obtain a fair trial
in the county wherein the cause is pend
ing" for certain reasons assigned, sup.
ported by the oaths of two disinterested
persons that they believe the facts stated
therein to be true. The court can not in.
quire into the reasons for that belief, mol
the merits OF the altidavlts, but must
grant the change, giving the territory OF
the prosecutors no opportunity to file
counter atfidavits or to show cause why
the change should not be granted, or any
discretion to the court and this rule APP
plies to every grade of criminal rs well as
to civil cases.
1t compels the court to grant the mo-
ton for Il change as q matter OF right
whatever the reason for the belief, OF
practically, in the absence of any reason
therefore, though in fact the court may
know the affidavit of belief may have nc
foundation whatever, and be entirely DIES,
titute of merit and irresponsible.
The provision Of the bill contained in
the Sd section, to change cause to the
district court OF such judicial district sit
ting for the trial of causes arising under
the constitution and laws of the United
States, (Which court is hereby given jur-
isdiction to try all causes so removed" is
seriously Objectionable, for the grave
reason that if the jurisdiction of this court
is restricted by the organic act to causes
"arising under the constitution and laws
of the United States" the exercise by the
territorial legislature of the power to con-
fer upon such court wider jurisdiction
than the laws of congress have conferred
is more than questionable.
The organic act of the territory (page
$50 Compiled Laws) provides that ''the
said territory shall be divided into three
judicial districts, and district court shall
be held in each of said districts by one Of
the justices of the supreme court.
The jurisdiction of the several courts here.
in provided for, both appellate and origi:
nal, shall be as limited by
law, and each of the said dis
trict courts shall have and exercise the
same jurisdiction in all cases arising I'M
der the constitution and laws OF the United
States, as is vested in the circuit and dis
trict courts Of the United States"
1t is thus shown that the organic ACT
provides for judicial districts and district
courts. That act also provides that these
courts shall have and exercise the same
jurisdiction in all cases arising under the
constitution and laws of the United States
as is vested in the circuit and district
courts OF the United States.
The law thus appears to define with
exactness what class OF cases can be tried
by the district courts, when sitting for the
trial OF United States causes, and speci-
fic limitation of their jurisdiction. If that
be established, it must clearly follow that
the territorial legislature can not change
the same by enlarging or restricting that
jurisdiction.
That these courts have not jurisdiction
of the class of cases that are intended OF
expected to be brought before them is
implied by the provision of this bill vest.
ing them with that Jurisdiction. The
language of section is that "such change
of venue shall be made to the
district court OF such Judicial district sit.
ting for the trial OF cases arising under the
constitution and laws of the United
States, which court is hereby given juris'
diction to try and determine all cases sc
removed"
1t is thus evident that if the ceases &c
removed" are not triable in the circuit and
district court of the United States, they
are not triable in these district courts, and
that the attempt to give them such juris-
diction by act of the territorial legislature
is futile, and this being apparently the
main purpose Of the bill, it contravenes
the organic act, and is therefore inopera-
tive.
The question naturally arises, why does
the bill seek to vest i'll these tribunals,
when sitting as United States courts, a
power which the laws OF congress do not
give them, but by fair implication inten-
tionally wi.holds from them, and which
they do possess when sitting as territorial
courts? Why can not the ends of justice
tie subserved in these tribunals sitting as
territorial courts as etlectually as when
sitting as United States courts, especially
with the larger jurisdiction as to local
affairs as territorial courts? These are
questions that will be asked in case of the
final passage of this bill, from motives far
removed from idle curiosity.
But this bill is defective and obnoxious
from other considerations than these.
It gives to a criminal or to party in
civil action the right to change of
venue, absolute and practically regardless
of reasons. This will be productive of
much mischiefin practice, and often times,
and as rule, but serve to defeat the ends
OF justice by continued delays and expense