Carrizozo outlook. [volume] (Carrizozo, N.M.) 1910-1945, 1915-04-09

new oiilce oil state travelling Audi
tor with the same duties, but with
out any provision concerning the
disposition OF the records and
effects in the Travelling Auditors
Office. For these reasons | do not |
feel warranted in complying with |
your request until these matters
have been passed upon hy q court
OF competent Jurisdiction" J."
| have examined what appears to
be a copy OF the Senate Journal
now in the Office Of the Secretary
Of State, from which it appears that
the Senate, on the fifty ninth day
Of the session passed House Bill
No. 294, the Governors objections
Notwithstanding, and that the
President OF the Senate, the Lieu
tenant Governor of the state, de-
clared the bill had passed. / am,
therefore, at loss to understand
how Mr.. Earnest can assert that
this bill was passed by the upper
branch of the legislature over the
Governors veto on the afternoon
Of Friday. March IL, 1915. No
court will go behind the record Of
the legislature as to any such mat
ter as this To do so would be q
gross interference by the judicial
branch Of the government with the
legislative department The auth
critics are uniform on this point.
II the legislative record itself dis
closed that a bill had not been
properly passed 10 accordance with
the requirements Of the constitution
a court would probably hold that
the bill had not become law even
though 1t had all the signatures Of
the officers Of the legislature and
Of the Governor, but when the re-
cord shows that o bill was regularly
passed. that is conclusive. Evi
dence to contradict the Legislative
record is never admissible.
Mr. Ernest is in error also In his
at atement "that the Attorney Gen.
eral OF the state has rendered O
written opinion that said Legislature
should have taken final adjourn.
ment at noon on said 18th day oI
March, 1915" The opinion oil
which Mr.. Earnest refers Is one
which Was given to Modesto C.
Ortiz, Chairman Of a special com.
mittee OF the house Of Representa-.
tives on March IL, 1915. In thai
opinion | said that as the law takes
no note OF fractions OF days, the
first day of the session was January
IL, 1915, and that the second day
began at midnight, and that by this
method Of counting the sixtieti
day would be Friday, March ~
which must be the day Of final adj
journment at noon. In that opin
ion did not make any references
to the we'll established doctrine
that the hour fixed fer the adjourn.
ment of a legislature does not ar
rive until the legislature SO declares
aud that il the record Of the legis-
lature shows q session to have been
held ON the ifiy-ninth day or on
the sixiieth day, the courts will
not look behind that record or take
any evidence 10y which It's correct
ness could be impeaehed In the
present case the record shows that
this bill was passed by the Senate
on the hlly-ninth legislative day
The other objection set up by
Mr.. Earnest that there is no provis
ion in House Bill No. 20l concern
ing the disposition Of the records
and effects in the Travelling Audi.
tors office. which it abolished, is
without any foundation whatever.
The constitution OF the State of
New Mexico cieated an entirely
new set OF state officers hut contain.
ed no provision whatever as to the
records. files, documents and other
data belonging to the various terri
tora offices. and it would have
been quite as reasonable for Mr.
Nathan JalIa. who was Secretary
under the territorial government
to have refused to turn over any.
thing in his Office to the newly el
ected Secretary, Mr.. Antonio Lu-
cero, because there was nothing
In the consti tuition as 20 the disposi
ton OF the records OF his Office"