Page 3


A Partisan Review of Dallas Political Forces \(W. Q. Cooper,. devout DC1110crat and:chairman of the Demo. cratic Organizing Committee of Dallas, oncestood for congress ,’ man from Dallas. He has written a , -partisan review of Dallas Comity political, forces in which he studies. certain popular shibboleths and assesses. the prospect for a change in the political bearDALLAS Ba .l c in 1938 Congressman Hatton -W. .Sumners advised the Dallas Chamber of Commerce that the Justice Department was considering a Federal Prison for Women, at ‘Seagoville in Dallas County. The Congressman, felt that such a project might not be lv.elcomea by the bu4i.,ness leaders of Dallas and suggested they ponder the matter and advise him whether to use his influence to have the project transferred to the Ti .anhandle Country instead. ‘ It is not insignificant in a portrayal of the character of Dallas politics that the president of the Chamber turned that important matter over to the body’s Committee on Culture to do the required pondering, and that the Committee recommended that Congressman Sumners use his influence against the establishment of such an un-Cultural institution as a Federal Penitentiary for Women in Dallas County. Nevertheless, what is now the Federal Correctional Institution of .Seagoville, Dallas County, began its socialistic existence as a Federal Penitentiary for Women and was heralded in the local press with such headlines as, .”Con-_gressman Sumners Secures Million Dollar Project for Dallas County.” From 1938 to 1956, with little change in leadership, and practically _pone in direction, self-appointed custodians of our culture save carefully pondered what is good for us, from Federal Penitentiaries t o Bertoia “murals.” They come, inevitably, to the same conclusions, but fate always intervenes on behalf of progress. The Million Dollar Project at Seagoville becomes a respected “brag”. of the Chamber of Commerce in the forth of an “only one of its kind” in the United States, while the “Bertoia” dutifully reflects .to one furtive viewer after another his own peculiar culture.’ -Widely separated as these “cul tured” decisions may appear, they are connected by a common psychosis that . plagues the Main Street of Dallas politics. They are the result of a nervous apprehension that some “outside” influence is going to change our way of life. This fear presents itself in every election. By now the “COmmittee . on Ctilture” idea has worked its bureau, cratic way into most Dallas decisions.. The responsibility of choosing mayors, legislators, congressmen, . district attorneys, county judges, and recipients for local outstanding citizens’ awards has put a sore strain on the cultural reservoir. Once in a while an interloper has been able to break through the resolute ranks of the cultured few. In the case of a bright, young legislator, it has been refreshing to note how quickly the local big-wigs respond to a display of his intelligence in the Legislature and how quickly forgotten are such uncultured acts as Democratic Party loyalty and courageous independence. T HE BOGEY MAN of Dallas County politics is -labor. For ten years those who put up the “blue chip” money for elections have used their own especially designed portrait of labor as the, perennial whipping boy. When the Congress of Industrial Organizations set up a political action arm called the Political Action Committee, the term CIO-PAC struck an alphabet-conscious nation with a bang. Smart political wordsmiths had no difficulty in equating CIO-PAC with ev THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 7 Febi -uary 15, 1956 ery distasteful dislocation that *tar had brought, such as food shortages, fuel shortages, high cost of living, housing needs, and general. discomfiture. At the height of its effectiveness the admonition, “Don’t Let the CIOPAC Dictate to Dallas County,” was sufficient to defeat any candidate, issue, or proposition that came before the public. The Democratic primaries of 1954 featuredin Dallas County for Congress and in the state for Governor the chief architects of the 1 7952,,apostasy that had furnished the margin of Victory . for the Republicans in the presidential campaign. As a result of the bitterness of July and August, 1954, and other factors, Dallas County for the first time in her history sent a Repubffmn to represent the Fifth Consional District in Washington. This situation might well be the summit of the centaurian incongruity that has characterized the conduct of politics in the “Hub of the Southwest.” A THOROUGH analysis of the complexities of Dallas County politics would require the combined talents and learning of a political scientist, a doctor of psychiatry, ,a city planting engineer, and a’ Philadelphia la wyer. Not only is this nominally Democratic community now represented by a Republican in Congress, .the. -. City Fathers ne4er miss an opportunity to inveigh agailest the evils of the federal handout While keeping a full time Branch Office of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce in Washington to watch after the local interests. While militant against the idea of federal aid to education for fear it might mean federal control of schools, they press hard for the $100 million Trinity Navigation Project, which would bring inevitable federal control. And there are other ironies. Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson have been the principal defenders of the depletion allowance and other concessions to the oil industry. For years it has been necessary to enlist the aid of these two -Democratic leaders to secure federal recognition for Dallas’s needs because the local CongresSman “couldn’t even get a streetcar transfer in Washington.” If Dallas water problems are eventually solved it will be due to Democrats like Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Jim Wright of Fort Worth, and others. Yet the beneficiaries . of a Democratic prestige meeting in 1954 at the Dallas Sportatorium, in what was billed as a County Democratic Convention, booed and hissed as they hooted down a’ resolution commending the leadership-in the House and Senate of Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson, the elected.lead ; ers of the Democratic majorities in LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF ‘FARMER TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that Russell A. Massey and Edward Massey, partners, doing business under the firm name of Massey Brothers Drilling compan y , intend to corporate such firm without a change of firm name, and that the said corpora, tion shall be known as Massey Brothers Drilling Company, Inc., that this notice shall be for four consecutive weeks at least once a week, in each week in a newspaper, published at the seat of said firm has its principal place of business. the state government and in the county in which MASSEY BROTHERS DRILLING COMPANY RUSSELL A. MASSEY . EDWARD MASSEY Sworn to and scbscribed before Me, this the 13 day of January, A. D., 1956, by the said Russell A. Massey and Edward Massey, certified which witness my hand and seal of office. GLENN R REESE Notary Public in and for Parmer County, Texas NOTICE TO CREDITORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARION POLK CLARKE Notice is hereby given that original Letters Testamentary upon the Estate of Marion Polk Clarke, Deceased, were granted to me, the undersigned, on the 26th day of July, 1955, by the County Court of Travis County, Texas. All persons having, claims against said Estate are hereby . required to present the same to me within the time prescribed by law. My residence is 870 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, and my mailing address is c / o William A. Brown, 702 Brown Bldg., Austin, Texas. MARION CLARKE COOK Independent Executrix of the Estate of Marion’ Polk Clarke, Deceased SHERIFF’S SALE BY VIRTUE of a certain Order of.. Sale issued by the Clerk of the 53rd District Couh of Travis County, Texas, on the 12th day of January ., 1956, in. a certain Cause No. 100,344., wherein First Federal ,Savings and Loan .AssoFiqtion of Austin, the Congress of the United States. This event was just one more in a long series of steps toward a summit of party irresponsibility in Dallas County. THERE ARE several strong pressures: that are forcing a saner approaCh to Democratic Party affairs here. The defeat of the Democratic nominee in 1954 has left its mark. The fact that the nominee had forsaken the Democratic Party in 1952 was. by far the. most significant factor in his de feat. Akard Street in Dallas_ is the’ fulcrum tug of war up and down. Main Street. Vital issues concerning the growth and development of a great city are decided directly or indirectly on the basis of their tendency East or West of Akard. Liberal andconservative are forgotten as men make up their minds. regarding public housing and -urban redevelopment under federal grant lavgdy on the basis of downtown geography. Two outstanding civic and industrial leaders of the community, ,both, aging but energetic and both contribtiting toward the eastward march of Main Street, are alsoDemocrats who don’t mind making interpretive a known . their high regard for Sam Rayburn, In 1154; Main Street demanded that the Democratic nominee for Con, gress be one who had repudiated the party in 1952. It is well known that they now seek one who stayed with the party and suggest that he might have a kind word for organized working man without sacrificing their support. All county office holders in Dallas save one were elected as Democrats, but mostof them have failed to pubhay identify themselves with party affairs. This is becoming increasingly embarrassing to those who realize the growing strength of the regular party organization, and they are beginning to show. up. at more and more party functions. . Other factors are influencing a change in political tactics. The United States Supreme Court has eliminated segregation as an effective issue in -local races. It is no longer a. liberalconservative issue ; it is a moral and legal matter. Preachments: against’ the New Deal and .Fair Deal and creeping socialism gradually .dissolve in the face of a Republican . Administration that refuses to abolish any of the fundamental innovations of Franklin D. Roosevelt and which boasts of legislative ac is Plaintiff, and E. 0. Smith, Jessica Beatrix Smith Rogers, Curran Price Rogers III, Sylvia Joan Rogers, Allan Kyle Rogers and Modern Floor’s, Inc., are defendants, Judgment was recovered bas Plaintiff against Defendants E. 0. Smith and Jessica Beatrix Smith Rogers in the sum of Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ninetyest thereon at the rate of 6 per centum per annum from the 7th day of December, 1955, together -with all costs of suit, in the 53rd District Court of Travis County, on the 7th day of December, 1955. I, on the 24th day of January 1956 at 9:40 o’clock A.M., have levied-upon, and will, on the 6th day of March, 1956, that being the first Tuesday in said month, at the Court House door, in the City of Austin, within legal hours, proceed to sell for cash, to the highest bidder, all the right, title and interest of E.:!0. Smith, Jessica Beatrix Smith Rogers, Curran Price Rogers III, Sylvia Joan Rogers, Allan Kylle Rogers and Modern Floors, Incorporated, as ,,the same existed on the 29th day of April, 1954, and at all subsequent dates existed and still exists, in and to the following described property, levied upon as the property of said defendants, to-wit: of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to the map or plat of said Addition, recorded in Vol. 6, Page 102, of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas. THE ABOVE SALE to be made by me to satisfy the above described judgment for $6,997.38, in favor of the plaintiff, together with the costa of said suit, and the proceeds 4Ppjjed to the satisfaction thereof. T. 0. LANG, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas, By : HENRY KLUGE, Deputy Austin, Texas, January 25, 1956. NOTICE OF DISSOLUTION OF FIRM AND INTENTION TO INCORPORATE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned Rudy J. Kunetka, sole owner of the business firm Texas, intends to dissolve such business firm of Rudy’s Poultry and Egg Company and incorporate the same without a change in the firm name of Rudy’s Poultry and Egg Company, located, at 6403 Bayway Drive, formerly known as 301 North Market Str Rod 14arrhli ji4rri3 CArilltT complishment when these services are extended or enlarged. More and more people are coming to know that “labor” in Dallas is not some imported “goons” sent here to “rule or ruin,” but it is men and women, Texans ; that their children go . to school, play, and believe in the same Santa Claus as the children of parents in other lines of endeavor. The parents meet each other in church or P.-T.A., or community improvement leagues and zoning ordinance hearings at the City Hall. Fair-minded conservatives realize how silly it is to base a bond financing -campaign on bigotry against the CTOPAC. Like minded citizens in camp of labor realize that progress pays off for everyone and traffic jams are made of automobile drivers in all walks of life. Thinking people know that N.A.A. C.P. serves a proper and. necessary role in the Negro’s struggle for his constitutional rights and refuse to consider lightly the record their attar ney has made as a constitutional lawyer. Most liberals manage a smile at the implied power of A.D.A. They know that A.D.A. in Dallas is really only 35 or 40 people who are much less likely to agree on .an issue than a like mini ,. her from the Dallas Citizens’ Council. It is rumored that the conservatives are also aware of this. We may he approaching the end of this particular “whipping boy” as one hears again and again “that old dog won’t hunt no More.” The same Dallas Chamber of_ Commerce whose Committee on Culture had been overruled by the federal government in 1938 now glows with pride CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO. Ellanor Groom, Defendant, in the herein. after 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 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 26th day of March, 1956, and answer the petition of plaintiff in cause Number 102,948, in which Virgil Wayne Groom is Plaintiff and Elianor Groom is defendant, filed in said Court on the 5th day of August, 1965. and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment in