ustxtxb_obs_1956_02_29_50_00003-00000_000.pdf

Page 7

by

A Hound’s Tooth Is Hard To Find Random Thoughts on 3 Friends in a Creampuff Shop And the Hustings Possibilities of ‘Interposition’ AUSTIN It has not been left unsaid in supercilious circles here that C. T. Johnson is a. bit excitable. Of late, however, he has caused a number of other politicians, usually quite serene, to betray similar characteristics. Uncle Ben Ramsey, Uncle Ed Clark and Nephew Johnnie B. Rogers, the senator from Austin, were seen of a night last week at a Laredo creampuff shop. Presumably their discoursing did not exclude that pestilential law suit .rolinson has filed. Perhaps they even discussed Uncle Ben’s subpoena to appear before the Waco grand jury. “I’ve got a lawsuit, man,” C.T. will tell you. He is suing Ramsey, the newspaper alliance in Texas \(called the Texas secretary for double damages, charging Sanford spent $11,500 on Ramsey ads that Ramsey swears he did not authorize. The case may shake Texas politics to its foundationsthat is, to its financiers. Everybody knows that it takes a couple of hundred thousand to even think seriously about running for governor and that if you want to win without principles, you need at least a million. Who is prepared to admit he accepts that much money to get the job? From hurried conferences in the Capitol one gathers a crisis is at hand. The law has no loopholes. If you are running and spend the money, you’ve got to report it; if you don’t, you can go to the pen. If you give the money to somebody else who’s running, you’ve got to report it; if you don’t, you can go to the pen. If you spend the money for somebody’s campaign, he has to authorize it ; if he hasn’t, you can go to the pen. You can’t shrug off the law as unenforceable, because there is no longer any legal limit to what a man can spend on a statewide race in Texas. All he has to do is admit he spent what he spent. Early this week I heard a report on the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Barristers. The chaps are thought to be shysters and sharpsters by the untutored masses, who seem to have lost their simple faith in the 1Wight of the Law in the Sight of the Lawyer. Next will be a Society for the P. of C. to Public Men. Politicians of the state, unite! You have nothing to lose but your gains ! Whereupon the lawyers and the politicians can get together and sing “for he’s a jolly good fellow” to old of the Society for the Vigorous Prosecution of Election Expenditures Suits for Double Damages. But all this, in my judgment, will be nonsense. What this state needs is a good, clean hound’s tooth so somebody can be as clean as it. At the moment we are hard pressed. Naturally I mean we are hard pressed for the tooth. A good, clean, detached hound’s tooth is hard to come by. However, to return to C.T.’s lawsuit. Generally underestimated portent. Potentially highly disruptive. Not exactly cricket. Casts undue reflection on our organic political processes, 0, say, can you see. Gave proof through the night that our swag was still there. Leave well enough alone. Eosonie forces tend to achieve unoptimated equilibrium. A w a y, Away, Away -Down South in Dixie ! As long as I’m Youah Guvenah, sub, We’ll Interpose Forever ! I want to suggest a new tactic for East Texas campaigners this summer. You heard about how they got Claude Pepper in Florida? Well, you get up on the stump, see, and you shout: “Why, not only does Allan Shivers stand for every form of contumely practiced in the ancient pagan world, he stood right up there in the Capitol, the seat of wickedness and corruption, andsaid he wants Texas boys and girls and men and women to engage in INTERPOSITION regardless of race, creed, or color!” C.T. has made the situation desperate. Guest Editorial This editorial appeared in the Corpus Christi Caller and other HarteHanks newspapers in Texas last week : The Brown Root To the Editor: Let us all join our finagling leader in the U.S. Senate in calling for a lobbying investigation which will produce more than “headlines, heroes, and white knights.” The senator is right, let us get at the mouldy Brown Root of improper lobbying and campaign contributions. Yours, etc., FRANKLIN JONES Marshall ‘Deterging’ To the Editor: On Tune 15, 1954, at the 39th annual convention in Fort Worth of the Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants, John Ben Shepperd stated in a closing sentence of his speech the following : “I promise you that I will not rest until Texas is rid of the blood-sucking vampires that fly by night.” This was two years after I wrote my first letter to the state officials informing them how the good people of Texas were being cheated and how some members of the Texas Legislature were using their legal. retainer fees as a front to keep the companies alive. June -15, 1954, was shortly after Insurance Mess No. 1. this distance by the news reports it appears that the real facts are being covered up. No one has mentioned the $100 fees to obtain an insurance license. A telephone call to the right party in Austin promptly secured the license without the necessary examination from the insurance department. After the license was obtained a bill for services rendered promptly arrived, and the check was cashed at some hotel or eating place. A legal fee was charged to retrieve an incorrect financial statement filed with the insurance department. The attacks made on Mr. Reline Allred, Jr., appear unwarranted. He –was about the only gentleman interested in the statements I made to some ten employees of the insurance department when I was called to Austin from Beaumont by Mr. Shepperd on March 9, 1953. At this meeting I at,empted to explain how the insurance examiners overlooked the entries converting expenses to assets. Corrective laws will not correct these messes until the insurance department is deterged. of the influence peddling. There is much more to be uncovered. ROBERT W. WORTH 211 Maine Ave., Haddonfield, N.J. \(Mr. Worth formerly was an officer of Texas Mutual, a now bankrupt Texas insurance company. The instances he refers to in this letter apparently date back to a period around III Fares the Land To the Editor: Congratulations to you for efforts in trying to arouse the people of Texas to the realization of the deplor able depths of corruption to which the administration of their public affairs has sunk, i.e., senators and representatives of the .State Legislature on the payroll of concerns who are affected by laws on which these legislators supposedly representing the people must vote., … these same senators would have continued their base deception and unjust enrichment, but for the watchful eye and discovery of their political depravity by some two or three courageous newspapermen Let’s find out, if possible, the names of the legislators, and the amount of retainer fees paid them by the solvent insurance companies and developers and exploiters of our natural resources. Maybe these concerns hiring senators or representatives are the more solvent by reason of fortunate investments in senators or representatives …. Now there is talk about the Texas Bar Association helping write a law with reference to the practice of law before our state agencies by senators and representatives. Bills for perhaps the last 30 years prohibiting such practice have been introduced, sneered at, and defeated; if not in the House, certainly in the Senate. We should have such a law. How often do you .see a private attorney or non-legislator pitted against some senator in a hearing before the State Railroad Commissionwhat chance has he, or his client, against this senator? Just let the Railroad Commission rule against the senator’s client, and see what . happens to the .Railroad Commission’s budget requested at the ensuing Legislature. Now as to the judiciary and some of the unsound principles connected therewith; the wealthy, firm’s or at torney’s contribution to the campaign fund of the candidate for district judge. Some rich attorney contributes heavily to the candidate he y prefers to rule on his cases in court. In fact, this attorney may have practically bought placed the judge under obligation to him. The case comes to court ; is before this judge; our attorney has contributed heavily; the other nothing, or may have opposed the judge in the election. Is such a situation savory? There is a law which prohibits one candidate from contributing to the campaign fund of another candidate. There. should be a law prohibiting a lawyer from contributing to the campaign fund of a candidate for judgeship: Will the directors of the State Bar Association help draft such a bill and put it before the various county bar associations ? Will members who themselves have been contributors to the campaign fund of their own district judges retire from the room ? Let us hope we have a quorum left to resume the discussion. “Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay.” POLK HORNADAY Clarke & Courts Bldg. Harlingen \(Mr. Harnaday is an attorney at Rejoicing To the Editor: I rejoice in governor Shivers’s statement … that he is considering running again …. This is the same high and mighty Mr. Shivers who sold out the Democratic Party because, he said, of corruption involving “deep freezes” and “mink coats” and then turned around himself and denied all responsibility for the land scandals and for the insurance scandals …. Anyone f rom th e Governor’s “team” who runs will have to carry the burden of his record, so -actually no better candidate could be found to point up the issues than the Governor himself. I think the people of Texas will welcome another crack at this bird. MELVIN HANDELMAN Box 73, Marlin \(Mr. Handelman is national treasurer of the Young Democratic Clubs It is difficult to take at face value the announcement by Gov. Allan Shivers that he is “seriously considering”. running for reelection. Shivers has the reputation of being one of the shrewdest politicians in Texas history. Yet he must know that it would almost take a miracle to re. turn him to the governor’s mansion. Shivers had little difficulty winning his first elective term in 1950, after succeeding to the office upon the death of Gov. Beauford H. Jester on July 11, 1949. Another landslide vote returned him to office in 1952. But in 1954, in the bitterness following the Republican victory in Texas in 1952, Shivers was forced into a runoff with Ralph W. Yarborough and won by the relatively narrow margin of 91,-. 956 votes. Shivers had 775,088 votes in that runoffand Yarborough 683,132. Since the August, 1954,.runoff, two important developments .have cast a further cloud on the Shivers administration. One was a revelation of corruption in the Veterans Land Board that led to the conviction and imprisonment of former Land Commissioner Bascom Giles. However innocent he may be, Shivers cannot escape some of the blame for that situation since he served as one of the three members of that land board, along with Giles and Attorney General John Ben Shepperd. The other development has been the insurance scandals for which a Shivers-appointed insurance commission must be blamed to some extent, if for no other reason than the fact that the board lacked both judgment and resolution. Thereare many, many Texans, too, who would not vote for Shivers for a fourth elective term. He has already served longer than any other governor in Texas historyin July of this year he will have been in office seven years. If Daniel has notified Shivers that he will not run, the governor . may have made the announcement just . to “scare off” a flood-of announcements of candidacy, perhaps from members of his own, conservative wing of the Democratic Party in Texas. This strategy could give conservatives a “breathing. spell” during which they might agree on a strong conservative candidate other than Shivers. There is more than meets the eye in the Shivers announcement. Unless lie has become so insulated from public opinion that he is unaware of the drift in the political tide, it seems highly unlikely that Shivers would risk a stunning defeat by running again for governor,