xt7c599z324g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7c599z324g/data/mets.xml New Mexico United States Works Progress Administration 1937 Other contributors include: Robert C. Lowe (Robert Chapin) and David S. Lander under the supervision of A. Ross Eckler; 13 pages, 27 cm; This bulletin is one of a series presenting state constitutional provisions affecting public welfare; Includes bibliographical references; UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries; Call number Y 3.W 89/2:36/N 42y books English Washington D.C.: Works Progress Administration Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Analysis of Constitutional Provisions Affecting Public Welfare in the State of New Mexico text Analysis of Constitutional Provisions Affecting Public Welfare in the State of New Mexico 1937 2015 true xt7c599z324g section xt7c599z324g I • W O R K S P R O G R E S S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N
 I O
• MAY 1, 1957

• ‘ 
O; `

• .
This bulletin is one of a series presenting
. State constitutional provisions affecting public wel-
fare, preparedto supplement the State`byState digests
of public welfare laws so as to provide in abstract
form the basis for the public welfare services of the
several States.
· The provisions quoted. are those concerned
directly with public welfare administration and such
others as may substantially affect a public welfare
program,eventhough only indirectly related. It would
_ be impossible to consider within the limits of this
4 l study every remotely· connected constitutional provi-
• sion. The indirectly related provisions included,
therefore, have been restricted to those concerning
. finance, legislation, and the methods of constitutional
An attempthasbeen made,bya.careful selec-
‘ tion of the most recent cases decided by the highest
courts oftheStates,to1nd1cate wherever possible how
these provisions have been construed. These cases are
included in footnotes appended to the constitutional
provisions shown.
• It is hoped that these abstracts will be
useful to those 1nterested;h1publ1c welfare questions
1n indicating how State and local public welfare admin-
lstration may be affectedlqrconstitutional powers and
g •

 X •
Incidence of Responsibility for Welfare Program .................. 1
· Financial Powers and Limitations .......... . ..... . . . . . ............ 2
Taxation and Assessments .................................... 2
EXBIDptj.0IlS•••••••••••••.••••••...•••..••.....•.••.•••••••..• 3
Borrowing and Use of Credit ................................. 4
_ - 0th€I"Il'lCOlIl€•••••••.•·••••••••»•.•••••.•••..•••.••••••••...• 8
P • Appropriations and Expenditures ............................. 8
· Provisions Affecting legislation ................................. 9
Constitutional Amendment or Revision ............................. 12
 I O

• New Mexico
I. Incidence of Responsibility for Welfare Program
A- * * * the M1ners' Hospital of New Mexico at Raton, the
New Mexico Insane Asylum at Las Vegas, and the New Mexico Reform School
at Springer, are hereby confirmed as state inst1tutions.2
B. The legislature shall enact suitable laws for the regulation
• of the employment of children.5
C. No appropriation shall be made for charitable, educational
` or other benevolent ur ose to any erson, co oration association or
P P P VP s
community not under the absolute control of the state, but the legislature
may, in its discretion, make appropriations for the charitable institutions
° and hospitals for the maintenance of which annual appropriations were made
by the Legislative Assembly of nineteen hundred and nine.4
1Const1tut1on (1911), with all amendments to May 1, 1937.
° Constitutional cltations are taken from the Constltutiouof the State of New Mexico
(1956). prepared under the supervision of the Secretary of State.
*=•= =•= ·•· the constitutions of the several states, unlike the federal constitu-
. tion, are not grants of power. On the contrary, they are limitations on the legis-
lative powers of the states. =•= =•= ¤•= `the legislative powers of the states are very
general and very lndeflnlte, ¤•¤ =•= =•=; and the generally accepted doctrine 1s that
they may pass any acts that are not expressly, or by necessary lmpllcation. inhibited
by their own constitutions or by the federal const1tut1on.* It was held that debt
* limitations were not grants of, but limitations upon, the power of the Legislature.
State ex rel. Capitol Addition Bu1ld1ng Commlsslon vs. Connelly, 39 N. 11. 312, 46 P.
(zd) 1097, 1102 (1935).
It has been stated that the term •'pol1ce power• of the State is •the name given
_ to that Inherent sovereignty which it is the right and duty of the government or its
agents to exercise, whenever public policy in a broad sense demands, for the benefit
of society at large, regulations to guard lts morals, safety, h€&].Ch, order, or to
Insure, ln any respect, such economic conditions as an advancing clvllizatlon of a
• highly complex character requ1res.• State vs. Brooken, 19 N. H. 404, 143 P. 479, 481
(1914). .
2Const1tutlon, Art. XIV, Sec. 1.
5Constltut1on, Art. XX, Sec. 10.
4'Constltution, Art. IV, Sec. 31.
An act authorizing the several counties to appropriate money to a county fair
. association, to be used for premlums on agricultural exh1b1ts,was held to contravene
this section slnce the association was not under the absolute control of the State.
Harrington vs. Atteberry, 21 N. M. 50, 153 P. 1041 (1916).
I 1

2 New Mexico
II. ·F1nanc1al Powers and Limitations
A. Taxation and Assessmentsa
(1) State
(a) Taxes levied upon tangible property shall be in
proportion to the value thereof, and taxes shall be equal and uniform upon .
subjects of taxation of the same class.6 ·
(b) Taxes levied upon real or personal property for
state revenue shall not exceed four mills annually on each dollar of the •
assessed valuation thereof except for the support of the educational, penal
and charitable institutions of the state, payment of the state debt and
interest thereon; and the total annual tax levy upon such property for all
state purposes exclusive of necessary levies for the state debt shall
not exceed ten mills; Provided, however, that taxes levied upon real or •
personal tangible property for all purposes, except special levies on
specific classes of property and except necessary levies for public debt,
shall not exceed twenty mills annually on each dollar of the assessed val- l
uation thereof, but laws may be passed authorizing additional taxes to be
levied outside of such limitation when approved by at least a majority of
the electors of the taxing district voting on such proposition.7 ·
5"The power of taxation is lnherent in the state, and may generally be exercised through ·
its Legislature without let or hinderance except insofar as limited by the Constitu-
tlon." The Legislature was held to have power to levy excise taxes since this power
was not denied in the Constitution. Lujan vs. Triangle Oll Company, 38 N. M. 543.
57 P. (2d) 797 (1934). •
6Conet1tut1on, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, as amended 1914.
Under this section if a taxis for a State purpose, 1t must be uniform throughout
the State, but 1f a tax 1s for a county purpose, it need be uniform only within the
county.- Love vs. Dunnaway, 28 N. M. 557, 215 P. 822 (1923).
A personal property tax statute, which provided that automobiles should be as-
sessed at their list price for the first 3 years, that 25 percent of the list price
should be deducted after the thlrd year, and that 50 percent of the list price should
be deducted after the' fifth year, was held not to violate the uniformity provision of ’
this section. The court stated that tax systems could only approximate uniformity
and that this classification was not so arbitrary and unreasonable that 1t could not
be sustained. State ex rel. Taylor vs. Mlrabal, Z3 N. M. 553, 273 P. 928 (1928).
It has been held that this section applies only to tangible property taxes and
not to other forms of taxation. A tax levied upon the production of oil was héld to
be an excise tax rather than a property tax and so was not subject to the uniformity
requirement of thls section. Flynn. Welch, and Yates, Incorporated vs. State Tax Com-
mission. 38 N. M. 131, 28 P. (2d) 889 (1934). •
A tax of 5 cents per gallon on gasoline sold within the State was held to be an
excise tax and not a property tax. George E. Breece Lumber Company vs. Mlrabal, 34
N. M. 643, 287 P. 699 (1930).
An inheritance tax was held to be a succession tax, or a tax upon the right or
privilege to succeed to the property of the deceased, and not a tax on tangible prop-
erty. State vs. Gomez, 54 N. ri. 250, 280 P. 251 (1929).
7Const1tut1on, Art. VIII, Sec. 2, as amended 1933. •
This section does not apply to excise taxes. LUJHII vs. Triangle 01l Company,
38 N. M. 543, 37 P. (2d) 797 (1934). Excise taxes include all taxes except property
and poll taxes. Flynn, welch, and Yates, Incorporated vs. State Tax Commission, 58
N. M. 131, 28 P. (2d) 889 (1934).
An act prov1d1ng for a tax of 3 mills on the dollar for the constructlon and
maintenance of county roads was held not to be a tax for *State revenue•* because 1t

New Mexico 3
• II. Financial Powers and Limitations-—Continued
A. Taxation and Assessments-—Continued
(1) State——Continued (
(c) The legislature shall not pass local or special
• laws in any of the following cases: * * * the assessment or collection
of taxes or extending the time of collection thereof;8 * * *
• (2) Counties and Other Local Units
No provision.9
B. Exemptions
(1) The property of the United States, the State and all
g the Counties, Towns, Cities and School Districts, and other municipal
corporations, public libraries, community ditches and all laterals there-
of, all church property, all property used for educational or charitable
. purposes, allcemeteries not used orheld for private or corporate profit,
and all bonds ofthe State of New Mexico, andof the counties, municipali-
• ties and districts thereof, shall be exempt from taxation.1°
· was levied for a county rather than a State purpose. and so the limitations of this
section dld not apply. State vs. Red River Valley Company, 28 N. M. 94, 206 P. 695
· 8Const1tut10n, Art. IV, Sec. 24.
This section was héld not to prohibit the enactment of a special law levylng a
tax for the construction of a State road running through two counties. The Supreme
Court stated that under this section provisions for ¤assessment and collect1on¤ of
taxes must be enacted by general law,but thattaxes might be levied by speclal laws.
- Borrowdale vs. Board of County Commissioners of Socorro County, 23 N. M. 1, 163 P.
721 (1917).
QA munuclpallty can only exercise those powers whlch are granted by the Legislature,
• either ln express terms or by necessary implication. So the power to tax must D8
granted by the Legislature. Barker vs. State ex rel. Napoleon, 39 N. H. 434, 49 P.
(2d) 246 (1935).
The rate of property taxation Which may be imposed within all local units has
been limited by the Legislature. Compiled Statutes (1929), Secs. 141-1001.
1OConstitut1on, Art. VIII, Sec. 3.
¤The power of taxation lslnherent In the state, and may generally be exercised
tnrough 1ts Legislature without let or hlnderance, except insofar as l1m1ted by the
" • Constitution, andthe state llkewlse has the reciprocal power of exempting from tax-
ation, except as limited by the Const1tut1on.¤
The Supreme Court held that all the exemptions mentioned in the Constitution
refer only to property taxation and that when dealing with other forms of taxation,
_ the Legislature ls free to make such exemptions as lt, inits reasonable discretion,
sees fit. Asplund vs. Alarld, 29 N. M. 129, 219 P. 786 (1923).
’ Under the clause of this section "the property of the United States, the State
• and all the Counties, Towns, Cities and School Districts, and other municipal cor-
porations, * * * Shall be exempt from taxat10n,* ownership is the sole test to
be employed in determining what property shall be exempt. Ibid.
Under the clause •publ1c l1brar1es,commun1ty ditches and all laterals thereof,
, all church property, all property used for educational or charitable purposes, all
cemeteries not used or held for private or corporate profit, * * * shall be ex-
0 empt from taxat1on.* use of the property ls the sole test to be employed in determin-
. ing what property shall be exempt. Ibid.
· •

4 New Mexico ‘
II. Financial Powers and Limitations—Continued
B. Exemptions-—Continued
(2) The legislature may exempt from taxation property of
each head of a family to the amount of two hundred dollars, and the prop-
erty of every honorably discharged soldier, sailor, marine and army nurse,
and the widow of every soldier, sailor or marine, who served in the armed •
forces of the United States at any time during the period in which the
United States was regularly and officially engaged in any war, in the sum
of two thousand dollars.11 * * * ·
(3) Lands held in large tracts shall not be assessed for
taxation at any lower value per acre than lands of the same character
* * * held in smaller tracts. The plowing of land shall not be con-
sidered as adding value thereto for the purpose of taxation.12
(4) The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare
* * * that the lands and other property belonging to citizens of the
United States residing without this state shall neverbe taxed at a higher
rate than the lands and other property belonging to residents thereof;
that no taxes shall be imposed by this state upon the lands or property
therein belonging to or which may hereafter be acquired by the United ·
States or reserved for its use;15 * * *.
C. Borrowing and Use of Credit ·
(1) state
(a) The state may borrow money not exceeding the sum •
of two hundred thousand dollars in the aggregate to meet casual deficits
A dwelling house rented by a church and the proceeds turned ove_r to the church
was held not exempt from taxation, since under this section, only such church prop-
erty as Is used for church purposes as distinguished from property the income from
which 1s used for church purposes 1s exempt. Church of the Holy Faith vs. State •
Tax Commission. 59 N. H. 405, 48 P. (2d) '7'7'7 (1935).
Property of an EIk·s Lodge, used primarily as a lodge home and as a center for t
carrying on its charitable and benevolent activities, was held to be used fora ¤char1— p
table" purpose within the meaning of this sectlon. Albuquerque Lodge, No. 461 B.P.O.E.
vs. Tlerney, 39 N. ri. 155, 42 P. (2d) 206 (1955). ’
A sororlty Chapter house, used primarily as a dormltory and boardlng house for
university students, was held not to be used for an leducatlonal" purpose within the
meaning of this section and so was not exempt from taxation. Albuquerque Alumnae • (
Assoclatlon of Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternlty vs. Tierney, 37 N. M. 156, 20 P. (2d) I
267 (1955).
Speclal assessments, levied on the basis of benefits by a drainage district on ‘
the property of a county, were held not to be *taxes¤ within the meaning of this A
section, and therefore the county property was not entitled to an exemption. Lake
Arthur Drainage District vs. Board of Commlssioners, 29 N. M. 219, 222 P. 589 (1924). »
uConst1tut1on, Art. VIII, Sec. 5, as amended 1922. g
Under this section the Legislature was held authorized to grant both the $200
and $2.000 exemption to an Individual lf he was both the head of a family and a sol-
dier. Aspluno vs. Alarld. 29 N. H. 129, 219 P. 786 (1925). ,
12C0nstltutIon. Art. VIII, Sec. 8. (
15Const1tut10n, Art. XXI, Sec. 2. · »

New Mexico 5
i II. Financial Powers and Llmitations——C0ntinued
5 O
C. Borrowing and Use of Credit-Continued
(1) State-—Continued
I or failure in revenue,