Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1905-12-08
Says Tomas Was Only .Try-
, ing 10 Annoy Clancy.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY FILES
FULL AND EXPLICIT DENIAL
Gives Detailed Explanation Of Luz
theran Church Deal Which Was
CsIIedinQuestion yHubbeII.

u The charges of ex-Sheriff Hubbell
against District Attorney Clancy have
fallen fiat. The governor has announc-
ed that he has no confidence in the
good faith of Hubbell in bringing the
charges. and believes that he only did
ii to make trouble for the district at
torney and get even with him for
causing the former sheriff's removal.
The governor further says that he has
looked into the matter and finds that
the charges of non-performance of
duty on the part of Mr.. Clancy are
trumped up and fiimsy and have no
foundation in fact.
Mr. Clancy filed an answer which
denies the charges at length and ex-
plains In detail his connection with
the Lutheran church episode
The executive order also says thatthe
governor has considered the sworn
answer of the district attorney to the
charges and is satisfied there is no
truth In the latter.
The official order is as follows:
Executive office Santa Fe, N. NJ, De-
eember 6. 1905.
In the matter of the charges
brought by Thomas $. Hubbell against
Frank w Clancy district attorney for
Bernalillo county asking for the sum-
mary removal of the said district at
torney, for failure to perform his duty
under chapter 49, of the acts OF the
Legislative assembly of 1908.
The sworn charges of Thomas 5.
tIubbell, the sworn answer and expla-
nation OF Frank w. Clancy, district at
torney having been fully considered
by me, are hereby dismissed.
First.--Because Frank w. Clancy
has filed in this office full and COM
plete answer aud explanation of the
transaction upon which Thomas :.
= Hubbel bases his charges, and the
same are So urn 10 by the said Frank
w Clancy and ! am satisfied of the
truth Of tho explanation and answer
second-No complaint what
ever appears to have been made
against the district attorney by any
one except the said Thomas S. Huh
bell as not even the members nor oi-
iicers of the church referred to In the
charges, nor the city or county author
tiles. have made any complaints what
ever against the said Frank w. Clan
cy district attorney.
Third.-Because / have no confidence
In the good faith of the said Thomas ;.
Hubbell IN preferring such charges,
but on the contrary / feel satisfied that
the purpose sought to be accomplish
ed by his action is to annoy and EN-
barrass the district attorney, who has
at all times demonstrated his willing
ness to enforce the law and prosecute
crime; and
Therefore this matter is hereby dis
missed from further consideration.
Done at the executive office this,
the 9Th day OF December, A. ID. 1906.
Witness my hand and the great seal
of the Territory of New Mexico.
MIGUEL A. OTERO.
BY the Governor.
j. W. RAYNOLDS,
Secretary of New Mexico.
The District Attorneys Answer.
Mr.. Clancy's answer to the charges
OF Mr.. Hubbell is full and explicit.
Sometime agcs the Morning Journal
asked Mr.. Clancy for a COPY OF his
answer but the district attorney did
not think It proper TO make public his
reply until Il had been considered by
the governor Now that Il has become
matter of public record Mr.. Clancy
yesterday furnished the Morning Jour
nal with copy.
1t should be borne IN mind that the
-ubstance of the charges was that the
district attorney failed to perform his
duty under a statute of 1908. which
says that he shall prosecute the own
are within seven hundred feet of a
church. complaint having been made
TO him by the trustees OF the exist
ence Of such establshments'ne their
church what he did and why he did
Il, Is set forth In the answer which is
as follows:
Albuquerque. n. NJ. Nov. rs. 1905.
Hon. Miguel A. Otero. Governor of
New Mexico. Santa Fe, N. NJ.
Sir;--l have received from you q
letter and affidavit prepared by Mr..
William B. Childers, but signed by
Thomas S. Hubbell, embOdylng what
are called charges against me as dis
trict attorney and demanding my sum-
mary removal from office. These
things reached me on the morning OF
Saturday. November Is. and on the
same day were printed in the Even
Ing Citizen, the obvious intention OF
their authors being TO try to create
some sentiment In this county against
me and IN their favor, rather than TO
discharge any duty to you or TO the
public.
while what Mr.. chIlders has set out
in the letter and affidavit prepared for
Hubbells signature is In substance,
true. yet In some details Il conveys a
false impression. and therefore Il
seems desirable that I should state
the facts IN my own way AT the out
set however, deny emphatcally that
I have failed In the performance Of
my duty, and assert that what / did
was the best possible for the interests
Of the public. and without the slight
est regard for chance for personal
gain or advantage TO myself
Improper to "Scek for" Cases
First, az to the statute TO which Mr,
I Childers Invites your attention. which
Is chapter S4 Of the Laws Of 1901, az
amended hv chapter fI2 or the LAWS
OF 1908. II has been my view that. a.
IN the case of other laws creating mis-
dcmeanors u would he Inconsistent
With official proprlex or personal
seif-reapeet. for me- as district attorney
10 seek for or attempt to create. cnaaa
self IN readiness at he Instance of