Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-10-02

the whole house forty seven in num-
ber-cond remove a governor But
section y Of the same article is as
follows:
"Sec II. The power Of impeachment
shall be vested in the house of repres-
entatives, but ma ority OF all the
members of the house shall concur to
direct an impeachment. All impeach-
ments shall be tried by the senate and
when organized for the purpose OF such
trial the chief justice of the supreme
court of the state shall preside, unless
he is impeached or otherwise disquali-
fed, when the senate shall elect a pre-
siding officer and no person shall be
convicted except upon the vote OF two
thirds of the senators elected. Any
person convicted shall be removed from
office, and may, in addition, be forever
disqualified from holding any office or
voting in this state; but such trial shall
not be a bar to a criminal prosecution
or civil action"
Instead Of a majority of a quorum
having any power in matters OF I'M
parchment, as Mr.. Childers would have
you believe, majority of all the mem
bers of the house-not less than twenty
J four--is required to direct an impeach-
ment.
No language can be found too strong
! to characterize the infamy Of such mis-
representations as these, We submit
. to you that nothing from people wh'
are deliberately guilty Of such deceit, i
worthy of serious attention. No decen
; or honorable man would desire to sue
coed by such methods, but by no other
can the enemies of statehood hope TO
~ success in this election.
: Mr.. Childers simply insults the intel
: ligence of the people in his assertlo
5 that majority of a quorum could I'M
: peach the governor or lieutenant gove1
nor; he is of the opinion, that he talk
8 to people who are ignorant and can ne
8 Judge for themselves.
, As to the position he takes upon tt
9 suspension from office Of an impeache
] governor, which be styles ''a radio
! DEPARTURE" and an ''innovation," tt
J following states Of the union have tt
:, : self-same provisions in their constit
-" tons: Alabama, Arkansas, Californ
CHI Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, low
on Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mic
an igan, Minnesota, Missouri, n
m braska, Nevada, New Jersey, NJ
We York, North Carolina, Ohio, Rho
lal Island, South Carolina, Texas, Wisco
Oh sin and Wyoming. In none Of the
&C states has there ever been any trout
in consequence of their constitution
'b- provisions on this subject. Is the
ia, any foundation for the assumption ii
he you are worse than the people Of tho
Rio states and will elect legislatures infer
lid to theirs? If you believe there is
he YOU are SO conscious Of your own deg
ne, dalton that you are not willing to tn
lty yourselves with the power Of creating
state legislature-then you will W
the against the constitution; otherwise J
ent will vote for it.
ose THE TAX LIMITATION IN THE CONSTR
of TIoN.
1t is strongly insisted by the enem
to of statehood that the provisions of a
ter icle ri at the constitution giving
on. legislature power to levy taxes W
on, particular articles, are very danger'
ind and that the Legislature will thereun@
ne impose unreasonable and excessive ta
tn on seattle, horses, sheep, burros, b'
IAN gies, wagons, plows, ETC." The absurd
of of this will be seen at once when we
re- fleet that for forty years we have
ers, legislatures in New Mexico without q
s is limit whatever on their power to !
the pose taxes, and yet we have never S
me, fered from any such iniquity as we
the now told is certainly in store for
under the constitution. Are we to
suddenly deteriorate that we will, un
on a state government Immediately cleo
and Legislature worse than any we have
~ had before2 Or if not worse, with m