The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1907-06-01
DOCUMENTS IN TIE CASE
President RooseyeIts Own Explanation of Why He Removed
Governor Hagerman. Reply That Unmasks the
Great Square Dealer.

act in his absence; tho of course you
could have removed MIN, df you had
| been willing to remove him, for re-
| fusing to take the improper and
| seace you took on his behalf You
however, obtained an opinion of the
| Attorney General (The same gentle
man whom the newspapers report as
| now organizing meetings to ask for
your retention in office) which opinion
Mr.. Cooley rightly stigmatizes as IAN
absurdity,' for. as Mr.. Cooley says,
it is only explicable on tine ground,
either that the Attorney
thought that there was no absolute
evidence OF a violation of the law IA
conclusion which was inconceivable
he could have reached or that you
could have reached) or else tnat
there were difficulties attendant up
on the enforcement of the law you
should go out of your way to violate
sence of the Commissioner OF Public
Lands on official business to go your
self with the Attorney General, Mr.,
Reid. to his office ald yourself cem-
plete the transaction. 1T was there
suggested to you by tne clerk in the
land Office that the matter sheuld be
delayed until the Commissioner could
be communicated with, as if you wir-
ed him it would be possible to get
aim back in Santa Fe inside of two
days. You refused ITO permit this de-
lay, altha there was absolutely no
reason whatever for such refusal on
your part. You directed the clerk to
compute the amount due as payment
of the principal and interest and then
asked MIN to deliver the deeds, to
which he replied THAT he had no pow
er to do SO and that the seal had not
been affixt to twenty-three of them.
You then directed him to bring all
the papers to your Office together
with the seal of the Board of Public
Lands, and in the presence of the
clerk and of Mr.. HopeweH, the hene
cfary of your grossly improper and
probably unlawful conduct, yeu affixt
the seals to the tWentFathFee deeds
and, handing them to HeBeweI asked
if he considered that delivery. Hope
well replied that he did, and handed
them back to you with a request tnat
they be recorded on the deed records
Of the Commissioner of Public Lands
You handed them ITO the clerk with
instructions to have them recorded
and these instructions were carried
out. The deeds were returned to you
and yq4 handed them TO the attorney
of tae Pennsylvania Development
Company, You accepted from Mr,
Hopewell his personal check for
s11,113.73. which you subsequently
deposited in the office of the Commits
sioner of Public Lands: The Depart
ment of Justice reports that:
"It seems entirely clear that Gov
ernor Hagerman,s action was both
improper and illegal
"The act of Congress Of June 81,
1898, supra, and section /, chapter IA
Laws of New Mexico, 1899, supra,
clearly made the Contract Illegal at
the time Governor Hagerman alleges
it was entered into. The delivery of
the deeds could not have been en-
forced by grantees, or by the Penn
sylyaRia Development Company which
was not a. party to the contract. The
Governor had every reason to believe
owing to his correspondence with the
Secretary of the InterieE that the
transaction was of very doubtful le-
gality, ia spite of the opinion of his
AttoEney-General It was clearly his
duty. in my judgment. to Withhold the
delivery of the deeds and let tine mat
grantees named in the deeds saw fit
to mandamus the Commissions of
Public Lands. His aetien ia usurping
the duties of the Commissioner in his
absence Was both Illegal and unjustt
fable. II was entirely competent for
him to enforce the carrying out his
wishes by administrative methods. In
removing public official and ap-
pointing In nis place some one In
sympathy with ais policies, but 1t
was neither legal nor justifable tel
adopt the course he did"
WITH the above statement I entirely |
agree. II + permit such an act by the
highest eficer in the Territory to col
cannot hold 20 account |
any suberdinaae official fer any in
fraction Of his duty. 1t was grave
question in my mind whether ought |
not be remove you instead ef merely |