New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1917-11-16
BOUNDARY ACT
DULY MADE LAW;
CONSTITUTIONAL
STATE SUPREME COURT
HANDS DOWN THIS DECI-
SION WITHOUT A DISSENT
ING OPINION; NEED NOT
GO BEHIND SIGNED BILL

The boundary law passed by the
last session of the New Mexico leg
islature has been properly passed
and is not in violation of any of
supreme court has held in an opinion
which was handed down Saturday
The opinion is by Mr. Justice Rob
erts and is concurred in by Chief
Justice Hanna and District Judge
Herbert F. Reynolds, who sat in the
place of Mr.. Justice Parker.
The title of the case is No. 2l229,
State of New Mexico, ex rel Frank
w. Clancy, appellee, VS. H. L, Hall,
as treasurer of the State of New
Mexico. appellant. 1t comes up from
Santa Fe county Briefly stated the
history of the case is as follows:
F. w. Clancy Appellee
On August |, 1917, Frank w.
Clancy, an attorney, presented to the
treasurer of the state of New Mex
ico a warrant in his favor in the
sum of $500 payable out of the
state boundary commission fund, and
drawn by w. G. Sargent, state audi
tor, as part payment of special coun-
sci fees under the provisions of
chapter II. laws of 1917. The treas
urer of the state refused to honor
and pay such warrant on the grouni
that Chapter III of the laws of 1917
by authority of which the warrant
was issued. was an invalid enact
ment in violation Of the constitu-
tions of the United States and the
State of New MeXico. On August
Fl, 1917, Frank w, Clancy filed his
application and complaint in the dis
trict court Of Santa Fc county. set
ting forth the facts of the present;l-
tion of the warrant and the refusal
of payment and PRAYED for the is
suanCe OF a writ Of uandamus to
compel the state treasurer to honor
the warrant in question The al
ternative writ was accordinely is
sued and directed to the state treas
urer, To this writ the state treas
urcr made return and answer which
admitted the presentation of the war
rant and the refusal to pay the same,
but which attempted to show a cause
for such refusal that said act was .
unconstitutional, specifying the rea-
son for such claimed unconstitution-
ality. The return of the state treas
urer was held insufficient by the
lower court and a final judpmcnt was
rendered by which peremptory
writ was ordered to be issued direct
ed to the treasurer commanding the
payment of the warrant. From which
judgment this appeal is prosecuted
The syllabus foIrows.
Presumption Is For
/ There is nres,,nntion in favor
of tbe net;t,t;or,1;+y ~ = s+o+,,te
and in accordance herewith when
a statr+e is snscent;b1c of two con-
strrct;ons ono of which eronor+s the
act and rives i effect and the otbrr
renders + unconstitutional and vo;I
the former will bc adnntcd even
thouph the latter nav he thc more
natural INTERPRETATION of tbo Ian
pr,age used Hold that Cban+or III
laws 1917 is NOT rrcorst;trt;or,i
and void herarsc Il anno;nts cor,.
mission for the ";nvest;mation and
settlement" NJ thc CoIorado-Noy
Mexico BOUNDARY oe i viii he rres-
umcd the IeoisIatrre did not intcrd
to artborizo the co,n,,;ss;o, ;+self 80
MAKO = b;rd;rg eeftienent brt o,Iy .
10 conduct rooo+;o+;ons for = s.,t
tIement which would r-t;matc,v he
annroved hv tbe Legislatures of the {
t,yo st,tee
? said act &c NOT Unconstitutional
md void because i ar+hor;zee thr 9
ron1miesio, +o "comne,co and ,roe.- $
rute anv and all act;ore nocaes,ry !
nd reo,,is;+e IN tbo ;,dr,,o,+ of tLn g
romm;ss;on for the nroncr dctern,i- t
nation and location ~ said borndary b
;nesn c
Jso;.I.,;v. pox.. Ir,,o, t
Z The act is not deIecof;o, Of
egisrative no,yer hocarse tbe ,er;s.
!. t,,re ;ts.1f o,,tbor;zes ,rd d;rects t