Page 2


CARR, DANIEL GIG EACH OTHER AUSTIN The five-month trench war involving Price Daniel and the severance gas tax on the one hand and Waggoner Carr and the gas lobby on the other spilled onto the front pages of the state press this week after the House Speaker attacked Daniel in a formal press statement and the Governor replied “at the request of the Capitol press.” The next day, following a rousing reception afforded Daniel by lawmakers gathered to hear his address opening the new session, the Governor’s stock appeared higher than at any time since the battle began in January. The public duel between the Speaker and the Governor was triggered by Carr within minutes of the overwhelming 121 to 27 House rejection Tuesday night of the tax conference report signed by the three conferees regarded as “Carr’s men.” In a statement released to the press shortly after the first called session ended in deadlock, Carr charged Daniel with conduct “both disgusting and reprehensible.” Accusing the Governor of deserting his supporters and being dictatorial and uncompromising, Carr defended the House conferees who accepted the tax bill substantially as passed by the Senate: “The conferees of the louse,” Carr said, “worked diligently and conscientiously toward a solution to the tax problem in accordance with their responsibility to represent a majority of the House members. Their failure in no way reflects against there ability, nor does it indicate any lack of dedicated effort. marily with the fact that the Governor and his staff applied every type of ‘pressure tactics’ to the members of the House, both di AUSTIN A side consequence of the legislature’s e n a c t ment of the Governor’s books-juggling bill \(expected to reduce is politically much more important than the bill itself. As Rep. Bill Hollowell, Grand Saline, and Sen. Doyle Willis, Fort Worth, advised their respective colleagues with the traditional oratory for the old folks, the bill, by allocating less money for welfare than was provided by a constitutional amendment in 1957, appears to ratify the refusal of the Senate to appropriate all the funds the voters approved. Willis lost in the Senate \(by the bill to raise the amount of state money allocated for welfare by $1.8 million. He said this would mean about $1.60 per month per old person on the assistance rolls. He explained that in 1957 the people voted 4-1 for a $5 million increase in the welfare ceiling \(to keeping bill allocates only $3.2 million of this increase \(that is, 1957 ceiling on welfare spending was $42 million. “I wanted the legislature to raise the old folks’ checks the full amount already voted by the people,” Willis said. On the House side, Rep. Hollowell charged that the book-keeping bill, as amended in the Senate, “will absolutely prohibit” giving the old folks the $47 million voted them. \(Other welfare recipients would be analogously The Senate deserves the blame, 14 rectly and indirectly, to pass the specific pr o g r am he recommended. The House passed substantially the measure he so vigorously insisted upon. The Governor then appeared before the Senate committee considering the measure and agreed to accept anything that body would send him. This left members of the House who had worked for his program high and dry. ‘Disgusting’ “The manner in which the Governor deserted his own program and his supporters is both disgusting and reprehensible. “While I personally did not favor the Governor’s recommendation because it would have been detrimental to the industrial and commercial expansion in the development of Texas, and would have ultimately affected the paycheck of every citizen through a disguised means, and possibly would have resulted in unemployment, I did endeavor to see that the House had the opportunity to vote on his program. These members were completely and absolutely deserted by the Governor after t h e measure reached the Senate. “His record, therefore, is not only one of indecision but is also one of inconsistence. When the conferees agreed upon a compromise, the Governor was requested to give his public and private support to the bill. In spite of his public promises that he would support any tax bill short of a general sales tax or income tax, he refused. His earlier promises were quickly forgotten. “By such tactics the Governor has forced us into another special session. His fancy footwork has prevented the passage of a tax bill this session. If he had stuck by his promises, our work would now have been completed and we would have been able to save the Hollowell said, since the House passed several measures allocating the full amount, only to have them die in the Senate. But, he believed, “If we pass this \(booksponsibility with the Senate.” Rep. Dick Slack of Pecos agreed with Hollowell’s -analysis but urged support for the bill anyway. He granted that only $45.2 million was allocated for welfare, although in 1957 “the citizens passed a self-enacting amendment for $47 million.” The authorization of the 1957 amendment expires Aug. 31, 1959. “If you do not pass this bill,” Slack argued, “you will cut the old folks $3.7 million as of Aug. 31, 1959.” Rep. Joe Chapman, Sulphur Springs, retorted that were the House to insist on a conference committee, there would be “at least a chance” to get the full $47 million. Slack said “The place to do that is not the conference committee.” By a vote of 101-40 \(House liberals and East Texans constituting the bulk of the oppoand finally pass the Senate version prevailed. This means the welfare recipients in the state will get some but not all of the raises the voters approved in 1957 unless the second special session passes further legislation. The voters also approved state aid to the aged for medical expenses; but the legislature has not passed a law to provide the money. It is inform-ally understood among some watchdogs of the old folks’ welfare in the legislature that Gov. Daniel may submit special legislation for this program. taxpayers the cost of another session. The experience of this type of leadership, or lack of leadership, of t h e past five months should now equip the legislature with the proper strength, knowledge, and determination to see that the job is done correctly and equitably …” On the House floor that night about 12:30 a.m., it wasRep. Jamie Clements, Crockett, apprised of Carr’s charge Daniel ran out on his supporters, asked, “When did that happen?” Rep. W. W. Glass, Jacksonville, another Daniel supporter, told -Carr said Daniel deserted his supporters, exclaimed, “What’s he talking about?” ‘Look in the. Mirror’ Daniel sighted in on the gas lobbyists in his reply. “I am surprsed,” said the governor, “at the angry, irresponsible, and untrue statements made last night by Speaker Carr. They do not deserve the dignity of a reply. However, since the Capitol press has asked for comment, I -will say that it must have made the lobbyists for the gas pipeline companies and interstate corporations very happy. For some months, I have realized that Speaker Carr has cooperatedfar more with them than with the Governor elected by the people of Texas. If he is seeking someone on whom to blame the failure of the session, he has only to look in the mirror on his own wall and in the faces of a few lobbyists who have wanted to keep the legislature here all summer. “A complete answer to the Speaker’s charges was given by his own House last night when it voted 117-23 against the compromise bill Speaker Carr supported. He and a majority of the tax conferees selected by him simply did not speak or work for the views of a majority of the members of the House. “The die was cast when the Speaker made the decision to stack the House conference corn son, representative from Mineola, is House sponsor of the Daniel tax package that includes a three per cent severance tax on. long line gas transmission companies. Daniel told the legislators if they did not accept the three per cent severance levy he originally sought \(and later boosted to five per c _ent in the first called -ses”gross receipts tax levied directly on gas pipeline companies, based on all receipts in Texas and half of all receipts from interstate transmission and sales.” Daniel said ‘such a tax could be set at a rate to bring “even more” revenue than the severance tax. He ‘added that such a gross receipts tax is now on the books, but at one fourth of one percent it is “a joke which brings in less than $750,000 a year from all the gas pipelines in Texas.” The Governor had quite a bit to say about the gas lobby. After recalling some historic parallels between his own lobby troubles and those of Gov. Jim Hogg lobbyists”have even been so brazen as to say in a private meeting reported to me that they’ve got to make attacks on the Governor every day to take the spotlight off the gas tax.” Stands by Bank Bill In his prepared remarks, refurbished with long extemporaneous additions, Daniel again defended his bank bill and his mittee against the House version of the tax bill. Three \(the majorthe bill and against the expressed will of a majority of the House: That could hardly have been expected to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions when they agreed with the Senate instead of the House viewpoint. Only Speaker Carr could have influenced them to ask the Senate to yield on the natural gas and interstate corporation provisions voted by the House, and this he did not do.” Daniel’s statement concluded with the release of a statement, written. on June 12th after Carr appointed his conferees. Daniel said he had decided not to release it at that time “after conferences with , House members and my staff.” The June 12th release rebuked Carr for not appointing a majority of conferees who supported the House bill. Daniel added, “The omission of the House sponsor, Rep. George Hinson, is not understandable to me. In my opinion, this decision by the Speaker might well be the difference between enactment of a tax bill at this special session or the necessity of another session …” First tangible evidence of pithlic reaction to the exchange came within 14 hours of Carr’s sally when Daniel appeared before a joint session of the legislature to open the second called . session. As he walked doWn the side aisle of the House enroute to the podium, Daniel received a standing ovation from legislators and the packed galleries. It was the third time this spring he has opened a new session but the first time he has received what one newspaper described as “an ovation amounting almost to a demonstration.” He and Carr shook hands briefly before Carr introduced him for the address. After the speech, Daniel gave Carr a couple of pats on the shoulder with one hand while reaching for a glass of water with the other, franchise formula for taxing interstate corporations. Of his franchise tax, he said, “Today we have a corporate franchise tax which discriminates against domestic corporations in favor of the multi-billion dollar corporations of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania and other states. This discrimination … should be removed by requiring them to pay on the same tax formula that is applied in their own states and that their own states apply t o Texas corporations Daniel’s franchise formula, as written into his general tax package, passed the House but was deleted, along with the gas pipeline tax, by the Senate. As for his bank billthe abandoned property escheat bill Daniel drew a personal parallel in an effort to underscore the efficacy of his proposal. “If any one of us had $25 million which he had inherited but which was held by various unknown banks and oil companies, and they refused to reveal their records or turn over the money, I am sure that we would equip our lawyers to take them to the courthouse promptly. If necessary I am sure we would ask the legislature to pass a law requiring such institutions to make their books available to interested parties. That is exactly the position in which the state stands today … As representatives of the state, it is our duty to provide the state’s attorney with the means to identify PRICE DANIEL ON JIM HOGG AUSTIN Price Daniel, recalling his own fights with Austin lobbyists dating from the W. Lee O’Daniel sales tax era, reached further into the state’s history to remind the legislature of the turn-of-the-century lobby battles of Gov. James Hogg. In his address to the legislature, Daniel said, “My strong advocacy of increased taxes on natural gas pipeline companies and interstate corporations has incurred the ill will and powerful opposition of one of the strongest and most persistept lobbies that this capital has even known. It is nothing new to me. I landed here as a member of this House 20 years ago in the midst of a similar tax fight. I withstood the pressures f r o m the same vested interests which are exerted upon you today. I understand some of the gas lobby has decided to make this session an all out fight against the Governor. I am not the first Governor who has been cursed and criticized across the dining tables of the Stephen F. Austin and Driskill Hotels, and I hope I will not be the last. “Governor Jim Hogg, who was a constant target of the special interests, called these gentlemen the ‘Knights of Congress Avenue.’ In a speech at the old Opera House in Austin, Gov. Hogg said: ‘Let’s have Texas, the Empire State, governed by the people in Texas; not Texas, the truckpatch, ruled by corporate lobbyists.” “We have drifted a long way from the philosophy of Gov. Jim Hogg, who advocated a higher franchise tax on foreign corporations than on do