ustxtxb_obs_1959_08_21_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

Over $133 Million Insurance In Force Gail gn 4 lea INSURANCE COMPANY P. 0. Box 8098 Houston, Texas HAROLD E. RILEY Vice-President and Director of Agencies 4 sion of such premises, and afterward the defendant unlawfully entered upon and dispossessed her of such premises and withholds from her the possession thereof; Plaintiff further prays for such other and further relief as she may be entitled to, either at law or in equity; All of which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file in this office and to which reference is here made for all intents and purposes; 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 the seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 6th day of August, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By A. E. JONES, Deputy. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INCORPORATE Notice is hereby given that P. B: Thomson doing business as Depot Stores, 1430 W. Commerce St., 201 S. Alamo St., 3618 Broadway, and Thomson’s Stores, 3106 Fredericksburg Road, all in San Antonio, Texas, and as Thomson’s Stores, 909 E. Main St., in Fredericksburg, Texas, intends to incorporate under the name of Thomson’s Depot Stores, Inc., on September 1959. P. B. THOMSON, Owner SHERIFF’S SALE BY VIRTUE of a certain Execution issued by the Clerk of the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 44th Judicial District, on the 2nd day of July 1959, in a certain Cause Numbered, 39917-B, wherein The J. R. Watkins Company is Plaintiff, and Neal Mumford, Frank Burdett and Edd Johnson are Defendants, in favor of the said Plaintiff for the sum of $4,627.29, with interest thereon at ithe rate of 6 per centum per annum from the 1st day of January 1954, together with attorneys fees in the amount of $750.00, together with all costs of suit, that being the amount of a judgment recovered by the said Plaintiff, in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 44th Judicial District, on the 18th day of May 1959. I, on the 3rd day of August 1959, at 3:32 o’clock P. M., have levied upon, and will, on the 1st day of September 1959, that being the first Tuesday in said month, at the Courthouse 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 Defendant, Frank Burdett, in and to the following described property levied upon as the property of Frank Burdett, and said property pointed out to Sheriff for levy by Plaintiff’s Attorneys, to-wit: 25 acres of land, Abstract 169, Survey 25, James Coleman Survey. 93 acres of land, Abstract 521, Survey 17, J. M. Mitchell Survey. THE ABOVE SALE to be made by me to satisfy the above described judgment for $4,627.29, plus interest and attorneys fees, together with all costs of suit, and the proceeds applied to the satisfaction thereof. T. 0. Lang, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas, By HENRY KLUGE, Deputy. Austin, Texas, August 3, 1959. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INCORPORATE The State of Texas County of Harris Notice is hereby given of the intention of AutoSports, Ltd., 2718 Westheimer, Houston 19. Texas, to incorporate under the name of MotorSports, Inc., with the same mailing address. Lewis Wagner Smith, Jr. d /b /a AutoSports, Ltd. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Robert Chester Still Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: by 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 ‘7th day of September, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 114,434, in which Ruth Inez Carpenter Still is Plaintiff and Robert Chester Still is defendant, filed in said Court on the 22nd day of June, 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 that defendant was guilty of excesses, cruel treatment and outrages toward plaintiff; that no children were born of this marriage and no children were adopted by them; that no community property was acquired by plaintiff and defendant during their marriage; Plaintiff further prays that her former name of Ruth Inez Carpenter be restored to her; 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 which reference ds here made for all intents and purposes; If this citation is not served within 90 days after date of its issuance, it shall be returned unsery ed. WITNESS, 0. T. MARTIN, JR., Clerk of the District Courts of Travis County, Texas. Issued and given under my hand and the seal of said Court at office in the City of Austin, this the 23rd day of July, 1959. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By A. E. JONES Deputy. TEXAS DELEGATION BACKS GOP BILL AUSTIN ‘Texans figured prominently in the bitter Congressional snarl over labor reform legislation, with the attention centered on House Speaker Sam Rayburn and the decision abiding in the Texas delegation’s 17-to-4 support of the Republicans’ bill. With the 17 congressmen parting with Rayburn’s publicly expressed opposition to the GOPbacked Landrum-Griffin bill, the toughest of the labor reform measures passed the House, 229 to 201. The margin was close enough that had Mr. Sam held his Texas boys to his own view favoring the moderate labor committee bill, the Democratic leadership would have prevailed over the Republican-Southern Democratic coalition backing the tougher version. In the post-vote aftermath, Houston Press Washington correspondent Neil McNeil explained Landrum-Griffin passage by “tremendous pressure brought by homefolks” and the failure of Texas labor leaders to apply the “ultimate in pressure” to the four-fifths of the Texas delegation who didn’t follow Rayburn’s lead. Asked to comment, State AFLCIO Secretary Fred Schmidt replied: “The story is wrong. I don’t know what they mean by the ‘ultimate in pressure.’ We contacted each congressman and let him know how we felt. Mr. Rayburn asked us to help with the Texas delegation, and we did. But in the case of some congressmen, you just face the facts of life, you know they’re not with you, and I imagine our attitude toward them might be described as polite restraint. Frankly, we were surprised more of Texas’s congressmen didn’t go with Mr. Rayburn. The Republicans needed 85 Democratic votes and they got 95,.all but four of them from the South. They just didn’t go with Mr. Rayburn.” Schmidt said the following Texas labor men appeared in Washington at one time or another during the lengthy fight over the labor bill: Jerry Holleman, State AFL-CIO president; Don Ellinger, COPE director for the Southwest; Marcus Loftis of the IBEW; Johnny Flowers of the State Building and Construction Trades Council; Bill Petri of the Stereotypers; M. A. Graham of the Houston Building Trades Council; John Criss, Texas State Pipe Trades Association; Herbert Paul of the railroad brotherhoods, and Sherman Miles of the State A FL-CIO. Voting for the Griffin-Landrum bill were Republican Bruce Alger of Dallas and the following Democrats: Jim Wright of Fort Worth, Lindley Beckworth of Gladewater, Paul Kilday of San Antonio, Bob Poage of Waco, Homer Thornberry of Austin, Omar Burleson of Anson, John Dowdy of Athens, Frank Ikard of Wichita Falls, Joe Kilgore of McAllen, George Mahon of Lubbock, Walter Rogers of Pampa, J. T. Rutherford of Odessa, Olin E. Teague of College Station, John Young of Corpus Christi, Clark Fisher of San Angelo, and Robert Casey of Houston. The four who voted with Rayburn were Reps. Albert Thomas of Houston, Clark Thompson of Galveston, Jack Brooks of Beaumont, and Wright Patman of Texarkana. The party breakdown was 134 Republicans and 95 Demos for the Landrum-Griffin bill and 184 Democrats a n d 17 Republicans against. The House never got a chance to vote directly on the Elliott labor committee bill Rayburn supported. Time Magazine maintained this week that while they hated to leave Rayburn, many of the Texas delegation were thinking of doing so, and “Their dilemma was compounded by another Texan, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who warned Mister Sam that for Texans to vote for anything less than the toughest possible labor bill would ruin them back home. Inevitably, word filtered out, and one by one the Texans made their decisions.” In a joint broadcast in Texas Sunday, Senator Johnson and Congressman Thornberry had said that Texas voters think a strong labor reform bill is the most important legislation being considered by Congress. “My mail indicates that the people consider the number one problem of the congress is a strong anti-racketeering labor bill,” Johnson said. Thornberry agreed, adding, “I think we are going to pass one before we adjourn.” \(They also agreed housing and construction bills will also be passed. Thorberry said the Congress will cut Eisenhower’s budget by about $617 million. Johnson said Congress has cut the President’s budget each year since 1955 by a five-year total of $10 The role of the Texas delegation was known to have been a key factor as early as 48 hours before the decisive vote. Democratic Whip Carl Albert of Oklahoma said that “Texas, Tennessee, and the Republicans” would determine whether the labor bill emerging form the House would be moderate or tough. “I don’t like to single out any delegations, but we have to have votes from these states,” Albert said. Rayburn said publicly “there will be a good many votes on both sides.” The actual 17-4 Texas split, then, came as something of a surprise. The Houston Press thought it detected “a sort of m o b psychology. Congressmen who might have voted with Rayburn and the Democratic leadership found many of their colleagues ready to vote against him and were swept along simply because the majority seemed a safer place to be politically, or as one member put it: ‘Some of the boys just ran.’ ” ‘Agonizing Decision? Though labor was generally reported to have been counting on Rayburn to hold at least half the Texas delegation, some re LEGALS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Henry N. Bush 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 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 21st day of September, 1959, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 115,030, in which Gladys Noe Bush is Plaintiff and Henry N. Bush is defendant, filed in said Court on the 6th day of August, 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 title to and possession of the following described premises, to-wit: All of Acres, situated in Travis County, Texas, and more fully described in Vol. 1751 P. 158, Travis County, Deed Records; Plaintiff alleges that on February 28, 1957, she was and still is, the owner in fee simple of the above described premises and that on said date she was in posses porters said he never held more than six, even in teller \(unreof Ft. Worth joined with Rayburn and the other four in support of considering the Landrum-Griffin substitute section by section, but once the Landrum-Griffin bill came officially before the whole House, Wright switched. There wasn’t any doubt this week in Austin that Wright is in trouble with labor. Explained the liberal congressman from Fort Worth, “I had publicly said that I would support whatever the majority of my colleagues brought out of the committee. …I had hoped to see a melding of the committee bill. I believe this will come about in conference.” In a subsequent press release, Wright amplified, “Heat there was. And pressure. And demands for commitments in advance on votes when a congressman was not even in a position to know in advance just what choices he would have under the pariliamentary situation. … The choices finally offered the membership left much to be desired. Having made no commitments to support anybody’s version ‘whole hog’ without the dotting of an T or the crossing of a ‘t’, I wanted to open the committee bill to amendment section by section, and voted to do this in the committee of the whole. Many other members wanted to follow the same course, but we lost by a bare margin of 15 on a teller vote.” After the House had voted to bring out the Landrum-Griffin said he voted for its adoption “after the majority had just spoken, because it seemed at this point the only chance to get corrective legislation.” Concluded Rep. Wright: “Some members of Congress can face problems like this without great anguish. They are already decided in their minds that they are 100 per cent for management of 100 per cent for labor. But the fellow who wants above all to be fair and to preserve the right balance between these two interdependent segments of our economy has some truly agonizing decisions.” ‘A Smoke Screen’ Three days before the decisive vote, Rayburn went on a national radio hookup to reply to President Eisenhower’s radio-TV appeal in behalf of the Landrum