The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1917-04-12


read Tuesday and argued yesterday.
he cited seven reasons why he believed
the grand jury add petit Jury had been
nlegally drawn He argued that the
Juty had been drawn under the 50.
called new law kiiown as chapter
n3, laws Of 1917 and then he set out
to prove that such q law was a law ln
name only. He cited The house Journal
to prove his contention. This hill.
known ~ House Bnl i42. prescribing
new regulations for the drawing 90
turies aud handling ~ court business,
was Offered ia the house. he said. q
substitute was introduced. and the bill
as amended was passed In the house.
Then n went 20 the senate whore
amendments were proposed and the
amended bill passed by q vote OF %
to o. From the senate" continued
SIR. Renehan, this hill went back 20
the house and the house journal
shows the bill did go to the engross-
ing committee ard was reported to
the house. then enrolled and signed
by the officers of the house. SO ac-
ton was taken on the amendments as
per b journal"
MIR. Renehan then set out to prove
how n law may be not q law az at,
This -. therefore. not a law OF this
land as the constitutional; require
mcnt has not been met" he eXclaim-
ed. 1T was not submitted To- a vote
of the house at all, as the house
journal clearly shows"
In reply, Assistant District Attor-
neg T. f. Davies declared that the
court Is not concerned with the qucs-
ton OF the fate OF House Biil No. ii2.
as Tar ns the vote is concerned. lie
declared that II the grand jury which
indicted Blancett was drawn AZ all u
was drawn under the old law, II not
under tho new law II Il were proved
that the new law is invalid, he said u
made no difference.
District Attorney Crist added that
the jurlcs were drawn Ia "A way O.
comply with both the old and the new
law. he quoted the case of Kelly vs..
Marion showing that the state su-
prcmc court 81 New Mexico has ruled
IL will not go behind an enrolled AMI
~engrosscd bill.
Here MIR. Rcnehan i~nterposed that
he did not believe the supreme cour'
Intended 20 convey the meaning that
the speaker 81 the house is cmpow-
cred to sign "A bill making II a law de
termining the rights Of individuals
whose lives are ON trial. The efteci
Of this law will thread h entire
case he added
Mr.. Davies. In reply, quoted q decis-
ION showing that the courts have held
that tho signature on "A bin of the
sworn Officers Of the legislature and
state are TO he regarded as more i'm
portant than the transcription 81 4
stcuosraphcr- notes
Turning To- the jury, which had been
brought into court to decide u mat
tets that might lee given to its con
s%idcrution. Judge Abbott said there
was no contest Of a question of tact
for the iury'~ consideration. while
there might ice some confusion ~ g.
the manner ui the passage ~ the las
ia question: sa!d the court, 'undei
the Kelly Marion case 7 am satisfied
that th, supreme ouurt laid down the
law h r. impossible for the courts t.
go behind a bill enrolled ana epgruss'
ed IN the ufnoe OF the secretary %,
state. but whether TINS jury was
drawn under the old or tho new law u
IN. matter that has been discussed
Ton DAYS notice was required undcr
the old law before the jury could p'
drawn There might bee some words
ip IA. announcement ~ the drawing