Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-03-02
TALKS PLAINLY IN REPLY
TO QUESTIONS BY HOLT
Declares Measure Gives Men Who Have Taken the Property
of the Territory More Rights Than Are Accorded Other
Citizens of New Mexico and an Act to Aid Man Who
Has Taken Public Money
may be others.

, may be others"
81 say Mr. Speaker. that we should
not enact legislation which will make
it more favorable to the public off
cial who has taken public money. than
for the sheep herder who takes one
head Of sheeJ."
This bill gives privileges to public
officers which are denied To private
citizensl Bondsmen may be released
within few months and there may
not be discovered evidence of defalca-
tion for years
Mr.. Holt followed with what was
expected to be reply to the state
ments made by Mr.. Hudspeth but
which undertook no such reply nor
any very elaborate defense of the bill
He said in part:
Il regret extremely that the gentle
man from Lincoln did not see tit t1
comply with the request | made of
him that he point out single prOvt-
sion in this bill which gives privileges
citizen should not have" Mr. Holt
then pointed out that any official or
person may invoke the law laid down
by the proposed act, stating that tn"
law was designed to give an even
break to all persons and that the ques-
tion Of embezzlement does not enter
pute,' he asked, without a person
having embezzlsdS Under the pres
ent law the territory has all the best
of 1t and an official or citizen is tied
hand and foot Te use slang phrase.
he Is 'hUg tied, ii the event jt. q 8fs
puted account.
Such an official or person. contin-
ued Mr.. Holt, must wait until such
officer who represents the government
I..tt. a.. Il
in the meantime the officer or person
may be subject to base slurs at thA
hands Of the press. They cannot bring
suit and clear their name. Gentlemen.
the congress of the United States has
provided the United States court or
claims, created for the express pur-
pose of enabling the humblest citizen
10 bring suit and enforce their claims
against the great government"
Mr., Ruppe here took the floor MY
position is not to do Injustice To- any
one" he said, but 1t appears to me
that If this act Is as good as II has
been painted, why It should he "y-
tended not for one year or for two
years but that it should be put on the
statute books for all time | object
to this act. first because of the provi-
sion limiting ii to one year, second be-
cause we have laws now sufficient to
allow any man to have his day Ia
court If he wants it, No honest man
need fear the law as ii now stands.
The law TO hang a murderer does not
worry me. | do not intend to KIN.
This law looks too much like special
legislation"
The vote on the passage Of the bill
was 10 to 6. those voting In the mega
tive being Abbott of Colfax, Hudspeth,
Moran, Mullins. Ruppe and Walters.
Lucero, Martin and Denniston were
absent.
And thus council bill 65, az
amended by the council. has passed
both houses of the legislature, law
which admittedly is for the purpose
of beneflttng one man and which.
whether 1t accomplishes that purpose
or not Is held by able lawyers to
open the courts so that all kinds Of
embez2lers of public funds, provided
their embezzlement has not been dis
covered In full, may secure a settle
| ment of the accounts of public OFF,
GERS" which will relieve them from
all future prosecution or settlement no
matter what discoveries may be made
in future.
But curious as are some of the pro-
visions of the amended bill 1t is not
a circumstance to the original before
the council had worked out some of
its most startling features.
Ihe original bill was introduced
wednesday morning In the council by
Charles \. Spiess. and appears To
have been printed before II was intro
duced, since printed copies of the bill
were delivered In the council this
morning, which were without the
printed number thereon indicating
| mat the number of the bill was not
known when the printing was done.
The original bill Is most extraOr-
dinary bit of legislation, proposing as
II does To allow a single trial and adj
Judication in court Of any given case
OF embezzement or theft In public
office, the case thereafter to become
res adjudicata. and To- be barred from
the courts no matter what future dis
closures might be made IN the case.
In other words. the bill. as inter-
preted by several able lawyers. would
have this effect: should public Of
ficer embezzle fifty thousand dollars.
and should five thousand dollars OF
that amount be discovered and iudg-
meHt be found against the official. he
might pay the $4,000 IL thereafter
| the other S45,000 should be discovered
! In his books there would be no re-
course at law either for the recovery
of the money or the punishment of
the criminal.
/ The original law would allow for
instance, that the books Of an lnsti-
tuition might he burned or destroyed
| If the court should appoint referee
who should examine the institution
and report thereon the decision of the
court upon that report would be final
I
In any way be brought into court for
action.
If an hundred thousand brick had