Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-01-30

Mr.. Ancheta thought it should, above
mills, be discretionary with the levying
officers. Some counties need more money
than others and for that reason the COM
pulsory levy of 3 mills with discretion
airy further levy of mills had been pro-
vided in his bill.
Mr. Larragoite moved that Mr.. Perea's
substitute be tabled indefinitely.
Upon this motion the vote stood to Q,
Messrs. Chaves and Perea voting in the
negative, so that the substitute was lost.
Upon this question Mr.. Hadley declined
to vote, saying that he wanted further in
formation before doing so.
The question then REQUIRED on the
passage of the Ancheta bill.
Mr. Ancheta, for the purpose of per-
fecting amendments clearly specifying
just what the bill repealed, moved that
the bill be referred to the committee of
the whole. This motion was carried.
Mr.. Ancheta then moved to 60 into the
committee of the whole in order immedi-
ately to consider his bill.
Mr.. Larragoite desired action post
poned to another day SO that bills on
the presidents table might be considered.
Mr.. Ancheta's motion prevailed and
the council as a committee of the whole
considered the Ancheta bill.
Mr.. Chaves, on request of President
Curry, presided.
While in the committee of the whole, q
vigorous discussion ensued resulting in
favorable action on the Ancheta bill with
amendments, which appear as sections
two and three of the bill as below given.
Upon the dissolution of the committee
of the whole, the council adopted the
report of the committee.
Mr.. Perea then offered an amendment
to the bill limiting the power to tax to 3
mills. He thought that amount
ample, especially in view of the heavy
tax rate in New Mexico. He thought
this territory needed an influx of Yankee
capital and Yankee population, and
in order to attract such, the territory
must be watchful of the rights of the tax
payers as we'll as of the school children.
Mr.. Ancheta said that he thought it
was safe to leave the amount to be levied
in the hands of the county commits
sioners, as he believed they would hon
estly protect the interests of their con-
stituents, an opinion in which Mr.. Des.
marais very emphatically joined.
Mr.. Perea, replying to Mr.. Desmarais
suggested that the people of San Miguel
had only recently been obliged. to enjoin
their commissioners from violating the
law and trampling upon the peoples
rights.
Mr.. Desmarals said that whatever might
49, ~
county did not now have any such county
officers.
The Perea amendment was first voted
on and lost by to 8, Messrs. GALES, Had
ley, Chaves and Perea voting in the
affirmative.
The m ain question Of passing the An
cheta bill now came up and the bill wat
passed by q vote of 10 to 2, Messrs. Vic
tory and Garcia voting in the negative.
: Mr.. Victory explained that he voted
against the bill because, in his opinion
, its repeating clauses were too sweeping
| as they destroyed the existing laws fo
the payment of teachers. The purposes
, to which this fund was to be devoted b!
the commissioners were also not sufficient
ly clearly set forth.
: The amended BILL as it passed the
r council, is as follows:
Be it enacted by the legislative assem-
+ bly, of the territory of New Mexico:
!, Section THAT the county commits
sioners of each county shall annual,
: levy at the same time that other taxes ar
I levied, tax of not less than and no
exceeding mills on the dollar upon tn
| taxable property within their respectiv
q counties and shall certify the same to tn
f tax collector, who shall collect the sam
: as other taxes are collected and pay tn
same over to the county treasurer, to tn
| credit of the county school funds, an
shall be apportioned as now provided b.
i law, together with all the county schoo
;. funds, by the county superintendent Q
: schools on the first Mondays of January
y April, July and October; provided tina
y nothing in this act contained shall b
r construed to limit or abridge the powe
}. to levy any special tax by any school dir
: trict as now provided by law.
j. Section 2.-That section "a of chapte
j. "a of the session laws of 1891 be and tn
# same is hereby repealed.
a Section 3.-That section l of chapte
o II of the session laws of 1891 be and til
o same is hereby repealed.
II Section 4.-Repeals conflicting laws.
l. The council then adjourned until tn
d morning at 10 O'Clock.
!, THIS IoRENooN's SESSION.
n The council session this morning W,
10 cut short by noise on the second floor
l, the building, in which its sessions a
:. ~ held, but one or two important matte
10 we're attended to.
=. One of them was the passage over Il
~ governors veto of H. B. No. 20, advan
~ ing the time of payment of taxes no
~ due, to July 1, 1895.
e The vote on this question was IL to
=. Mr.. Victory voting in the negative,
y that the bill is now law, it having pass
both houses over the governors veto.
!. II. B. No. 30, for the protection of
borers, was referred to the judicia
committee.
H. B. No. "A, the capital building bi
was read the first time.
A motion was made by Mr.. Larragoi
9. to advadce the bill to its second readir
under suspension of the rules. tt
motion was lost by the following vot
Ayes-Abeyta, Garcia, Chaves, LAIR
goite, Curry and Victory, 6.
Nays-Perea, Hadley, GALES, Bunke
q. Desmarais and Ancheta-6.
The bill accordingly takes its regul
order.
H. B. No. 81, the Las Vegas Norm
school bill, was read the first time.
ne ne The council then adjourned.
ia ys The House.
&c YESTERDAY AFTERNOONS SESSION.
III
ut The roll call yesterday afternoon
o. vealed the presence of all the membe
ne axcapt Renreaentatiye Locke. Pine a