Mr. Allen 8. Conner, February 11, 1939, Page Q.
history 0r the time, the oontamporsneoue olroumetmo4s, and
the conditions leading to the enactment of ths amendment,
to ascertain th+ ?urposr snd msenl~ or the amendment,
and the language v&l]. be construed to further that purpoae.
Ewme t. kal,ra, 170 Ter. 3S3, 40 6. I’,. (2nd) 31; San
Anton10 Independent Sohool Dlstrlot v. State, (Clv. App. )
173 s. ::i. 5%; ..‘illtome v, Carroll, It:: S. ‘7. 29. The
thing to be sou(.!lt 1s the thought af~reaced, (Cardova v.
stnte, 0 cr. l-t. 207) alth the view of ascertaining and
giving effect to the intent of the people who adopted the
amendment. Collingsworth County v. Allred, 120 Tcx. 473,
40 z. :;‘. (2nd) 13.
It 1s n matter of oonmon knowleci;:e that tkJ-;c? anend-
mot was EOUf:ht in this instanoe solely to ellminnte the
obsolete dueling olause. There wes no eu[;Ceetion of any
other purpose to be arrected. In tsct, the very lanfusce
of the amendr.lent indicates that the people intended that
“all off iceran chould take the oath of offloe. “All Offl-
cers*ms both elective and appointive oi~flcere.
Yet we should not impute to the -people of Texas an intention
that appointive orflcers ahoul~d take er: oath embodyIng
lani:uege wholly inapplicable to the zanner by which they
acquired their office.
Applylnc the rules of oonstltutional cooctruotion
above stated, the conolusion Is olear. i:e therefore hold
that, ln order to Give effect to the lntentlon Or the
people in voting this amendment, all appointloo officers
in thla State, Including ootarlre public, muet take the
constitutional oath of offlco provided by the amendment,
but that the oath as to them must conclude, after eliminat-
lng the viorde, e.. . for the giving or withholding a vote
at the election at whloh 1 was cleated," after the word
“reward ,* with theaa words, e... to seoure my appointment.
So help me God.”
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY
GW&RAL OF TEXAC
By &&&.&&tAl
EC. ‘A.. Falrohlld
F&w: FBP _Assistant
APPRCVXD:
A ., (\.‘.
r
AWORtiEX G?E?%XAL
OF TEXAS
6