Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1890-09-30
SOME OBJECTIONS REVIEWED
The Ignorance Of Statehood Opponents
Who Undertake to Condemn
the Constitution.
Plain Facts for the Candid Man to Pom
der-Some Comparisons of State
Constitutions.
To the Editor of the New Mexican.

To the Editor of the New Mexican.
WHITE OAKS, Sept. 20, '90.--The oppo-
nents of statehood never fail to object to
the Santa Fe constitution that it provides
for the suspension from office ofthe "gov-
ernor" during the progress of lmpeach-
ment proceedings against him. 1t actually
provides for the same suspension OF all
officers subject to impeachment under the
same circumstances.
These obiectors are singularly ignorant
OF the constitutional history of their
country. No modern statesman would
dream Of leaving to an impeached execu-
tive officer the power, influence and
patronage of his office during the penden-
cy of his trial for high crimes and misde-
meanors, wherewith to duplicate the
offences, to influence or corrupt the body
sitting in judgment upon him, or the
body urging his prosecution.
Moreover, the matter has presented it.
self in numerous states as it has this, and
the suspension in such cases has become
an established American practice. You
have lately enumerated states the con-
s'titution of which contain similar pro-
visions. TO that list should be added the
states of Minnesota and Louisiana. In
the latter state the provision originated,
hain
II, article 12) signed January II, 1872.
That state has had since that date the
constitutions of 1915, 1852, 1864, 1868
and 1879. In the making of the six
constitutions the Federal, Democratic,
Whg and Republican parties have
dominated, but no party has
DARED LAY IT'S FINGER UPON THIS PRovIs-
ION,
which remains in the latest constitution
in the same language as in the earliest.
Now, more than half the states have
adopted the same policy. The chief op-
ponents of the constitution here in Lin
coin are Hewitt, Mcdonald and Richard
son. This Identical provision is embod-
led in the constitutions of Hewitt's native
state of Ohio; in McDonald's native state
of New York, and in Richardson's 8 native
state of Kentucky.
Another very peculiar objection is one
originated by Ross, but very generally
adopted by the gentlemen of the opposi-
ton to-wit, that the contitution forbds
plurality of offices.
A natural sentiment of economy would
suggest such provision if it did not exist.
There are never enough offices to 20
around, and we would think a provision
which compelled division among as
many men as there are Offices would be
peculiarly dear to the Democrat heart
This very peculiar provision" is, how
ever,
COMMON TO THE CONSTITUTIONS OF HALF
THE STATES
and has been adopted in the form OF leg
islation in nearly all the remainder. A
very general objection is that the supreme
court is not elective. 1t is frequently
said, 'if people are qualified for self
government, they are fit to elect their
judges" The provision in our consttu
ton under which the judges OF
tie supreme court are appointed !
and other judyes elected, is mani .
fest compromise between two systems,
your correspondent would regard the
constitution as more perfect, if the judges
of the supreme court were appointed for
life, or during good behavior, than as
now for term of years. 1t is not ques-
ton of the fitness of the people to elect
1t is question of the Indifference of the
judiciary. Our ancestors fought hard and |
long with the crown to obtain that boon
of judicial independence, which we are
inclined to throw away or disregard.
1t does not matter whether The de- |
pendence is upon the will and pleasure
of crowned monarch, or on popular
sovereignty expressed through the
caucuses of political party. The evil is
ever present, and while the judiciary in
the elective states are worthy of all
praise for the vigor and honesty with
which they have generally resisted popu-
lar influences, instances are not wanting
therein of fragrant departure from the
rules OF both law and equity at the de-
mand OF popular passion, or at the be-
hest of influences, parties and parties
able to grant or withhold a reelection.
Any lawyer familiar with the judicial