Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1893-06-28

the case had been called in court, and
after you had reported to tho court that
the arrest had been mado and the reconiz-
ance taken in 1892, as before stated.
During the spring of this year you tele-
graphed authority to John W. Conway
and Harry Hurd to run a gaming table at
Cerrillos when the records show they had
no license to run gaming table at that
place, as required by law, and no return
has ever been made of any money col
lected by you for such license.
The venires for the grand and petit
juries at the June term, 1892, of the dis
trict court of this county were placed in
your hands for service and you undertook
to summon the jurors, in gross neglect OF
your plain duty under the law, by writing
many of those jurors that they had been
drawn to serve and that they should ap-
pear on the first Monday of the term, say
ing at the same time that you did not
propose to run all over the county for the
small fee allowed by law, and you failed
to make any return whatever on the said
venires, as required by law, the result of
which was the failure of several jurors on
both panels to appear at an expense to
the county and a delay in the administra-
ton of Justice, due entirely to you wilfull
neglect of duty.
In the town of Cerrillos you collected,
by your deputy, licenses in the following
cases for the gaming tables for which the
records show no certificates were issued
and no returns made to the county treas
urer: Ross Grifiths makes oath that he
paid to your deputy gaming Licenses for
two quarters, $25 each; Andrew Cencil
makes oath that no paid to your deputy
gaming licenses for two quarters, $25
each j. Francisco Romero makes oath
that he paid gaming licenses for two
quarters, 1925 each; P. +. Hogan paid
gaming licenses for two quarters, 1875
each; W. W. Milleg paid $3.50 for gaming
license at one time, and S. several times
on monthly pay days at Cerrillos for an
extra gaming table for ench of those pay
days; Sullivan & Co. paid gaming license
$25. Several other cases have been re-
ported to me, which I have been unable
to investigate, in which it is alleged gam
ing licences were paid at Cerrillos for
which no certificates were issued or re-
turns made.
The above instances of notable partial
ity and gross neglect of official duty, and
others not herein mentioned, as we'll as
those of delinquency in paying over
school funds for which you have been re-
moved, persuade me that the administra-
ton of Justice in this county demands
your removal and the revocation of your
commission as sheriff and ex-officio col
lector for tho county of Santa Fe. Re-
specially, IT. THORNTON,
Governor of New Mexico.
THE LAW AGAINST IT.
To fill the alleged vacancy W. =. Gun
ningham, of Cerrillos, was commissioned
by the governor. The commission is
dated yesterday, although the letter of re-
moval was not served until to-day.
This is hasty, to say the least. Here is
the case of an executive order of doubt
full validity made late in the afternoon,
which at least required service thereof
to give it potency, and new commission
is signed, sealed and attested before Mr..
Conklin can possibly know of its exis-
tence.
In the above action it is presumed
that Governor Thornton was acting upon
sincere motives to improve the public
service. How does it come then that
cause No. 2G77 before the district court is
an Indictment found at the late session
of the grand jury against VIM. z. Cum
ningham, Reuben Wilson, and M. G. Ben
ton for stealing ore from the Benton
mine? J. Fl. Crist is the district attor-
ney's name signed thereto; Charles F.
Easley and Charles Fl. Gildsrsleeve are
his bondsmen in the sum of $500, and W.
T. Thornton and W. j.. Dame are the
prosecuting witnesses.
1t may possibly be assumed that man
whom the governor publicly character
lied before grand jury as guilty of a
felony is better man to serve the public
interests than one whose public conduct
has been above reproach and whose re-
turns of taxes collected have always been
publicly acknowledged.
The governors action yesterday was
taken in matter which the supreme
court Of the United States on constitu-
tional grounds claims is a purely judi
cial proceeding, and that any man
removed from IN Office to which he
for definite term is elected is entitled
to his day in court. A sharp distinction
is drawn between officers appointed at
the pleasure of the executive and those
elected by the people.
According to the organic act the Judi.
cial power Of this territory reposes in the
supreme court, the district courts, the
probate courts and the justices of the
peace. To none of these agencies has re-
course been as yet had to divest Mr..
Conklin of official powers.
On the question of the constitutienality
of such summary removal as in this case
the supreme court of the United States
has this to say:
"That statute regulating the pro-
ceedings for removal of person from
state Office was not repugnant to the
constitution of the United States, if it
provided for bringing the party against
whom the proceeding was had into court,