ustxtxb_obs_1960_04_08_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

Foe of Federal ‘Intervention’ WASHINGTON Walter Rogers, 52-year-old Pampa attorney, this year is seeking his sixth term in a Congress which he fears is attempting to slowly federalize the nation. Rogers sees the mark of “centralized government advocates” on virtually every piece of major legislation facing Congress from civil rights to aid to education. “These are all facets of an overall program to centralize and federalize the government,” he said. “They can’t take over the government in one fell swoop, so they are doing it by steps.” Congressman Walter Rogers Rogers’s concept of states rights is plainly manifest in a ten-year voting record that is overwhelmingly conservative. There are some liberal exceptions, particularly in the fields of water power, and farm legislation. This spring Rogers is carrying his conservative philosophy before the voters of his 28-county district in a race against Arthur Glover, Amarillo tax accountant. The 18th District, lying in the Texas Panhandle, is a region of varied interests and problems. It is a land of irrigated farms, of thy-land farming, of oil wells, cattle, and some industry. When he is talking about centralized versus decentralized government, Rogers takes on a serious and almost lecturing manner, but in the next breath he might be quite folksy. He seems as much at home discussing the problems of a Panhandle chicken farmer as expressing his theories of government. The Americans for Democratic Action, which compiles a yearly scoreboard on the congressmen, has found only 20 percent of Rogers’s votes acceptable as liberal over the past nine years \(19 right votes out of Negroes make up a relatively small percentage of the population in Rogers’s district, but he has been one of the House’s most consistent foes of civil rights legislation. He opposed this year’s bill. Explaining his opposition to a Fair Employment Practices Act, Rogers said that “it is not a question of a race situation in my district, but the people are fiercely independent and don’t want to be dictated to by someone else. No one in that country is cheap, but they don’t want a lot of deadheads on the payroll.” ‘ He said that civil rights legislation is “designed to wipe out state lines,” and he has a special warning for minority groups: “Once a minority group gets hold of a government, it kicks the stuffings out of other minority groups. Minorities lose sight of the fact that under a dual form of government we have more democracy than under a federalized form.” He sees the voting rights plan of current civil rights legislation as a “means for the Attorney General to control elections.” He envisioned the Attorney General THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 7 April 8, 1980 “appointing some gangster from Indiana to act as a federal referee in Mississippi.” Exception for Power Rogers abandons at least some of his conservative theories when he gets into the area of conservation and power development. A spot check of his votes indicates that the Pampa congressman has generally sided with the liberals on these issues. In 1954 Rogers voted against a bill described by many liberal groups as “the atomic energy give-away.” Three years later he opposed an amendment designed to eliminate from Atomic Energy Commission appropriations money for the construction of a plant to study peaceful uses of atomic energy. In 1958 he voted in favor of the Glen Canyon project for water supply in Arizona and Utah and for another project in the Central Valley of California. “I’m in favor of federal money for big power projects,” he said. “Private industry cannot develop them at a cost that is commensurate with what people can pay. I also think they should stay in the hands of the federal government until the people have gotten their tax money out of the project. I am not in favor of the federal government building at a low interest rate, then selling to a select group of people.” Rogers is chairman of the irrigation and reclamation sub-committee of the House interior and insular affairs committee. He is the second ranking member of the mines and minerals sub-committee. Of particular importance to his own district is the Canadian River project. Rogers said that federal appropriations for the project are awaiting the signing of a contract between the Canadian River Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation. The contract will be signed as soon as the CRA agrees on the rates it will charge for water, he said. Survey has just begun on another watershed project in his districtone along the Red River, Salt Fork and Prairie Dog Town Fork. LEGALS NOTICE OF INTENTION TO IN CORPORATE FIRM TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that Paul Wright dba Paul Wright Electric Co., whose principal office and place of business is at 211 San Pedro Ave. in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas, intends to incorporate under the name of Paul Wright Electric Company, Inc., whose principal office and place of business will be at 211 San Pedro Ave. in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. This notice is given under the , provisions of Article 1307, Vernon’s Revised Statutes of Texas, and is dated this 15th day of March, 1960 A. D. PAUL WRIGHT ELECTRIC CO. By Paul Wright CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Chamcy Brown, Defendant, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: You are hereby commanded to appear before the 98th 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 25th day of April, 1960, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 117,208, in which Mamie Lee Brown is Plaintiff and Charncy Brown is defendant, filed in said Court on the 10th day of March, 1960, 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 and plaintiff lived together from the time of their marriage on or about Feb. 27, 1942, until Feb. 17, 1951, at which time defendant left plaintiff; plaintiff alleges that plaintiff and defendant have not lived together as man and wife since Feb. 17, 1951; plaintiff further alleges that there were five children born as result of said marriage, namely, to-wit: Ruby Lase Brown, female, 15 years of age, Nathaniel Brown, male, age 14 yrs., Ella Mae Brown, female, age 12 Yrs., Linda Sue Brown, female, age 11 Yrs., and Sylvester Brown, male, age 10 yrs, and plaintiff prays for custody of said aforesaid mentioned children since plaintiff is employed and fully able to care and educate said children; Plaintiff further alleges that there was no community property in Rogers has mixed feelings on federal aid to education, but generally adopts a conservative position on the issue. He approved of aid to federally impacted areas, but in 1957 he cast his vote against a bill which would have provided money for general school construction. He said that pending proposals are “driving toward federal control and are another case “of things being taken over one step at a time.” Rogers did not commit himself definitely on this year’s school construction proposal, indicating he might support it “after sizeable amendments.” However, he apparently would not support federal aid for teachers’ salaries, a provision of the bill which has passed the Senate. Rogers said the “cry for federal aid for education” has arisen because the federal government has taken “such a large bite in taxes.” He said that he personally favors part of the federal income taxes being left in areas for aid to below standard schools. Favors Child Farm Work Rogers was one of 17 Texas representatives who voted for the Landrum-Griffin labor bill in the laSt session. Support of the bill apparently is causing some congressmen re-election troubles, but Rogers sees no difficulties in his district. “We worked very hard to get the bill worked out so that it would ‘be fair to the individual,” he said. “It ended up being a good bill.” He has not heard of any opposition from labor in his district because of his vote. Rogers is opposed to any further increases in the $1 minimum wage law, which probably will be debated in Congress this year. He also opposes extending the minimum wage law to cover additional persons. “The proposals move into intrastate areas,” he said. “What is considered legitimate intra-state business, should be left up to the states.” One of Rogers’s first legislative crusades in Congress dealt with another labor issuemigrant farm labor. For several sessions Rogers tried to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act so that children of migrant laborers could work in the fields during school hours. Both Democratic and Republican Administrations opposed him, and in a speech on the House floor in 1951 he told about receiving criticisms from across the country on his proposal. He passed the critics off as “these centralized government advocates who know how to run everybody’s business but their own .. .” Rogers is in ‘sharp disagreement with the Republican Administration’s farm policies. He has .been a supporter of farm price supports and sees little value in the soil bank plan. “The farmer has been having trouble with his income, not with growing products. Under this administration the farmer has been drowned in his own products,” he said. Wants Gas Bill Rogers is distressed about Eisenhower’s 1956 veto of the gas bill, which would have removed gas producers from federal price regulations. Eisenhower vetoed the bill after a furore over pressure applied by supporters of the legislation. Rogers said that if he had his way, “there would be a gas bill tomorrow,” but he does not think that Eisenhower will recommend one to Congress. “If Lyndon Johnson were president, I think he would get one up,” Rogers said. “I don’t think Humphrey, Kennedy, nor Symington would bring up a gas bill.” He said that presidential support was almost necessary for passage of the bill in Congress. Rogers, like the other Texas congressmen, is supporting Johnson for the presidential nomination. “He has a much better chance than people think,” he said. Rogers generally is opposed to the foreign aid program, but he says that he is . in favor of military aid “to help’ foreign countries carry out their desire for freedom as we know it.” He said, however, that the foreign aid program “should be reevaluated and properly adminis tered.” He said the program is “permeated with situations that are not good for this country.” “Foreign aid made more little groups independently wealthy in these foreign countries, and has not found itself down to the people whom we intended to get the aid,” he said. Rogers also is critical of the Administration’s interest rate policies. He said he would not vote for the proposal to raise long-term government bond interest rates. The Republican Party has pockets of strength iri the 18th District, and Rogers has met GOP candidates twice in the general election. He replaced a Republican, Ben Guill, who was elected to a seven-month term in a special election in 1949. ANNE AND JAKE LEWIS This advertisement is neither en offer to sell nor a solicitation of en offer to buy these securities. The offering is made to residents of Texas only by Prospectus. First Public Offering 6% CAPITAL NOTES $100 $500 $1000 Denominations by ALLIED FINANCE COMPANY HOME OFFICE: 2808 Fairmount St., Dallas, Texas Interest paid semi-annually on March 1st and September 1st of each year. The company will retire 6% of the -total annually. You are invited to ask for a prospectus describing these notes 11 n d the company’s business. Allied FCOMPANY 420 W. 5th, Austin 1, Texas GR 6-6294 All of which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file. in this office, and 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 31st day of March, 1960. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas By A. E. JONES, Deputy. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO INCORPORATE WITHOUT CHANGE OF NAME Notice is hereby given that W. P. Southwell and W. P. Southwell, Jr., doing business under the name of The Southwell Company, 510 N. Presa, San Antonio 5, Texas dissolved partnership on April 1, 1960. The company will qualify for a corporation and continue to do business under the name of The Southwell Company, Inc., and at the same address. All bills and