Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-04-30
DISMISSED BY The GOVERNOR
Such Was the Fate of The Charges
Preferred by the Commissioners
Against the Sheriff.
FULL TEXT OF GOVERNORS DECISION
No Charge Sustained That Would JUS
tify the Executive in Vacating the
Sheriffs Commission-C Cunning
HAMS Conduct Criticised.

toms decision dismissing the charges
preferred by the commissioners Of Santa
Fe county against Sheriff Cunningham:
THE GOVERNORS OPINION.
Territory of New Mexico, County of San
ia Fe.
In the matter Of charges which have been
preferred BY the County Commissioners
of Santa Fe VS.. William p. Cunning
ham, sheriff.
Executive Office, April 80, 1896.--Three
of these charges are for failure to account
for public moneys coming into his hands
as sheriff, or as sheriff and collector.
To these three charges, number Of
charges of misfeasance, ma!feasance and
oppression n Office have been added as Il
matter of inducement, it being thor
oughly understood that the governor has
no power to remove tho sheriff for any
other cause than that of misapplication
of pubiic moneys which may come into
his hands as sheriff by virtue of his off
cial position.
Both parties appeared with counsel
and introduced their evidence to substan-
tiate the charges made. As stated above,
there were three items, which 1t was
claimed Mr.. Cunningham failed to ac-
count for, being as follows: S273.ll,
taxes of 1894, collected from the owners
Of the Ramon Vigil grant; the second
for $sl5.55 penalty taxes collected De-
eember 13, 1894, from the Atchiscu, To
peku Il Santa Fe Railroad company, and
the third for $297, less S1S1, amount due
to the territory for feeding prisoners at
the territorial penitentiary.
The defendant in his answer admits the
receipt of the two former items, but
claims that he had properly accounted
for them; while, es to the item due the
penitentlary, he claims that that was an
individual account, or indebtedness under
a contract made between himself and the
superintendent of the penitentiary.
In support of his claim of accounting
for the rst two items, tho defendant in
troduced in evidence Il final settlement
made in January, 1895, with the county
commissioners of Santa Fe county, after
thorough examination Of his report by
a committee consisting of Atanacio Ro-
nero, Adolph P. Hill and Marcelino Gar
cia, upon which settlement it appeared
that there was due Mr.. Cunningham from
The cornty, aftsr allowing all just ehafges,
balance of S527.
The members of the committee
testified that they could not remem-
Der the different items of the ac-
count; but that, in making out their ac-
count, they examined the stub-book kept
by the collector showing the receipts is
sued for the collection Of taxes and
charged them against him from this stub
book, which was also introduced in eyi-
-dence. It appeared that the item against
the Ramen Vigil grant for taxes was con-
tained in this, and therefore included in
this settlement and had been properly ac-
connted for.
One of the witnesses IA member of this
committee) testified that the item of
S31565 had also been included in that
settlement, while another, Marcelno
Garcia, claimed that he had called the at
tsntion of the county commissioners to
this item of $315.55, which had been col
lected as penalty on the taxes duo
from the railroad company, but
that he did net think it was included
in that settlement. Both parties admit
bIldv bule lLtul vi pOlUOO WAC uuC w tilC
county aud went into the general county
fund, and as this report found that the
general county fund was indebted to the
sheriff in the amount of $527 it makes
little difference whether this item was in
cluded or not, as, admitting that it was
lot, there would still be due the sheriff
from the county something over 5000.
With reference to the 1927, the evidence
showed that certain prisoners accused of
crime had been placed in the hands of
the sheriff for safe keeping as required
by Inv, and that from month to month
he presented his bill to the county com
misaioners for the feeding and care there
of from August. 1894, to December, 1894,
the amcnnt Of $297. 1t also appears
from the evidence that, for the purpose
OF keeping said prisoners safely, the
sheriff made arrangements with the gu
perintendent Of the penItent,ary for their
keep at the territorial prison, and agreed
with the superinte ndent to pay him the
same price which he WAS to receive from
the county. He, the sheriff, did not pay for
the keeping of these prisoners according
to his contract with the superintendent
cf tho nenitentiarv. altbouuh. in 1903 ba
co,lacted the am omit dne for The feed;ne NJ
tha nr;soners from tho conntv
Tie nrosecntion contended that this
!, orav was nnblic money uh;ch tha shar,
;T reca;ved ana which hs wsa in iow anI,,
honnd to tnrn over 70 tho terr;toriol
a snthnrit;e. in settiament of tb;s daht for ~,
tic cora of tba Irisoners. wb;ls tbe do.
faU.a odm;tt;no tha man, nh,;not;on
AZ t,om ,hs aafondant 20 NOV ths daht
oon.andaa .h.t - .as on ;pd;y;dna, daht
of tha sharig The answer to this must
5.aasa ,nan ~ a,.st;on ,vhatha. ~. 49,
~ cnnntp vos !; q h,a fort ths dsht ;ronrrsS
~ 49, shos;g "od ,nha.har nhan ~
oo,ntv ~ onm m;,s;nners @ ns;5 - NJ cnn.