Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-06-08
FRAUD FAILS!
Full Text Of the U. s. Supreme
Courts Opinion in the
County Election
Case.
Every Point Made by District
Judge Seeds and Counsel
lor Knaebel Fully
Sustained.
Interesting Summary of Events
Which Led Up to the An
nOuncement of this
Decision.
Political History From Which Small Co.
terie of Doodle Politicians Is Re.
sponsbIe.
The So-Oalled Dreamer Board Knocked
0ut-And All Its Acts Wholly
Irregular and Void.

A summary of the proceedings in the
district court before Judge Seeds, and OF
the legal points made in sustaining his
action by counsel for the county, will
show that the supreme court of the
United States has fully endorsed the po-
sitions taken by the territorial courts.
When the former commissioners, Wyl-
lys and Martinez, disappeared under judi
cial fire, and abandoned their official du-
ties, and the sheriff reported to the court
his utter inability to find them after the
most diligent search, Acting Governor
Thomas very wisely supplied the vacant
places by the appointment of Messrs
North and Grace. The district court
having previously considered and deter
mined the matter Of the stolen returns Of
Galisteo precinct and required the county
commissioners, to whose negligence the
theft was attributable, to count the du-
plicate returns furnished by the precinct
judges, it therefore made further order
requiring the re-organlzed board to per-
form that duty. The result WAS the due
canvassing of all the returns and the is
suing of proper certificates of election to
all persons so found to have been elected,
including Commissioners Staab, Nesbitt
and Garcia, as well as Pedro Delgado, the
clerk. All these proceedings were duly
held under the solemn orders of the dis
trict court, and, if those orders had been
respected by Pedro Delgado, DR.. J. H.
Sloan, O. M. Creamer, and other discon-
contented politicians, peace and law would
long since have reigned in Santa Fe
county.
But the absconding commissioners and
DR.. Sloan, who had refused to obey the
orders of the court, had no compunctions
about meeting together surreptitiously for
the purpose of defying those orders. So,
in open contempt of court, they made a
partial canvass of votes IGNORING the
whole Galisteo vote) and issued fraud |
ulent certificates accordingly.
Under those certificates Creamer and
set up as rival commissioners,
Wyllys having retired in disgust from
this disgraceful business.
But the lawful commissioners, Staab,
Nesbitt and Garcia also organized and
called on Delgado, the clerk, to perform
his sworn duties. The clerk refused
Upon petition the district court ordered |
him by mandamus to recognize the law
full commissioners, whose certificates re-
suited from canvass obediently made
under the orders of the court, and not to
the official pretenders who
were openly defying the court. The
clerk refused and was sent to Jail, there
to remain until he shall obey.
Claiming that the district court had no
Jurisdiction to commit him for his con-
tempt, he sued out writ of habeas cor
pus before the territorial supreme court,
upon the grounds that the district court
had no jurisdiction, out of term time, to
issue writ of mandamus or to commit
for contempt, and also that it had no
to determine by mendamus |
the title OF the respective claimants to the |
office of county commissioners.
The territorial supreme court Except |
Chief Justice O'Brien) sustained Judge
Seeds. Carried to the supreme court OF |
the United States, the case was there
argued by Congressman Springer and
Mr.. Tom Smith for Delgado, and by Mr..
John H. Knaebel for the county.
The counsel for the appellant insisted
that the district court had no jurisdiction
out of term time; that it had Improperly
refused trial by jury; that it could not try
title to Office by mandsmus; and that it's
power, in case of disobedience of such
writ, was limited to the imposition Of a
fine of $3.50.
Mr.. Knaebel, on the other hand, con-
tended that the court was always open to
consider mandamus cases and to enforce
obedience to it's lawful writs; that trial
by jury was not requisite in a mandamus
case; that the $3.50 fine specified in the
statute was intended as punishment for
past official neglect and not as q restric-
lion on the courts power to enforce it's
that the district court had q
right to take Judicial notice from It's own
records of the falsity Of the defendants
that the petitioners we're county
de jure and de facto; and
hat, at all events, it was not the business