El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1913-11-13
VOTERS FAVOR
JOINT BUILDING
Referendum Brings Ballots
From 988; Only 3444 OPP
pose the Project.

Out of a total of $500 ballots sent
out by city and county officials for
taking the referendum vote on the qUes-
ton of the erection Of a Joint county
and city building. 9S8 votes were re-
turned by mail. Of this number GA
favored the erection of the proposed
building, while 344 were opposed to the
project. The votes were canvassed and
tailed by a committee in the Gath dis
trict court room Wednesday night.
Each of the propositions, including the
sale of public property, the proceeds of
which are to be used for the erection
of the building; the addition of an audi
forum and a market house, according
to the returns, We're favored by an over
whelming majority. For the sale of
public property there were SIG votes IN
favor of it and 496 against. For the
auditorium, SOS for and IS against. For
the market house, 522 voted for it and
100 opposed it.
Voted in -Four Precincts
For the purpose of taking the VOteA
the city and county were divided into
four precincts. No. 1 included the city;
No. 2 embraced Ysleta and Clint; No. 8
took IN San ElizariO; No. 4, Sierra
Blanca.
The city returned the largest number
Of votes Of any of the precincts, casting
612 for and 343 against. No. pOlled
only four votes. which were all in favor
OF the proposition. No p0iled rs for
and Is against. No. voted two for
and II against.
Favored $4,000 Structure.
As to the cost of the proposed building,
459 favored the erection of a 100000
building and 163 wanted a S250,0O0
structure A few of the voters wrote
IN the price at 100000
The votes as eanvassed were not
checked off with the property tax lists.
1t Is believed that few OF the votes were
cast by Just poll tax payers. Only
property owners were qualified to vote
on the proposition, but bv mistake 4,
number of ballots were sent out to non
property owners who had poll taxes.
Few of these, it IS believed, returned
the ballots If insisted upon the votes
VIII be counted again and the ballots
OF the nonprOperty owners viii be
thrown out
Up to Commissioners.
As the matter now rests definite ae-
ton on the proposed building Is I'D to
the county commissioners. an expression
OF opinion from the voters having been
obtained County judge A S. J. Eylar
stated that the proposition would 90
before the commissioners at their next
meeting, which VIII be on November "a
lie could not say what action, If any,
would be taken.
Ballot Open to Inspection.
- couOI II the commissioners court
VIII take the trouble to check over
the vote Tor the Joint municipal build
ing to ascertain what ballots were
east oy voters who were not quail
1lec, said vounty judge Eylar 1T
may look at Il Just as the committee
uld- The committee decided first to
count the Tor and a gainst' votes. with
the understanding that If il was any-
where near close, that IL might look
later As il counted the votes the
committee could look at the names of
the voters and see who they were and
get general idea as to whether or
not they were tax payers By the
time II was through counting, the vote
Tor the proposition was so decisive
that the committee did not feel Jus
u1led in sitting up all night TO com
pare the names on each ballot with
the list of qualified voters that had
been prepared for the committee. Il
would be some job. At the same time,
If The Herald or The Times or any
organization desires to satisfy its
curiosity IN this respect, If il will
name committee to do the work, the
matter can be easily arranged. The
names OF the voters are on each ballot
and list of the qualified voters is
available The object of this referen-
DUN ballot was to find out what the
people think about the proposed joint
municipal building, and the commits
sIoners' court and the city council can
act on the assumption that two to one
are for it, should they decide to have
bond election on the proposition"