Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-07-09
TERRITORIAL FINANCES.


In the district court yesterday Judge
Seeds rendered the following decision
Victor A. Greenleaf
1880 vs..
Demetro Perez, Auditor.
This is a nandamus proceeding to COM
pei the territorial auditor to issue war
rant to the relator upon that part of the
deficiency fund appropriating $4,000 for
the payment OF district attorneys for I'M
paid balances due. The auditor for
answer says, that there is but Sc per cent
of the amount appropriated subject to be
paid on this and like claims, and as there
are three other district attorneys who
have filed their claims with him, he be-
lieves 1t to be the true intent of the law
that the fund be equtably distributed
among all the claimants to said fund,
hence he has refused to pay the relator
more than the Sc per cent of his claim.
This the relator refuses to take.
The question for the court then is this:
Should the claimants be paid their claims
in full in the order in which they present
those claims, as long as there is any
thing in the fund or should it be equt-
ably distributed among all who may be
emitted to claim compensation from the
fund? There is another question also
involved in the contention, and that is,
are the parties to be paid in the order Of
OF the presenting of their claims
to the auditor or in the order of
their auditing? 1t seems to me that as q
purely legal proposition there can be but
one answer given. This is not an equit-
able remedy. And though we may not
contemplate with equaninity the idea of
one person being paid his just dues and
another having to wait for an indefinite
term for his, and then possibly be de-
prived OF it by the stupidity or wisdom
OF the legislature, yet tnat is the law, and
before it we must bow. The appropria-
ton bill OF the 10Th legislative assembly
can not commend itself to rational
beings as the highest type of a law. In
fact it is not rejecting too severely
upon that body to say that 1t is a piece
OF legislative mechanism which may be
tolerated for once as a curiosity, but
ought then to be preserved as a monu-
ment OF legislative carelessness, to use no
severer term, and as warning to future
bodies of the danger of thoughtless legis-
latlon. The intention of the legislature
must govern in constituting law; and
that intention is to be arrived at in
the first instance, if possible, by the
language. Now, the bill appropriates
specific sums for certain purposes, but as
matter of fact there is not in the spe
clfc fund sufficient money to meet the
full amount appropriated. If the law
was as usual then the auditor would sim
ply draw warrants up to the limit of the
appropriation and leave it with the treas.
urer to refuse payment if the money was
short. But tie new law of 1899, which
is made more stringent by that OF this
year, changes this and makes 1t crime
for the auditor to draw warrant unless
there is money in the fund to draw upon.
| have already decided that the treasure,
must keep the various funds separated
and duly apportfoned as to the money on
hand. Hence, the auditor is safe In now
drawing upon given sum, for he knows
Just what at any given time is in that
sum. But fail to find any authority for
the auditor to act as a court Of equity to
apportlon the moneys as between various
applicants. The act itself does not give
HIM that power and no law upon the
statute books that | have seen, by any
fair construction, eau be made to uphold
such authority. 1t is unnecessary to &c
into an extended argument to show why
this is 30, for the absence from the law
of any authority upon the matter is sufh
Cient in and of itself.
The only remaining question is Should
the claims be paid in the order of their
filing or of their auditing? Under the
law the auditor has duty cast upon him
of inquiring into the validity of a claim
before he issues his warrant. 1t follows
then, that his warrant should be issued
immediately upon the decision as to the
validity of the claim. Has the aud;to,
so passed upon the other claims which
have been filed with him? He does moi
so say. He has, as l understand him
filed them to wait the determination oil
the law question involved in the con.
struCtlon OF the statute. Now certainly
he can not refuse to act until some party
goes to the trouble of appealing to the
courts to compel him to act, and then
turn about and say, "there are others
"HSeN "a Vhio appllCdut WuOse Claluis
must first be paid and deprive the No an
who causes the decision of his rights
The truth is, that under the position
taken by the auditor, there las been nc
action as yet taken by him, nor can there
be until he is apprised of the decision Of
the court. Then he mast act upon the
order of the court, and as l know moth
ing OF any other claim than the one now
under consideration, upon which car
act, it necessarily follows that he mus
act in obedience to this writ at once and
audit this claim first.
The order of the court then is, that the
auditor at once proceed to audit the claim
OF this relator, and issue to him war
rant for the amount due him, out OF any
moneys in the hands of the treasurer re
naming in the sub division OF said deficit
fund specifically appropriated for thu
payment of district attorneys, now stated
by the treasurer to be about Sc per cen
of the appropriation.
EDWARD P. SEEDS,
Associate Justice, etc