Las Vegas optic. (East Las Vegas, N.M.) 1908-1921, 1912-05-13
UNLESS A LAW IS PASSED
THIS EVENT AND OTHER SIMILAR
ONES MAY BE STAGED IN
THE STATE
AT REQUEST OF Mr.. WARD
MR.. CLANCY EXPRESSED HIS BE-
LIEF IN RESPONSE TO QUERY
OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY

District Attorney Charles w. g.
Ward has received the following le'-
ter from Attorney General Frank "
Clancy, which will prove self explana-
tory:
Santa Fe, N. NJ, May II. 1912.
Hon. Charles w. G. Ward,
District Attorney,
Las Vegas, N. M.
Dear Sir:
Your letter of the 9th int. was re-
ceived yesterday, but / had not time
to answer until today. You say that
YOU have been asked by opponents OF
the proposed Johnson-Flynn prize
fight at Las Vegas, and also by those
who favor having that fight, whether
or not there are any laws on the stat
ute books of New Mexico TO make
such a contest illegal, and that you
have expressed the opinion that at
the present time there is no sucn
statute in New Mexico; and you ask
me to give you my opinion on this
question.
I am compelled to say fhas believe
YOU are correct in the opinion which
you have expressed, and that, as you
say. the only statute approaching
this subject is to be found in section
l4O4 of the Compiled Laws of 1907.
That section reads as follows:
.sIf two or more persons. voluntari-
" or by agreement, engage in any
fight or use any blows or violence to-
ward each other in an angry or quar-
reIsome manner, in any public place,
to the disturbance Of others. they are
guilty of affray, and shall be punish
ed by Imprisonment in the county jail
not exceeding three months. or by fine
not exceeding fifty dola,s."
If this section had merely provided
that if persons voluntarily or by
agreement should engage in a fight
or that they should use blows or VIC
lence toward each other, and stop
there with the definition OF the of
fense, it might be applicable 10 q
prize fight. but the added clauses show
distinctly that the legislative intent
was to punish conduct of this kind
in public place where it would dis
turb and annoy other persons. The
words, "in any public place, to the
disturbance of Others" indicate es
sential ingredients of the offense. Il
might reasonably be eonsended thai
a house, theater or enclosed arena
where a prize fight takes Dlacs, is
within the meaning of the atute, {
public place, but those of the mem
bers of the public who voss'h he dis
turbed by any such exhibition, arr
under no obligation to sttend, ant
those who are willing to witness sucf
performances, certainly are not per
sons who would be disturbed there
by. Such disturbance Of others al
may be occasioned If the proposed
fight takes place, will not be from th'
engaging of the two principals in th'
fight, but. as is urged by those whit
oppose exhibitions of professional
pugilists, the disturbance, annoyance
and injury will come from the con
gregation of large numbers of undes
irable characters, whose presence II
the town and whose influence an ex
ample will be of demoralizing AM
pernicious character. If there wer
no statutory definition whatever o
what constitutes an affray, ther
would be more room to contend tha
the proposed fight would be a viola
tion of law than there is in the pres
ence of such statute as the on
above quoted but the legislator
having given this statutory definition
it must be held that any other is ez
cluded
If public sentiment is opposed t
these exhibitions, the remedy mus