Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-10-14
CASE OF BORREGOS AGAIN.
Discreditable Effort to White Wash
Assassins and Smirch the Name of
Their Victim in Albuquerque
Solicitor General
UnwarrantablyA At
tackled.

Now comes the Albuquerque Citizen
always on the side of the lawless an6
criminal element in society, with a pain.
fully elaborate and discreditable "new
trial." of the celebrated Borrego murder
case in which an effort is made to white.
wash the Borregos by representations
that their victim, exSheriff Francisco
Chavez, was Democrat and a very bad
man on general principles, leaving the
inference to be drawn by the credulous
and uniformed that the Borregos are the
innocent victims of cruel persecution and
should be liberated. The head lines of
this article in the Citizen give clew to
it's nature and are reproduced as follows:
Saved their Necks! Delegate Catron
Determined that Innocent Men Must not
Hang. Appeal and Stay of Execution"
AUTHORSHIP OF ARTICLE.
Right here it may properly be re-
marked that the lying and idiotic article
in question is clearly from the pen of a
we'll known Santa Fe Republican, who is
afflicted with scribbler's itch and at the
same time none too friendly to Mr.. Cat
ron, and it was evidently printed in the
Citizen on the day that Mr.. Catron was
generally known to be in Albuquerque
with the design of creating the impress
sion that he was it's author. The NEW
MEXICAN does not indulge in any inordi-
nate affection for Mr.. Catron, but it
credits him with too much sense to have
written or inspired such a silly and easily
answered column of slush.
Touching the absurd representation
that Francisco Gonzales Borrego, An
tonic Gonzales y Borrego, Lauriano Ala
rid and Patricio Valencia are "ipnocent,"
because Francisco Gonzales y Borrego
and Hipolito Vigil had had trouble with
Francisco Chavez and because of an allie
cation that the latter was short in his &C.
counts as sheriff, it is merely necessary to
recall few undisputed and undeniable
facts.
The circumstances connected with the
death of Francisco Chavez on Guadalupe
street bridge in this city, about 10 O'Clock
on the night of May 20, 1892, are familiar
to every reader of the New MEXICAN. He
was assass1nated in the most cruel, cow
ardly and iendish manner by a number
of men there and then lying in wait for
him as he approached his home. The in
exorable finger of suspicion instantly
pointed with almost absolute certainty to
the Borregos and their associates as the
persons guilty, but 1t was some time be-
fore sufficient evidence was secured to
Justify arrests.
Finally, however, the necessary evil
dence was obtained. The four persons
named were arrested, held by Judge Seeds
without bail, indicted by the grand jury,
tried before jury of their peer, con-
voted of murder in the first degree and
sentenced by Judge Hamilton to die on
tho gallows. They appealed to the terri
torlal supreme court, the sentence of the
court below was affirmed, and they would
be hanged tomorrow except for tenn
porary stay of the proceedings by a
judge of the United States supreme court.
PROOF OF GUILT CONCLUSIVE.
During the weary years that have
elapsed since the night of May 20, 1892,
and during all the protracted and costly
litigation that has grown out of the case,
no one has dreamed of accusing any one
else than the four condemned men of the
murder of Francisco Chavez. The evil
dence of their guilt was absolu tely con-
elusive.
Buff the color of doubt of their guilt
remained in any mind after their convic-
tion, it was. rem moved by the detailed, vol
untary and solemn confessions of Lau-
riano Alarid and Patrioio Valencia of
their share In the dreadful deed and that
of the two Borregos. The former con-
fessed in the presence of his own brother
and assured the latter that he did so of
his own free will and accord. Yet the
Citizen, in its congenial role of an apollo.
gist for crime, attempts to divert atten-
ton from these damning facts and to
make if appear that the condemned men
are innocent by seeking to smiroh the
name and memory of their dead victim.
A man who would deliberately write and
print such stuff would rob the grave of
Francisco Chavez if he had q sufficient
motive to do so.
But, not satisfied with the noble |
achievements noted, the Citizen writer
proceeds to say that Solicitor. General
Victory "did a most astonishing and un-
heard of and improper thing" in address
ng letters to the justices of the United
States supreme court on the sub ject of
he proposed attempt to appeal the Bor-
ego case to the highest court in the land.
The solicitor.general's letter to Mr.. JUS.
ice Brewer is the best answer to this bit
~ mil mt g. fo1l
SOLICITOR GENERALS LETTER.
TERRITORY OF New MEXICO. |