Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1908-08-25
DECISION UPH0LOS
CITY ORDINANCE
Requiring Perform.
ance of Labor
Upon Streets
RENDERED BY JuGGE M'F|E
Exhaustive Opinion Handed
Down by Court in Test
Case.


yesterday by Judge John r. McFie in
the case of the City of Santa Fe VS..
w. Fl. Goebel, to test the validity
of the city ordinance requiring the
payment of So street tax by every per-
son between the ages of 81 and 60
years Or the performance by them in
lieu thereof of three days labor on
the streets. The courts opinion holds
that section 20, of the Laws of 1901,
upon which the ordinance in question
was based, is in force and therefore
the ordinance Is valid. Judge McFie
says in part:
"The court has examined the
statutes referred to by counsel on
both sides and has also examined many
sections of the works on statutory con-
struction.
81 find that the Compiled Laws con.
tain chapters concerning municipal
corporations, their organization and
power, and one relating to highways
and in the Compiled Laws these are
entirely separate and distinct from
each other. The chapter on highways
is found from pages 490 to 499 inclu
sive, while that relating to municipal
corporations is to be found from
pages 61O to $50 inclusive. This fact
throws light upon the more recent leg
islation on these subjects. Subsection
IS, Of section 2402 Of the Compiled
Laws of 1897 belongs to the chapter
on municipal corporations and is en-.
tirely distinct from the law relating to
the public highways within the coun
ties of the territory. Subsection S5, OF
the municipal corporation act is as
follows:
!" To levy and collect annually from
each able bodied male citizen of such
city or town, between the ages OF 21
and 60 years poll tax, or require a
certain amount of labor in lieu there.
of provided, such tax shall not exceed
the sum of one dollar per capita
"This subsection is the bone of con-
tention so far as this ruling is con-
cerned and the court will further con.
fine it's ruling to the question of poll
tax or labor in lieu thereof, and will
not attempt to determine other ques-
tions that may be involved in the city
ordinance recently passed.
"As is pointed out by counsel the
Legislature in 1901, enacted law
which is intended to take the place,
to large extent of the provisions Of
the compiled laws in relation to the
public highways. This law of 1901. re.
.peals four sections, of the public high.
way law enacted in 1891 and other
laws inconsistent or in conflict with
chapter 40 of the Laws<of 1901
Chapter 40 with the exception of
one of its twenty-three sections evi-
dently relates exclusively to change of
the public highway laws relating to
counties. Indeed, the title of the act
relates to public highways alone just
as the former law did. Section 20,
however relates to cities and towns
as follows:
That within the limits of all cit
les, towns and villages in this terri
tory, the governing bodies Of said cit
les, towns and villages shall have all
the powers and perform all the dut,
les by this act conferred on the Board
of County Commissioners of counties,
and supervisors appointed by said
governing bodies shall superintend
and manage the work on the roads and
streets Within the limits of the city,
town or village for which he is ap-
pointed in the same manner as super.
visors Of precincts
"The evident purpose of this section
was to provide for supervisors to han.
die the work on the streets and alleys
of cities, and thereby make it uniform
throughout the county, that is the of.
fcers of both should be called super.
visors but the appointment of them
was to be made by different bodies,
those of the highways of the county by
the county commissioners and those
for the city by governing bodies OF
the cities, towns and villages. This
law of 1901 provides in section l that
the age limit should be sixty years
instead of fifty-five years as provided
in the former law and for labor from
two to five days, as required by the
road supervisor. Section twenty OF
this latter act which relates to
cities, towns and villages pro
vides that they shall have the same
power as counties have In this re
spect Now this provision is inconsist
ent with subsection IS of the mu
nicipal corporation act and repeals IT.
especially the proviso which limits