Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-01-06
YESTERDAYS AFTERNOON SESSION.

then passed under suspension of the
rules.
House joint resolution No. 4, appro-
priating 500 to purchase copies of the
Compiled Laws was ordered to take its
regular course.
H. j. r. No. 2 was read first time in
full, second time by title and on motion
of Mr.. Fall referred to the committee on
judiciary with instructions to report as
! soon as possible.
Substitute for H. B. No. 10 was then
taken up, read a first time and on motion
of Mr.. Burns was laid on the table fol
further consideration.
Mr. Hubbell moved to suspend the
rules and consider G. B. No. 4, and the
council then went into committee of the
whole.
The bill provides for the exemption
from taxation of $500 worth of property
belonging to heads of families.
! The first clause of section Z, having
been read Mr.. Fall moved to amend
SO that the clause would read personal
property to the amount of $3.50" etc.
shall be exempt from taxation.
The president ruled that the insertion
of the word personal and the change of
$500 to $3.50, constituted two separate
amendments and the question required
on the first.
Mr.. Fall made quite long speech on
the I'M justice of exemption. Among other
things he said that the legislature had
just received the best message ever made
by territorial governor, and the ablest,
best and most thorough report ever made
by any treasurer, and that these docu-
ments convinced him that an exemption
law in excess of the terms of his amend
ment would simply invite bankruptcy or
reputation.
Mr.. Martinez followed against the
amendment and fof the exemption of the
full figure of $500, saying that he was
ruled in this not SO much by his promises
to the people but by high sense of JUS
tice. Mr.. Martinez speech had a pal
pable effect on the audience, it being
loudly applauded
Mr.. Sanchez then spoke against the
amendment, saying that he considered
Mr.. Fall humane man and his amend
ment honest, yet when the gentleman
from Dona Ana asserted that he had
heard no clamor for the repeal of this
obnoxious law he was tempted to doubt
both or else the gentleman was ignorant
OF the way the poor people live. Making
the exemption $3.50 worth of personal
property was absurd as there were hun
dreds of houses in which $25 worth could
not be found; yet the poor old widows
who had to beg their bread would be
taxed for the little shanties in which they
lived. If the tax revenue was not now
sufficient, it was because the new law was
working badly and the rich were shifting
too great burden on to the poor since
the exemption law was repealed.
Mr.. Veeder asserted that he was under
no promise to vote for $500 exem ption;
and he wanted his vote, to be on the side
of honesty andrasponsibility He desired
that all voters should bear part of the
burden of supporting their officers. and
If they proved dishonest that they at least
should contribute share to the funds
stolen. If the poor by their votes placed
dishonest men in position to rob and
steal then they should share the loss and
contribute their quota.
Mr.. Saint desired to amend by making
the exemption $40 instead of $3.50. The
president ruled this out of order as the
council had not yet reached that part
of Mr.. Falls amendment, and Mr.. Saint
gave notice that he would offer the
amendment at the proper time, and spoke
against any exemption in excess of $40,
and cited an instance of man who swore
he was not worth $500, and five days
afterward justified on bond before Mr..
Hunt, clerk of the district court, for
$4,000.
Mr.. Hubbell then said he was compro-
missed to restore the old law and he was
in favor of it. He called attention to
Mr.. Veeder's attitude now, and his prom
ises during the campaigL, as he was re
liably informed that he was absolutely
compromised by his campaign promises
to vote for the restoration of the $500
exemption. He took Mr.. Veeder severely
to task for his insinuati On that the poor
people were responsible for the election
of dishonest officers, and said it was
likely that the people who had more in
telest in the elections and chance to
plumber afterward, were responsible.
Mr.. Veeder resented the idea that he
cast any reflections on the poor people,
and again asserted that he was under no
promise to vote for $500 exemption
law.
MIR. H1bbell attempted to speak again
on the question, but Mr.. Fall raised the
point of order under the rules that he
could not speak twice, which was sus-
tanned.
Mr.. Pino was recognized by the chair,
and yielded his time to Mr.. Martinez.
The chair ruled this out of order.
Mr.. Martinez then rose to a question of
privilege.
Eight different points of order were
made by Mr.. Veeder and Mr.. Fall against
Mr.. Martinez, but the chair overruled
them all.
Mr.. Martinez finally stated as there
seemed to be a question of veracity be-
tween himself and his colleague he
wished to exercise his privilege and state
the facts. He alleged that Mr.. veeder
had spoken at meeting in precinct No.
l, in the town of San Miguel, where over
500 persons were present, and that Mr..
veeder had said: "Here you have elected
to the legislature Republican who voted
to repeal the $500 exemption law, which
was an outrage to your interests" and
that the gentleman went on in reply to
questions from the people to express