El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1920-04-22
Is Bailey Eligible
for the GoUernorship2
RI rnsEPa n NEar.nr
nOES Joseph w Bailey possess the
requisite constitutional quaIlfica-

. "
IL requisite constitutional quaufica-
tons for governor OF Texas2
[ me constitution cart 4 Sec ~ re-
quires OF the governor that be shall
i've years Immediately preceding his
{ election
It Is agreed that for the past seven
years Ir. Bailey has had his home
az Washington, D. c., where he has
lracLlc-l MS profession that his
family has lived with him there al
MS home and that he has not during
that time owned a home in Texas.
but his only possession in Texas has
peen q cemetery lot At Gainesville
The proper answer 70 the question
asked depends upon what interpreta-
ton should be given the words.
snall have resided IN this state az
least five years Immediately prsced-
ing his election"
The authoritative tribunal for the
Interpretation OF constitutional nro-
visions IS the supreme court OF the
state. Il has Interpreted similar Ian
IN the case Of ssay rs. Hunt re-
ported IN volume IS, Texas Supreme
Court Reports, pages 545 TO $50, ap-
pears the Interpretation. This case
was decided December q. 1881. "A
proceeding had been filed IN the dis
( trlct court b. the county attorney
OF Dallas county in behalf OF the
city on the relation Of John Stone
!
warrant Hunt held and claimed ne
oftice OF mayor OF Dallas The DIS
Lrlct court decided n favor OF Hunt
against Stone.
IN the opinion OF the court. after
discussing other questions. the court
1inally rested its opinion On the prop
eslllon that stone was not eligible
10 the office OF mayor OF Dallas Re-
cause the Dallas city charter pro-
Floed that among other things. no
person. shah be mayor who has not
resided IN the city one year
4l VIII be observed that the onIr
ell1erence between the language Of
the constitution Prescribing ~
requisite as 70 residence On re n,s-+
o. the governor and the provisions
OF lle Da--aS charter prescribing rhe
I ls4llslle as 10 residence on the part
% q tne mayor, Is that in the one in
mum time and IN the other fnsfsr-z
one year IS liked as the uinf~ur-
slnle N the case cited. the court
says as 10 the evidence.
The evidence shows that sts-. 49,. 80
l-ll1s n 2sld for the purpose o. r-,1 I-5-.5- i
MS home, and with his family or--s--..-l
e.liere1t rented places IN the city ~ 10
the ian o. 1878 when he rented /. 49,
outside the corporate limits 9l,d r------i-55
. with his family for two 49, ~
February, 1850 he purchased . Tot -fthf1
prove i for his homestead but al No.
occupy Z with his family urtH - 49,
ter part OF September OF that year- nl---
ins the entire tine he has been crrrri-r
on business IN the city. and since -
spring o. 1878 IN premises which he orr-ef
ne test1ies that during the entire r1rs
ne bad no other permanent home tfar
tns city OF Dallas that any other h5rl.
vas temporary. There Is ether evidance.
but these are he leading facts bearirr On
the question whether Stone had readef
within the city for y months nerf 1ra-
cedlnE his election fFEs- 5s7-E7sl
stone was elected on the first Tres
day in April. 1881.
Applying the law 20 the facts f1st
stated the court stated.
Under the various provisions e tie
charter. We are clear that the ne~,r i
required 70 have resided within ire c,-po-
rate limits cf the city FOR one year next
precedinE the election We are also 1at-
istied that the evidence negatives the
possession BY stone Of this Necessary
quaificatlcr- L thus appears that Stone
was not entitled 10 Be installed As mayor.
and that Hunt. the ureElline cfficer o.
the council. vas lawf-lly discharrirz the
duties Of mayer q the city OF Dallas
The Judgment OF the couri was rirht and
i Is not important 70 Inquire Whistler she
reasons leading the court TO rira that
Judgment were right or wrong fPE-
IN the light OF this decision Of the
supreme court OF Texas Il IS clear
that Ar Bailey is not eligible TO the
office OF governor.