The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1920-12-07
State Capitol News
GOVERNORS POWER
TO PARDON TO Be
DEFINED BY COURT
Decision of Judge Hollo-
man in Villista Case
Means Interpretation of
Prison Commission s
Authority.

SANTA F1E, y. Nj. Dec. THE
temporary Injunction. which was is-
sued from the district court on Nov,
20, to restrain Fidel Ortiz, warden OF
the p~enitontiary, from releasing the
sixteen NtliiHta murders VINO were
%pardOned by Governor o. a. Larre-
zOio, lust before the governor left To
attend a presidents Inauguration In
the capital city OF his native land,
has been mace permanent by Judge
Reed Honoman, following the hear
Ing on the case.
Judge Holloman announced he was
not satisfied whether section 5Os7 of
the codification Of 1915 IN valid Or
invalid: that he believed the supreme
court ought to decide whether or not
the state constitution meant for any
restriction to be placed upon the gov
errors right to Issue pardons.
The appeal to the supreme court
will be expedited as much az POSI-
Bile, but It IL not expected that n de-
cision will be handed down within 30
days. o. O. Askren. attorney general,
and Harry s. Bowman, assistant. np-
peared for Warden ortiz; Charles G.
Catron and Albert II. Clancy, OF the
firm Of Catron and Catron, repre-
scnted Captain Edward l.. Stafford,
who applied for the Injunction on
behalf OF the American Legion. Bow
man said last night that II would be
possible TO brief the case and have II
ready to submit. with the coopera
tion OF the opposing counsel, within a
week. II the appeal 10 perfected In
so short Il time. application VIII he
made to the supreme court Tor an
immediate hearing. Mr.. Justice Her
bert r. Reynolds has gone to F1oridn
for a vacation and will not return
before some time in January. II inc
supreme court decides to hear tht
case before the return Of Reynolds
one Of the district judges may be call'
cd to sit In his stead.
owing to the desire OF the attor'
ney generals office to have the su'
prcmc court rule. on the point as u
whether or not there Is any Restriction
on the governors prndoninB power
the question OF Jurisdiction was no
raised. II the Judiciary Is infriHg
ing upon the rights and privileges o
the executive, the point was no
raised In the hearing. and Is not IKE
Is to be raised on the appeal. IL u
held to be much more important l.
recure "A ruling from the suprem'
court M TO whether or not the eNecu
tive has "A clear and unrestricted righ
to issue %parGons.
The main point, OF course, wi
hinge upon the validity OF seclioi
b'OS7 Of the cudification Of 1915. I'M
act was passed In 1899, and there ap
pears to he little doubt that II was the'
unconstitutional. There are a few wh'
hold that since the supreme cour
never did construe the act, II ~ no
10 be held invalid. on tho other name
IL Ia above argument that the cover
nor OF tho territory Of New MeNic
derived his power to pardon throusl
an act OF congress, and certain y IN
Legislature II the territory had no au
thorlty to impose restrictions upo
acts Of congress-. The law OF the yer
ritory was incorporated into the codi
f%lcntion OF 1915. and IL 1t was tnen re
enacted, It may become valid: pro
fided OF course II comes within IN
view or meaning of the state constltu
ton. which gives the pardoning pow
or to the governor subject TO sue
regulations M may be prescribed D
law. The act of 1899 provided thH
The governor should not grant n nhl
don until the proposed pardon ma
been approved or recommended y
the board uf p~cnitentiary commission
ers. or, ,
Now Mexico, territory or state tht
Inc right OF a governor to issue a phl
do, has bcen n~ssnilcd. There was y
nreyious act 80 flngrant M TO justli
action to determine the governor
exact rights.