Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-09-19
ELEPHANT BUTTE
SCHOOL CASE Is
AGAIN DISCUSSED
Attorney General Clancy Hands
Down Two Opinions Affect
ing Federal Jurisdiction Over
Dam and Other Matters.

Santa Fe. Sept. lS.--Two important
opinions affecting The question OF the
extent of the jurisdiction OF the fed
over the Elephant Butte dam site In
Sierra county and involving the ques-
ton of road and pol taxes aud the
maintenance OF public schools by the
state were handed down today by At
torney General Frank w. Clancy in
reply to letters OF District Attorney
E. d. Tittman and of p, w. Dent. dis
trict counsel OF the United States
reclamation service at El Paso. At
torney General Clancy holds his
ground that road and poll taxes are
legally collectable. at least from citi-
zens of New Mexico working on the
Elephant Butte dam and that the
state should provide school facilities
for the school district which Is in
cluded in the dam site.
As the opinion 10 District Attorney
|Tittman includes In brief that to Dent
and covers much additional ground
besides. II Is given in full;
tarefuiiy considered.
Il have carefully read both OF your
letters. but | find myself compelled TO
adhere to the position that chapter AZ
of the laws of 1912 cannot be con-
slrued to have any relation to the
government land acquired for the
Elephant Butte project.
you say that the land was ac-
CURED by the United States, not by
purchase but by condemnation, the til
tie vested before New Mexico became
a state, and you reach the conclusion
that Il is. therefore. certain that the
provision of the constitution OF the
United States does no apply because
that relates only to lands acquired by
the consent OF state legislature by
purchase. / am still inclined to think,
and this is a concession in the drec-
ton of holding our statute applicable
even If lands were acquired by con-
demnation, that condemnation is only
a kind of purchase. 1t is resorted to
only when the government cannot
agree with the owner Of property as
to the purchase price, and after the
condemnation proceedings are con-
Icluded, payment must be made for the
land, but this appears TO me TO be inn
material If the, land had been ac-
quired by an ordinary purchase. |
still think that our statute has no APP
plieatiUn. In other words, | am quite
willing to consider that the acquisition
of the land by condemnation proceed
ings was an acquisition by purchase
within the meaning of the federal con-
stitution, but this particular land was
not acquired by consent OF the state
of New Mexico.
you say in one place that the
question then narrows itself to this.
did the act of 1912 intend to govern
lands acquired otherwise than by
purchase with consent Of the leg'isla-
ture?' | think that In order to state
the question properly, as II presents
itself to my mind, YOU should insert
the word previously between the
words lands and acquired The
first section OF the act is distinct
giving of the consent of the state in
accordance with the provision in the
constitution of the United States, to
the acquisition by the United States
by purchase The second section,
upon the language of which you lay
some stress, cedes exclusive jurisdic-
ton over any land so acquired, and
your argument is that that means
lands acquired by purchase, con
demnation or otherwise no matter
when acquired. My view OF the Lam
guage in that section is that II means
any land acquired by the United
States in pursuance of the consent Of
the state contained In the first sec
ton and has no reference to previous
acquisition of lands without the con-
sent of the state
Statute Is Construed
I'm your second letter you suggest
that second perusal Of chapter "a
will convince me that the question of
consent has nothing to do with this