Las Vegas daily optic. [volume] (Las Vegas, N.M.) 1880-1908, 1897-08-10
EVENING. AUGUST 10, 1897
CoyEnNoR oTERo.s AXE,

GOVERNOR OTERo's AxE'
The Wade. Ashenfelt~r decision OF
our Territorial supreme court has just
been reversed by the supreme court OF
the United States. TaE OPTIc does
not mean that the identical case
was passed upon; but a case involving
identical the same question, after the
most thorough discussion and a care
full consideration on the part of the
court, has been decided to the opposite
effect of the decision reached here.
The ease is entitled Parsons vs..
The United States. Four years ago,
Louis E. Parsons was United States
attorney for the northern and middle
districts Of Alabama. He and a gen.
tie man named Cleveland had q serious
difference of opinion, as to the author
ity of the latter to appoint a successor
to Mr.. Parsons; and the result of the
difference was that the courts we're APP
pealed to for a determination. Pass
ing through the lower courts, the case
came up in the supreme court at
Washington, last winter, ard a de-
cision has Just been handed down.
The question decided was just the
qlestion in the Wade-Ashenfelter case,
the language of the constitution being
identical with the language of our or
ganic act. The supreme court view,
delivered through Mr.. Justice Peck
ham, gives the same historical review
which was had ia the case here. The
precise point determined was, that the
provision OF law is one of limitation,
and not of grant, and that, although
the commission runs for four years, the
fleet is merely to fix the utmost time
an incumbent may remain in Office,
without emitting him to hold against
the power of the president Cor gov
ernop) to remote. The power of re-
moval is held to be in the president,
and may be exercised whenever, in his
discretion, he considers that the public
good demands a change, and this
although the term has been fixed By
the statute creating the Office.
AS the present situation indicates,
here in New Mexico, it would have
b zen much better for the democratic
judges to have solved the DOUBT IN the
Ashenfelter case, in favor OF their own
party. There was doubt, and the
entire bar at the time recognized the
fact. The cour held the case under
consideration for a long time, and the
decision itself is rather an argument
than an opinion. And then, too, a
different decision might have spared us
the recent humiliating spectacle OF a
Legislature bargaining out the offices
among its own members. These would
have gone 10 such lengths to
secure office, had they been face to
with a court recognition of the
power of an incoming republican
governor, to make summary removals.
Bat now, that power is reccgniz d
by a higher tribunal than u Terri
tori Il supreme court, and, at the same
lime, a tribunal 10 which judges
must bow. Moreover, U present
chief justice, we are told, is, and al !,
ways has been, Of the opinion that the /
Territorial supreme court was wrong
q the Wade Ashenfeltcr decision, and
ve understand that Judge Laughlin )
axes the same view. If Governor !
chooses to act, there can be no {
loubt Of his power, and but little .
loubt that the exercise of that power !
will be sustained by the courts. The /
Judges are not bound by a /
Of our own supreme court, b
Vhen the United States supreme court ,"
as said such decision is not law. :
Governor Ross was right, and Gov d
Oiero is free to act on that pre- ,
IL means the removal OF all q
be district attorneys, the solicitor Y
eneral and the other appointive !
Ulcers. And our Territorial civil a
rules are not Of such binding I
haracter as to seriously interfere with |"
lie swing of the governors IKE.