Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-09-12
THE SHERlFFALTY CONTEST.
Full Text of the Supreme Courts
Opinion Sustaining the Re-
mOyal of COnklin.
An Able Document by Chief Justice
Thos. Smith-Some Interesting
Historic Facts.

Appended is the full text of the opinion
of the territorial supreme court in the
celebrated case of O. M. Conklin vs.. W.
p. Cunningham:
No, 547 Mandamus. Error to the District
Court of the First Judicial District, in and
for the county of Santa Fe.
This was an action brought in the dis
trict court of Santa Fe county by the
petitioner, William p. Cunningham, for
the writ of mandamus to compel the ap-
pellant and plaintiff in error to turn over
to the appellee all the. books, papers,
property and prisoners pertaining to the
office of sheriff and ex-ofiicio collector of
the county of Santa Fe, the said petition
er alleging that on the 9th day of June,
1898, Charles NJ. Conklin was summarily
removed from the office of sheriff of said
county by the governor of the territory,
and the said Cunningham appointed
sheriff of the said county to fill the va
cancy caused by the removal of the said
Conklin; that the order of removal was
served on said Conklin on the 28th day
of June, 1898; that on the 30th day of
June, 1898, the said Cunningham duly
qualified as such sheriff by filing bond
in the district court of Santa Fe and TAX
ing the oath of Office as required by law;
the said petitioner further shows that
said Conklin refused to deliver to him
and still refuses to deliver to him the
books, property, etc, pertaining to the
Office of said sheriff, and that he there
upon prayed the district court for the
said county for an alternative writ of
mandamus commanding the said Conklin
to turn over the said property to him,
and that the writ was accordingly allowed
by said court, returnable the 7th day of
June, 1898, and served upon the said
Conklin upon the 5th day of said month.
Respondent, Charles NJ. Conklin, filed
his answer to such writ on the 7th day of
July, 1898, alleging that he was duly
elected sheriff of Santa Fe county, No.
vember 8, 1892, to serve for two years
from January /, 1893; qualified and acted
as such sheriff; denied that he was sum-
marily removed therefrom
BY AN ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR
of the territory; denied the right of the
governor to remove him and to appoint
Cunningham in his place; denied that the
said Cunningham was the sheriff of the
said county; denied that said Cunningham
was entitled to possession of the said
office of sheriff or of the books or any
property pertaining to the same, or that
it was his duty to deliver the same to the
said Cunningham.
Itappears from the petition, (by the
order of the governor embraced therein, }
that the governor acted under and pur-
suant to authority conferred upon him by
section 27, chapter XIV of the legislative
assembly of the territory, passed at the
29th session thereof, and that it was shown
to him by satisfactory proof that Charles
M. Conklin, sheriff and ex-of1icio collector
of the county of Santa Fe, had collected
various sums of money belonging to the
school fund and failed to pay over the
same, and that thereunon, by virtue of
the authority so conferred, and in fulfill
ment of the duty imposed upon him, he
removed the said Conklin from the Office
of sheriff of said county, on the 9th day
of June, 1898. 1t further appears by said
petition, from the order of the governor
contained therein) that the said governor
on the 9th day of June, 1898, appointed
the said Cunningham sheriff and ex- officio
collector of the county of Santa Fe to fill
the vacancy occasioned by the removal of
Charles NJ. Conklin from said Office, and
it is shown by the respondent in his re-
turn that the said Cunningham gave bond
as such official, in the district court of the
said county, on the 3Oth day of June.
Respondent denies that said section 81,
of chapter XIV, before referred to, was
in full effect in this territory on the 9th
day of June, 1893, or that it was shown
by satisfactory proof that he, the said
Conklin, had collected any
of said county and failed to pay over the
same within the limitation specified in
said section.
Respondent alleges that no notice OF
his alleged default was ever given, that
the governor was not authorized to en-.
quire into the same, and that such charges
if made against him, should have beer
duly Investigated in the district court fol
said county.
Respondent further represents that or
the 3Oth of June, 1898, he obtained an in
junction from the district court for sale
county, restraining the said Cunningham
from entering or attempting to entel
upon the duties of the Office of sheriff o.
said county or in any manner interfering
with him, respondent, in the discharge O
the same.