ustxtxb_obs_1955_01_31_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

Houston, S. A. Demos Favor Listing Party Special to The Texas Observer AUSTIN Democrats in Houston have endorsed Sen. Kilmer Corbin’s bill requiring a statement of party preference when registering to vote, and a debate on the subject will be sponsored by the Democratic Women of Bexar County Wednesday, Feb. 2. Corbin’s bill would require the tax assessor-collector to stamp the voter’s poll tax receipt with his party affiliation. Independent voters would be prohibited from voting in a primary election, and each member *of a party could vote only in his own party’s primary. A resolution “wholeheartedly supporting the intent” of the bill was adopted by the executive committee of the Harris County Young Democrats last week in Houston. At a debate on public power, Don Horn of the Young Democrats sought to gain support for the measure by Young Republicans present, but Bill Stacy, Young Republican national committeeman, said that the Young Republicans would not be a party to such a resolution. The resolution favored a twoparty system and “two strong political parties” as well as the Cor bin bill. A debate on public power between the Young Republicans and the Young Democrats was the occasion at which the exchange took place. In San Antonio, Allison Peery, a Democrat, Bob O’Callaghan, a Republican, and a spokesman for the present Shivers administration will be members of the panel Wednesday night at the Manor Tea Room. The Democratic Women of Bexar County are on record for the party preference requirement, elimination of cross-filing, and abolition of the poll tax. The group will elect officers at the Wednesday meeting. The Young Democrats of Bexar County elect officers Friday night at the court house. Poll tax sales reports will be heard at both meetings. San Antonio Democratic leaders are negotiating with the Democratic National Committee for a May visit from Senator Estes Kefauver at a fund-raising dinner. Mrs. A. L. Voigt, vice-president of the Texas Democratic Advisory Council, announced. TYLER, Tex., Jan. 10The population of Tyler has grown from 39,000 according to the 1950 census to 51,570 now, city officials state. FOR PRIMARIES have been made had there been no affairs or business of the employer to be furthered by said trip.” Of course, no living man can say just what will happen when the courts kick that language around. The plight of the employee on 24hour duty immediately comes to mind. Bent purely on a social mission, a car salesman picks up his friend and drives him to a coffee break. On the return trip, he succeeds in selling the friend an automobile, and then is involved in a collision that totally disables him for life. Notwithstanding that his employer receives the benefit of the sale Made, under T.M.A. standards the employee would have to pick up a walking cane and tin cup instead of compensation insurance. In addition to the technical burdens imposed upon the injured workman, H. B. 4 would then force him to employ a cheap lawyer. No one but the undertaker profits from the remployment of a cheap doctor, and no one but the insurance companies could profit from forcing competent attorneys out of the Workmen’s Compensation Insurance field of litigation. Naturally, under the new bill the insurance companies may continue to pay their high-priced counsel as much as they please \(passing the amount on as premium increases, if man would be restricted in the amount he could pay his counsel. Under the present act, the workman may pay to his counsel onethird of the amount recovered for him. A comparison of the net payments allowed a workman by the Industrial Accident Board with net payments received by the same workman after an attorney ‘ has represented him in Court, will quickly answer the question of why T.M.A. Is suffering with enlargement of the heart in its sympathy for the workmen who may hire attorneys. It is not an exaggeration to say that an over-all average would show that the workman who now appeals from an award of the Industrial Accident Board receives two or three times more as his net compensation payment, after paying an attorney one-third, than he would have received as his part had he accepted the award of the Board and dispensed with the services of an attorney. In fact, the figures in one office covering the period 1947 to 1952 showed that on appeals from awards of the Board, collections of some $105,000 were made as opposed to some $13,000 that would have been collected had there been no lawyers to take the cases to Court. H. B. 4 prohibits an employee from paying an attorney more than 25 percent of the recovery made, which in no event may exceed $2,000 in any one case. Considering that it is the laboring man who pays the fee, the question naturally suggests itself as to why the T.M.A. is so deeply interested in reducing its amount. If the insurance companies need contend only with fourth-rate lawyers, they may more readily avoid paying the full amount actually due a compensation claimant. There lies the source of T.M.A.’s solicitude for the working man. Nor should we suppose that the proponents of the bill are unaware of the frailties common to all humanity. The maximum recovery allowed under H. B. 4 would be $12,030. An attorney is representing a totally disabled client, let us say, and the insurance carrier offers $8,000 to settle the case. If the attorney recommends acceptance of the settlement, he receives a fee of $2,000, and the injured man nets $6,000. On the other hand, if he refuses the settlement he must fight the case through the District and Appellate Courts for 18 months to two years. If he is successful, at the end of the litigation, he receives the same fee of $2,000, and the client receives $10,030. In a neighboring state where a similar provision has long been a part of the Compensation Law, attorneys of highest morals and the greatest respectability somehow usually find a reason to settle a case rather than try it when the amount offered will provide the maximum fee limit allowed under the law. The T.M.A. bill would relegate the Compensation Insurance field to cheap lawyers, and then supply them with strong temptation to settle their cases cheaply. The greatest hoax of all is found in the suggestion that the party paying a premium will benefit from the reduction of the amount allowed as attorneys’ fees. Assuming as we must that fair awards are being made in compensation cases by our courts, how can it affect the amount of compensation insurance premiums paid if the same standard for fixing the amount thereof is applied, but a greater part of the award allowed the working man? Great doubt is thrown on the suggestion that premium rates are too high beacuse of the activities of attorneys and awards made, by the desire of the sponsors of the bill to be allowed to become self-insurers. The only possible reason for this desire is a belief that the insurance companies are charging too much Page 7 January 31, 1955 THE TEXAS OBSERVER Through the Maze L. V. Ruffin, Brady, is said to have made a “profit” of $310,694 on four deals with the land Board involving 90 veterans, some of whom say in affidavits they did not know they were buying land. Ruffin says he did not make that much money and did not recruit the veterans. B. R. Sheffield, Brady, has been associated with Ruffin, particularly in transactions preceding Ruffin’s sale to the Land Board of 10,795 acres of land in Kinney County: but the extent of this association is not established. J. Paul Little, Crystal City, approved title examinations to land he himself sold the state program under the assumed name, “J. C. Hillery,” according to testimony. In addition, Elbert Wall, Brady, Sheffield’s son-in-law, told this newspaper he sold 260 acres of land to the Veterans’ Land Board, but it was not entirely clear whether this was a multiple sale involving a number of veterans. REA Lends $348,000 For Rural Dial System LA GRANGE, Jan. 31A $348,000 loan from the Rural Electrification Administration has been requested to construct a dial telephone system in the rural areas around La Grange. for the protection afforded employers of labor, and that such employers want to eliminate the grab. A consideration of the ratio of administrative and policy-writing expense to losses paid by workmen’s compensation insurance cases would likely be illuminating, and it is right at this point that the yearning to become self-insurers by our captains of industry has largely found its origin. Perhaps the cruelest thing found in H. B. 4 is the permission granted in the self-insurance provisions for the employer to deposit only $20,000 with the Insurance Commissioner as a reserve for discharging compensation claim indebtedness. If two employees should become totally disabled within the same year, they would be entitled to maximum compensation of $24,060, or $4,600 more than would be required to be on reserve. It is true that some provision is made to cover catastrophes, but the protection for the normal operation of a business covered by the compensation Act is ridiculously low. The only way to reduce premiums is to reduce the’amount paid out to the workingman, whether all or none of it goes to attorneys’ fees. This reduction should be made through better safety regulations and the consequent lessening of the number of accidents occurring in industry. H. B. 4 would take the reduction out of the hide of the workingman under the guise of helping him. CLASSIFIED ADS To submit a classified ad, write Drawer F, Capitol Station, Austin, or call ‘70746. Help Wanted STRINGERSThe Texas Observer is building up a bank of reliable reporters all over Texas. Professional reporters of an enlightened turn of mind are urged to contact the Editor, The Texas Observer, Drawer F, Capitol Station, Austin. ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVESIf you have some spare time and would like to help The Texas Observer grow, write the Business Manager for advertising solicitation forms. Percentage of sales can be arranged. The Texas Observer, Drawer F. Capitol Station, Austin. LEGAL ADS NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INCORPORATE COUNTY OF HARRISON STATE OF TEXAS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN : Notice is hereby given that Arthur de Cardenas, Clarence A. Evans, and Jack T. Sheeler, partners, comPosing the firm of Pan American Engineering & Associates of Longview, Texas, intend to incorporate such -firm under the name of Pan American Engineering, Incorporated, after the expiration of thirty days from this date, the 22nd day of January, 1955. PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES 42-4 Partner TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that Central Texas Equipment Co., previously a partnership composed of Joe M. Teague and H. C. Bell, Jr., has been incorporated without a change of the firm name, and such firm hereafter will be operated as a corporation. CENTRAL TEXAS EQUIPMENT CO. By : Joe M. Teague, Partner 40-4 E STATE OF TEXAS C./LINTY OF TRAVIS In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas Notice is hereby given as follows: To : Richard S. White and Sylva J. White, whose residences are unknown, and the unknown owner or owners of the property hereinafter described or any interest therein ; the heirs and legal representatives and the unknown heirs and legal representatives of each of the above named and mentioned persons who may be deceased ; and the corporate officers, trustees, receivers and stockholders of any of the above named or mentioned parties which may be corporations, defunct or otherwise, together with the successors, heirs and assigns of such corporate officers, trustees, receivers, and stockholders, and any and all persons, including adverse claimants, owning or having or claiming any legal or equitable interest in or lein upon the following described property delinquent to Plaintiff herein, for taxes, to-wit: All that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Travis, State of Texas described as follows : Lot 5, in Outlot 8, of Division “B” of Oil Mill Addition, in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas according to the map or plat of said addition recorded in Plat Book 3, page 40 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas ; and being the same property conveyed by Jno. A. Gracy to Richard S. White and wife, Sylva J. White, by Deed dated May 15, 1934 and recorded in Volume 502, page 438, Deed Records of Travis County, Texas. Which said property is delinquent to Plaintiff for taxes in the following amounts : $86.66, exclusive of interest, penalties and costs, and there is included in this suit in addition to the taxes all said interest, penalties and costs thereon, allowed by law up to and including the day of judgment herein. You are hereby notified that suit has been brought by the City of Austin as Plaintiff, against the above named persons, and the State of Texas and the County of Travis, as Defendants, by petition filed on the 16th day of December, 1954, in a certain suit styled City of Austin vs. Richard S. White, et al for collection of the taxes on said property and that suit is now pending in the District Court of Travis County 53rd Judicial District, and the file number of said suit is 100,097, that the names of all taxing units which assess and collect taxes on the property hereinabove described not made parties to this suit are, NONE. Plaintiff and all other taxing units who set up their tax claims seek recovery of delinquent ad valorem taxes on the property hereinabove described, and in addition to the taxes all interest, penalties, and costs allowed by law thereon up to and including the day of judgment herein, and the establishment and foreclosure of liens, if any, securing the payment of same, as provided by law. All parties to this suit, including Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Intervenors, shall take notice that claims not only for any taxes which were delinquent on said property at the time of this suit was filed but all taxes becoming delinquent thereon at any time thereafter up to the day of judgment including all interest, penalties, and costs allowed by law thereon, may, upon request therefor, be recovered herein without further citation or notice to any parties herein, and all said parties shall take notice of and plead and answer to all claims and pleadings now on file and which may hereafter be filed in said cause by all other parties herein, and all of those taxing units above named who may intervene herein and set up their respective tax claims against said property. You are hereby commanded to appear and defend such suit on the first Monday days from and after the date of issuance hereof, the same being the 7th day of March A. D., 1955 \(Which is the return able District Court, 53rd Judicial District of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse thereof, then and there to show cause why judgment shall not be rendered for such taxes, penalties, interests and costs, and condemning said property and ordering foreclosure of the constitutional and statutory tax liens thereon for taxes due the Plaintiff and the taxing units parties hereto, and those who may intervene herein, together with all interest, penalties and costs allowed by law up to and including the day of judgment herein, and all costs of this suit. Issued and given under my hand and seal of said court in the City of Austin, Travis’.` ,County, Texas, this 20th day of