Page 4


The one great rule of composition is to speak the truth. THOREAU The Tex We will serve no group or party but will hew hard to the truth as we fin’d it and the right as we see it. “-s ‘ \\A .4 0 \\ N’ , ss ..3L-, 4 c5,. , An Independ6 -e. .;, meekly Newspaper Vol. 52 MAY 27, 1960 10c per copy No. 8 Loya l ty Issue Drawn Texans Vote No 2-1 On Foreign Aid Bill WASHINGTON Foreign aid spending and U.S. welfare legislation presidential politicswhat to say about U-2 and what to do about juvenile delinquencythese matters engrossed Texans in Washingon as the Congress labored toward adjournment no later than early July. Sens. Johnson and Yarborough split on a number of close votes during the foreign aid debate, Johnson siding with the foreign aid program basically as it is, Yarborough favoring restrictions and in one case a reduction. Both voted for the $4 billion bill for 1961 on final passage, 60-25. Eisenhower was sure to sign. Yarborough favored, and Johnson opposed: requiring nonmilitary flood control projects abroad to conform to Budget Bureau quiring specific authorization by Congress of all nonmilitary foreign aid projects costing $1 milprohibiting use of the President’s emergency fund in augmenting the foreign aid program in the absence of unforseen circumstances \(rejected 43-43, a tie amounts authorized for the President’s contingency fund \(adopted struction of housing for U. S. emIn a broadcast back home, Yarborough said he was, in these votes, fulfilling his promise in public speeches in 1957 and 1958 “to trim the fat out of foreign aid spending.” He discussed his vote for specific authorization of projects for $1 million or more, saying approval of U. S. projects take from six to eight years and foreign aid should be just as carefully screened. Failure to do so, he said, “makes for waste, graft, inefficiency.” “There is certainly no doubting that our foreign aid program is vitally needed to help us in our fight against the spread of communism as well as to help the millions of oppressed and unfortunate people in the world,” Yarborough said; “But . . . there is surely need for cutting out wastes and improving its administration.’ Texans in the House voted 12-6 against the entire foreign aid appropriation. The specific issue was adoption \(which carried 240 foreign aid act. \(Aye, Beckworth, Brooks, Ikard, Kilday, Mahon, Thornberry; no, Alger, Burleson, Casey, Dowdy, Fisher, Kilgore, Patman, Poage, Rogers, Rutherford, Thomas, Wright. Others not votAid to education legislation has been delayed by a hold-up in the House rules committee and the opposition of Speaker Rayburn to any measure containing support for teachers’ salaries, the Observer is advised. On Wednesday this week, seven TexansAlger, Burleson, Dowdy, Fisher, Poage, Rogers, Teague voted against considering the $1 billion federal aid for school construction bill, but it was taken up by a 307-97 vote. Fourteen Texans favored considering it. Sen. Johnson on the Senate side says the Congress millact on housing, medical care for the aged, social security,: sand agriculture before adjourning for the Democratic national convention July 11. He did not name aid to education. The House has passed a $1 billion bill to aid in financing 70,000 houses, 214-163, which Republicans say Eisenhower will veto if it reaches him. Texans in the House voted yes, 13-3. \(Aye, Beckworth, Brooks, Casey, Ikard, Kilday, Kilgore, Patman, Poage, Rutherford, Thomas, Thompson, Thornberry, Wright; no, Alger, Fisher, Mahon. Eisenhower vetoed as “too broad” a $251 million area redeAUSTIN Loyalist bolters may seek to deny state Democratic convention seats June .14 to any delegates who will not pledge to support the party nominees upon presenting their credentials to the state Democratic executive committee the day before the convention. On this point the party loyalty .issue may be joined. The Secretary of State’s office here confirmed that contests have been filed over county conventions in Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Travis, and Potter counties, as previously reported, but also in Tarrant and Walker counties. Larry Blackmon, leader of the Johnson for president clubs in Texas, said that Sen. Johnson has been pledged 1,987 votes from 240 counties, while delegations from seven counties with 321 votes are uninstructed as to Johnson. A $50a-plate dinner to raise funds specifically for Johnson’s presidential campaign was announced for the eve before the state convention in Austin. Gov. Price Daniel has called party loyalty “a false issue.” He says the rumps are the smallest ones with the “least foundation” in the history of Texas party conflicts. “Why shouldn’t we work together when we haVe a candidate who has a good chance to be elected president of the United States?” Daniel asks. ‘Byron Skelton, Texas national committeeman, discounts “t h e troubles in a few places” and proclaims “more harmony now than we have had in years.” Mrs. R. D. Randolph, national committeewoman, who May 14 called for bolts for party loyalty all the way to Los Angeles, reminded Daniel that he voted for Eisenhower in 1952 and condemned “lack ‘of interest” in the Democratic Party by Skelton and J. Ed Connally, S.D.E.C. chairman. She said Connally, at the last S.D.E.C. meeting, presented “absolutely no plans” for a Democratic campaign for, the party Daniel Believes Mrs. Randolph Out AUSTIN Gov. Price Daniel told his Thursday morning press conference that he “wouldn’t think” Mrs. R. D. Randolph will be reelected Democratic national committeewoman and that he has heard Mrs. H. H. Weinert, Seguin, and Mrs. Mary Etta Brooks, Austin, mentioned as possible successors. He “rather doubts” it will be Mrs. Weinert. Asked about the likelihood there will be “two state conventions” in Austin June 14, Daniel said, “We’re prepared only for one.” He said he believes Lyndon Johnson will have “more votes on the first ballot than anyone else” in Los Angeles and thinks there is a “good chance” he will be nominated. It became known in Austin this week that Johnson’s staff people here decided to jettison Stuart Long, a pro-Johnson loyalist, for county convention chairman principally on the basis of his loyalist caucus’s endorsement of Mrs. Randolph for re-election. nominees and that neither he nor Skelton have paid more than “token lip service” to the task of meeting the state’s quota to the treasury of the national Democrats. Joe Bailey Humphreys, Dallas bolt leader, said Daniel was trying to help “the Alger-Nixon imposters and is willing to torpedo our chances for a Democratic victory,” but that the Dallas rumpers are “not going to be swept under the rug.” In a statement on rumping liberals’ strategy for the convention at a Democratic meeting in Hous-, ton, Creekmore Fath, secretarytreasurer of the Democrats of Texas Clubs, said that “every delegate to the June 14 state convention must take a loyalty pledge to support all of the nominees of the Democratic Party before being allowed to participate . . .” He reasoned that they will be the same delegates who will return for the Sept. 20 state convention and could substitute new electors, put non-Democratic nominees on the ballot as “Texas Democratic Party” nominees, and vote to support the Republican nominee for president. The only “insurance policy” that ‘a majority of the conservative delegate’s from Dallas, Harris, and Travis are not so inclined, AUSTIN Texas labor in its current AFL-CIO News goes all-out for party loyalty in an important editorial “statement of position” frequently critical of Lyndon Johnson. The editorial, entitled “On Party Loyalty and F.I.A. Control of the Party,” proposes that “all loyal Democrats demand the adoption . . . early in the state convention in June” of rules that no delegates will be seated who have not “taken the oath to support the nominees of the Democratic Party” and that any precinct or county chairmen who refuses to file such an oath “shall be removed and replaced.” “This resolution was proposed by Governor James V. Allred and adopted by the party in 1948 with vigorous support of Byron Skelton, Tom Miller, Maury Maverick, Sr., Gilbert Adams, etc.,” said AFL-CIO. “If the June state convention refuses to adopt such a resolution, or seeks to dilute it to apply only to delegates to the national convention, all loyal Democrats should refuse to participate further in such a fiasco. “Our most important task for 1960 is to carry Texas for the Democratic nominees, whoever they may ‘be. If the convention refuses to pledge its support to the nominees, a separate convention ‘should be held which would take such a pledge and send loyal delegates to Los Angeles. They should be uninstructed and not bound by the unit rule.” Earlier in the editorial, it is stated that Johnson, labor, and liberals have “been a winning combination any time he \(Johnhas chosen to use it” but that Fath said, is a loyalty pledge. He finds it “reasonable to assume” that delegates taking the pledge in June would abide by it again Sept. 20. In argument, he said that in August, 1948, the loyalists adopted a proviso for the convention, written by Byron Skelton, “that no delegate or delegation should be recognized or seated at the state convention who do not, in presenting their credentials, and before they are given badges admitting them to the convention floor to participate in Democratic Party affairs, present evidence that each and every delegate or delegation has taken the oath to support the nominees of the Democratic Party.” Fath wanted to know if it was “asking too much” of Skelton and Sen. Johnson that they support in 1960 “the same principles which they supported in 1948.” In Austin, it became known that Johnson leaders told pro-‘ Johnson liberals before developments terminated their liaison that all they, the Johnsonites, cared about was the June convention and that the loyalists could have the September convention. The idea was for the Johnson people to retire from the scene in September. he did not do so in the 1960 precinct and county conventions. “It is impossible for us to know to what extent Lyndon Johnson had personal knowledge of all the happenings at our precinct and county conventions,” the editorial said. “We only know it was done in his name and stated to be his desire and was not denied by any of his lieutenants. We can only presume that the things that were publicly credited to him were done with his consent. We can only presume that the alliance made between the Johnson forces and Freedom in Action in many of the crucial areas was not an accident. In Travis County, all the Johnson leaders who spoke to the convention made it obvious’ that they preferred to steal the convention with FIA rather than win honestly with the loyal Democrats. His chosen convention chairman refused to permit the issue of party loyalty to even be raised. . . . It is impossible for us to understand why Johnson would choose this alliance instead of joining with the loyal Democrats. . . . “Freedom in Action is trading the June convention in exchange for the September convention and control of the ‘party machinery. These are the very same people who endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. Should anyone other than Johnson be the ‘nominee they will undoubtedly use the September convention to replace our presidential electors in an effort to steal the November electoral vote. These are the same people who have done it before and we must presume they are completely capable of doing it ‘again,” the labor editorial said. Dallas Rubs Its Eyes DALLAS Both Pool and Alger are Political Dallas, used to conservatives. A three-man “Democrats for Eisenhower” race would be high-man-wins. and “Stevenson Republicans,” Webster’s outside chance is now trying to adapt to a would be based on the possi new wrinklean independent bility that Pool and Alger liberal running for Congress would split the conservative in November. vote and the liberal remain Petitions are circulating to der would be the larger por place on the ballot against tion of the whole. Republican Bruce Alger and Democratic nominee Joe Pool One of Webster’s problems one Charles W. Webster, would be party loyalty. Joe Southern Methodist Univer