Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-12-20


sions. The territorial laws tax the prop
erty of Pueblo Indians equally with that
of other citizen. The 14th and 18th
amendments to the constitution of the
United States also clearly cover this
point. 1t IS therefore settled that
Mr.. FERGUSON can not exclude the Pueblo
Indians in basing the representation at
the constitutional convention on 1000
inhabitants for each delegate.
In the allotment of delegates Mr.. Fer
gnsson gives Bsrnalillo county nine. The
census of 1890 placed the population of
that county at 20,913, which, on basis of
1000, would entitle that county to ten
delegates. Tue Pueblo Indians of the
county number, according to the census
of 1890, 2,479, leaving population of
1S,434. The number of delegates allowed
the county on that basis is correct, bat
the exclusion of the Pueblos wrongfully
deprives Bernalillo of one delegate.
In 1890, Colfax county had population
of 1874, and under the proposed bill that
county Is given four delegates, but since
the census was taken, Union county has
been organized out of Colfax, Mora and
San Miguel counties. From Colfax coun-
ty the following precincts and population
were taken and placed in Union: Precinct
| 7, Folsom, 377; precinct 8, Lower Dry
Cimarron, 81; precinct IA, Clayton, AT;
precinct 81, Gladstone, IA; precinct %,
Garlic, 81; making total loss of in
habitants for Colfax county of 1852,
! leaving 6,922. According to Mr. Fergus
sons own figures Colfax county is there
fore, only entitled to three delegates, but
Colfax is Democratic.
The county of Mora, in 1890, had q
population of 10,6lS and is given six
delegates, while according to the basis of
representation it is only entitled to five
if nothing had been taken away and added
to Union. In the organization of Union
county the following precincts and people
were taken from Mora: Precinct II,
Tequesquite, 2lS; precinct 10, Tramperos,
3l5; precinct %, Arroyo de Los Yutas,
357; leaving total of 9,528 population in
Mora, which would entitle it to five dele
gates, but does not give the maximum
population for six. Mora has generally
been Democratic.
San Miguel county had a population Of
24,204 in 1890 Guadalupe county was
taken from San Miguel with population
as near as can be estimated, of 1000, and
precinct so, Ute Greek, was included In
Union county with 302 people, making 6
total taken of 1902, leaving 1902. Ac
cording to the apportionment, San Migue
would be entitled to ten delegates, ye
only nine are allowed. San Miguel coun
ty has generally been Republican and ii
certain to 60 Republican at the mex
election.
Taos county, in 1890, had population
of 1858, which would give it five dele
gates, yet Mr.. Ferguson allows six. How
Pueblo Indians, included in the popula
ton, should be deducted according to thu
bill in dealing with Bernalillo and Val
encia counties, there only would remain
9,179, which would be less than the mum
Der of people in either Grant or Socorrt
counties. Yet Taos is given six delegates
while Grant and Socorro are allowed onl,
five each. Taos county has very gener
ally gone Democratic for the past 10 Of
IL years; Grant and Socorro have some.
times been Republican and sometimes
Democratic.
Valencia county, in 1890, had a popula
ton of ID S76, and is set aside with bu
five delegates, when it is rightfully en-
titled to seven. The Pueblo Indians il
the county number 2,319, and should these
people be deducted from the basis O
representation, leaving 1857, the coun
ty would still be entitled to six delegates
The reason for giving Valencia but five
delegates is obvious; that county always
goes Republican.
In this matter, Mr.. Ferguson, by ig
uoring the Pueblo Indians in Bernalile
and Valencia counties as citizens, and
also ignoring the actual population II
other counties, causes the Republican
counties to lose four delegates which they
would have under his own apportion
ment, and by some extraordinary leger
demain transfers three of those to: One
to Colfsx, one to More, one to Taos
supposedly Democratic counties, thus
making difference of seven in favor Of
the Democrats in the delegate convention
for framing constitution for the state
The policy of this can easily be gath
cred when it is observed that, unlike an,
bill introduced for statehood by Mr.. 10
sepb, when the Democrats controlled til,
territory, the present bill does not max
the governor, secretary and chief justic'
a commission to canvass the election re
turne, but provides that the chairman o
the convention and two other delegates
to be designated by that officer, shall &C
as such commission. While the New
MEXICAN favors statehood and the gen
eral provisions of Mr.. Fergusson's bill
which are mere copies Of the bill intro
duced by Mr. Catron, IL does not favo
that portion which deliberately permits
the Democrats to steal the convention
That convention, in addition to framing
the constitution for the state, has th,
rio hit and il ia its duty tn distriCk the ter