ustxtxb_obs_1959_05_16_50_00008-00000_000.pdf

On Daniel, Gonzalez, Carr, Two Surprises and an ‘Arrogant Lobbyist’ A line on conservative tax V strategy for the coming special session: Frates Seeligson of San Antonio speculated the special session would deadlock “if the Governor submits essentially his same tax program.” Seeligson said he saw only two possible solutions: an appropriation bill such as passed by the House, nanced with a broad-based tax, “particularly necessary if there is to be a teacher pay raise,” or a “cut-back” appropriation bill similar to the budget submitted by the legislative budget board.” The latter solution, calling for $45 million less than the Governor’s biennial budget, could be financed, Seeligson said, out of selective sales taxes. As for natural resources taxes Seeligson said he was “not familiar” with Eckhardt’s oil and gas tax plans and the Hinson natural gas tax was “not feasible” unless it clearly specified the producers were not to pay the tax. In the latter event, Seeligson said, “the tax would still produce no revenue from the interstate pipeline companies because they would force the state to put the money in escrow . while the legality of the tax was tested in the court s.” Seeligson’s implied warning: the needed programs for schools, juvenile correction, mental hospitals and water development would be used as a conservative bludgeon in an effort to achieve legislative acceptance of a general sales tax. / The San Antonio Express V and News took up the cudgels in behalf of Daniel’s tax program again: “We think the, general plan he has drawn is the best offered and, with the Legislature so hopelessly short of anything even approaching an adequate program, would do well to give it serious consideration.” / The Dallas News editorially blessed a proposed legislative pay raise with the observation “Our legislative servants are worthy of a better hire.” News columnist Lynn Landrum suggested legislators receive $25,000 a year, “to be paid in lump sum at the end of the year out of the surplus in the State Treasury, if any, at the end of the year otherwise no pay for that year at all.” At week’s end, the TimesHerald also endorsed a pay raise. 7 Houston Post and Houston V Press both called on. Daniel to “do everything possible” to keep the beaches open through legislation in the special session. The Press added the Padre Island national park bill should also be resubmitted to the special session. \(See “Who Owns the 7 Henry Gonzalez’s decision to V invoke little used Senate rules re-referring a bill out of committee to the Senate acting as a committee of the wholeabruptly bringing the Governor’s bookkeeping bill out of the deep freezecaught the Senate flatfooted. Dorsey Hardeman, presiding, had assented to Gonzalez’s request to be recognized for a motion to re-refer without bothering to check up on what bill the San Antonia Senator had in mind. The motion carried, 14-13, but a follow-up effort by Gonzalez to convene the Senate as a committee of the whole to take up the bill was thwarted when Hardeman refused to recognize Gonzalez for further motions. Gonzalez said he had not talked to Daniel about his surprise move. “I waited all session for some action on that bill and when nothing happened, I thought the Senate ought to have the right to vote on it, so I moved to bring it up,” Gonzalez said. Postmortems: Hudson to Hardeman: “That will teach you to recognize him.” . Hardeman to Phillips: “I didn’t know what he was going to do, I just recognized him for a motion.” Hardeman. to Herring: “What did you vote for that bill for?” Dies: “I don’t see how this bill will help save money if it’s just a question of bookkeeping.” Willis: “This will get the legislature out of a do-nothing session.” Lane: “I call for strict enforcement of the rules.” Gonzalez: “Mr. President, I have motion …” Hardeman: “I’m not recognizing you for any more motions, Senator.” / One of Gov. Daniel’s probv lems in the legislature is his need of some real friends in the Texas Senate. Most of the senators are Old Guarders who do not like his challenges for more business taxes. Senator Herring, one of the liberals, has never liked Daniel; Sen. Fly, chairman of the finance committee, has crossed the Governor on the Insurance Board and the Insurance Commissioner with a vengeance, Political Intelligence a n d seems severely inclined toward a sales tax. Sen. Hardeman has fought him on the legislative pay rolls and other matters. Sen. Crawford Martin, Hillsboro, related to the Governor by marriage, has ben a help to him, but perhaps not an all-out help. This friendlessness of the Mansion in the Senate was the root of Daniel’s press barb implying a double-cross in the Senate over H. B. 158 \(he said he had been assured his objections would be cured over there, but they were / A big-name Austin lobbyist V recently called a newspaperman to complain about Governor Daniel’s slam in Marshall at “arrogant lobbyists.” The exchange: “Did you see that silly damn speech about arrogant lobbyists?” “Yes.” “Have you ever seen any arrogant lobbists around. Austin?” “Yes, sir.” “Name one!” “You.” The lobbyist cursed the newsman and hung up in his ear. ./ Speaker Waggoner Carr and V Governor Daniel fell out, readers will recall, because Carr laid out Daniel’s bank bill the morning before the tax bill was taken up, which most assuredly lost the bank bill votes. Daniel charged publicly that Carr had assured a Daniel aide that only the franchise tax and the general tax bill would be laid out Monday morning but had broken that assurance. Carr has argued back that he checked with Marshall Bell, the main sponsor, and Bell wanted to run with it. He did not check it with the other sponsor, Charles Hughes. However, Bell and Hughes have both declared they did not know the bill was to be laid out for consideration until they saw it on the House calendar that morning. Bell then favored taking it up, as Carr says, although Hughes and Daniel both tried to persuade him to move for a postponement. Carr’s reliance on his assent from Bell does not obtain as far as Daniel and Hughes are concerned. / Carl Smith, Harris County tax assessor-collector, has announced plans designed to prohibit the sale of poll taxes at union halls, precinct meetings, and other places which he has not designated. He also wanted to require the signature of the voter on the poll tax slip, but this, he has been advised, would violate state law. The Harris County Democrats organization laid determined plans to cross up Smith’s restrictions, which they fel would considerably limit their poll tax sales. / Bexar County Commissioners V Court, on motion of Cmsr. Albert Pena, has enacted a nondiscrimination clause for all contracts for county business. It applies to employment, promotion, layoff, pay, training, and other such considerations. / Sen. Lyndon Johnson. has V protested to Sen. Ralph Yar borough concerning what Johnson regards as the anti-Johnson activities of Dave Shapiro, who works part-time for Yarborough \(and part-time for State Rep. Bill ured in the passage of the resolutions censuring Johnson at the recent state Young Democratic convention. Yarborough stood by Shapiro, saying he could not gag him. Asked whether the complaint concerned him, Shapiro said, “I deny that. That can’t possibly be me, because the report said a young liberal, and I’m a Democrat, without prefix, suffix, or apologies.” ./ AFL-CIO, rounding up the V fate of labor legislation, notes that the K _rueger bill to deny unemployed workers their first week of jobless insurance pay failed to get the votes for consideration in the House; the bill for union elections got 61 votes in the House to print on minority report against 71 noes; the Parkhouse bill to require financial reports by local unions was blocked by failure to get two thirds in the Senate; the Hughes industrial safety bill was blocked when the House committee approved a “useless” version; bus drivers’ unions were not preserved; but firemen and policemen won a reduction in working hours in cities over 10,000; and the Willis bill redefining “average weekly wage” in workmen’s comp cases so as to assist in a just settlement of claims was passed and signed into law. THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 8 May 16, 1959 LEGALS NOTICE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the partnership firm. of Aero-Charter of Houston will be dissolved, and notice is also hereby given of the Intention of said firm to become incorporated under the name of Aero-Charter of Houston, Inc. Witness my hand this 16 day of March, 1959. AERO-CHARTER OF HOUSTON By JAMES R. FISH, One of the Partners NOTICE J. S. Honigblum doing business as Nu-Horizon System has incorporated such business, effective March 26, 1959, under the name Nu-Horizon System, Inc. J. S. HONIGBLUM NOTICE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that temporary letters of administration upon the estate of Katherine Stewart, deceased, was granted to me, the undersigned, on the 10th day of April, 1959, by the County Court of Travis County, Texas. All persons having claims against this estate is hereby required to present the same within the time prescribed by law. My post office address is 1102 Perry-Brooks Building, Austin 1, Texas. Billy G. Stewart, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Katherine Stewart, Deceased. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Dean Richard Geitner, Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: You are hereby commanded to appear before the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the Courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A. M. of Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before, 10 o’clock A. M. of Monday the 15th day of June, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 113,891, in which Doris Richard Geitner is defendant, filed in said Court onthe 30th day of April, 1959, and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony her et of ore and now existing between the said parties; Plaintiff alleges cruel treatment on the part of Defendant towards her of such a nature as to render thier further living together as husband and wife altogether insupportable; Plaintiff further alleges that no children were born as issue of said marriage and no community property was accumulated by the parties; Plaintiff further alleges that her maiden name was Doris E. Holliday, which she wants restored to her, and for which she prays judgment; Plaintiff further prays for relief, relief, general and special; All of which m ore fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file in this office and to which reference is here made; If this citation is not served within 90 days after date of its issuance, it shall be returned unserved. WITNESS, 0. T. MARTIN, JR., Clerk of the District Courts of Travis County, Texas. Issued and given under my hand and seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 30th day of April, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By G. W. BICKLER, Deputy. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO T.’ George Miller, Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: You are hereby commanded to appear before the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis Couty, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A. M. of the first Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before, 10 o’clock A. M. of Monday the 15 day of June, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 113,283, in which Florence Catherine Miller is Plaintiff and T. George Miller is defendant, filed in said Court on the 6th day of March, 1959, and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for decree of divorce dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore and now existing between said parties; Plaintiff alleges cruel treatment on the part of Defendant towards her of such nature as to render their further living together as man and wife altogether insupportable; Plaintiff further alleges that no community property was accumulated during said said marriage; that one child was born of said union, that Plaintiff should be awarded its care, custody and control and that defendant should be required to contribute the sum of $50.00 per month .toward the ‘support of said child until it reaches the age of 18 years; and for which Plaintiff prays judgment; Plaintiff further prays for relief, general and special; All of which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file in this office and to which reference is here made; If this citation is not served within 90 days after date of its issuance, it shall be returned unerved. WITNESS, 0. T. MARTIN, JR., Clerk of the District Courts of Travis Couty, Texas. Issued and given under my hand and the seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 27th day of April, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By G. W. BICKLER, Deputy. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Valentin Almendarez, Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: You are hereby commanded to appear before the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or be