Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-11-28

under the American system of gov
eminent we have no officer or
agency which inherited the king
prerogative, but those powers
which inhered in the kingly office
are all deposited in the people of
our respective states and there re-
main until granted away by them.
Governors Pardonlng Power.
Let me first consider, in the light
of this principle, the nature of the
hardening power which was grant
ed to the governor, 1t is found in
section 8 of article V and section
of article XIII:
Article ", Section 6. Sub
ject to such regulations as may
be prescribed by law, the gov.
ernor shall have power to
grant reprieves and pardons,
after conviction for all Of
lenses except treason and in
cases of impeachment
Article XIII. Section 5.
THE pardoning power herein
granted shall extend TO all
persons who have been con-
Victed of offenses against the
laws OF the territory OF New
Mexico.
Section Of Article XXI, en-
phasizes the view which | have eX-
pressed, because II indicates that
the constitution makers under
stood that the governor OF the state
deriving his powers from the con-
stitution of the state would have
no power to pardon offenders
against the territorial law unless
such power was specifically grant
ed.
Is section of article V self-eX-
ecuting, and does it grant unlimited
power subject to legislative regula-
ton or does it grant limited
power which requires legislative as
sistance for it's exercise? A hasty
examination reveals no constitu-
tional provision of any state iden-
teal in language with ours, but 1t
may be conceded that the eXecu-
tive department of the government
has always heretofore treated this
pardoning power as an unlimited
grant subject perhaps to legislative
regulation and it may be that such
Interpretation would have gone
unchallenged to the end of time
but for the action of the governor
which is now sought to be called
into question. In an opinion rem
dered by former Attorney General
Clancy (report of attorney general,
1856, p. 240), the then attorney
general appears to have assumed
rather than determined that the
pardoning power OF the governor
of the state under the constitution
was as complete and unlimited as
the pardoning power of the terri
torial governor under the organic
act, but a comparison of the IAN
guage of the grant in each instance
would seem to demonstrate that
this cannot be true. | assume for
the purposes of this statement that
under the territorial form of gov
eminent congress had all the pow
ers which under the state govern
ment are vested in the people, A
mere cursory glance at the grant
ing clause in the organic act as
compared with that contained in
the constitution clearly indicates
that the language used in the two
instruments was not used Tor the
purpose of conveying the same
ideas.
Whether the schedule OF the
constitution (section of article
XXII as follows:
Status of Territorial laws.
Art. XXI. Sec. 4. "All laws
of the territory of New Mexico
in force at the time of its ad-
mission into the union as a
state, not inconsistent with
this constitution shall be and
remain in force as the laws Of
the state until they expire by
their own limitation, or are
altered or repealed; and all
rights, actions, claims. con-
tracts, liabilities and obliga-
tons, shall continue and re-
main unaffected by the change
in the form of government"
carried into the laws of the state
the act of 1889 as amended by the
act of 1891 and was sufficient TO
give vitality to Section SO of that
act (Which Is now Section 5OS7 or
the Code of 1870 might present
an interesting question If time per-
mitted its careful examination. l
merely suggest this thought. sup
pose parts of the act Of 1889 con-
fhcted with the organic act and
other parts Of it conflicted with tne
terms OF the constitution and SUN
other parts Of it were not in con-
flict with either, would that sec
ton be construed as II it read all
laws and parts of laws in force,
etc" or would 1t be construed 10
mean "all laws of the territory or
New Mexico purporting to be IN
force and inconsistent with thls
constitution, etc" We need not,
however. concern ourselves greatly
with this question because the So
luton of our problem does not de-
pend upon a correct answer to 'thls
question.
BY the codification of 1915 the
| legislature re-enacted Section 5oo
and l now propose to consider the
| effect Of this re-enactment assuin-
ing for the purpose of the argu-
ment that Section 50S7 had not
heretofore been the law either or
the state or of the territory II
would seem to me to facilitate con-
sideration of the question II we
! eliminate all parts of the code un-
necessary to the determination oil
the question itself. By so dong
we have an act of the legislature
which reads:
The Pardon Law.
"An Act to Codify the Laws or
the State of New Mexico.
"Be 1t Enacted by the Legisia-
ture Of the state OF New
| Mexico:
Sec. 50S7. All applications
for the pardon or commuta-
ton of any sentence Of any
convict confined In the peni-
Tertiary shall be first SUD
mitted to the board of peniten-
| lea, xxYitlt oil inc