ustxtxb_obs_1960_06_10_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

the three-league belt recognized for its own purposes, whereas Texas up to the time oil was discovered offshore placed no value whatsoever on a seaward boundary. For .me the argument becomes too thin to say that the United States, through normally negotiating on her own behalf, was claiming the three-league maritime belt on behalf of Texas. “. . . if we are to decide these cases by substandards \(lessening the discrimination in favor. of Texas and against Louisiana, Ala bama, and Mississippi is quite unjustified. If the southeast corner of Texas was three leagues off shore, it is difficult for me to see how the southwest corner of Louisiana was not at the same point. . . . If we move the Texas boundary out three leagues, it is hard to see why Louisiana’s does not accompany it. . . . “All’ the states on the Gulf should be given the same benefit of the doubts that have been resolved in favor of Texas. . . . If we are to relax the standard of proof for the benefit of Texas, we should do so for all these claimants,” Douglas concluded. Wilson said the Douglas dissent has “an anti-Texas slant to it.” R.D. THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 7 June 10, 1960 “BOW” WILLIAMS Automobile and General Insurance Budget Payment Plan Strong Stock Companies GReenwood 2-0545 624 LAMAR, AUSTIN Let’s Abolish the Poll Tax! Bix Li ves Paid Political Announcement *No. The Douglas Dissent starting the boundary at the Sabine where it enters the Gulf. Douglas contended. that nothing in the 1848 negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico indicated the U.S. intended to claim a threeleague belt, or to guarantee three leagues for Texas, or to fix the boundaries of Texas. The convention of 1838 having declared that the Texas boundary extended “from the mouth of the Sabine, where that river enters the Gulf of Mexico,” Douglas said that to conclude the 1848 treaty set the Texas boundary at three leagues “in accordance with the Texas Boundary Act of 1836 is to indulge in mental gymnastics beyond my capacities. . . . “The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was part of our empire building, not the determination of old boundaries.” Under the 1850 Compromise, Douglas continued, the U.S. and Texas agreed the Texas land boundaries extended “to the Gulf of Mexico,” which he said is “a far cry from drawing it to a point ‘three leagues’ from the shore.” He could not see why the Court went back to the 1848 treaty now when, in 1896, had quoted the language “to the Gulf of Mexico” in a unanimous decision. “What we do today is quite inconsistent . . .” he said. “Trist was not told to take the 1836 act as his guide when it came to seaward boundaries,” Douglas said. Agreeing with the majority that the U.S. seemed insensitive to the problem of the seaward boundary in 1848, Douglas refused to go along with them that the State Department then was “trying to stand in the shoes of Texas and get Mexico to validate the old boundary claims of Texas. So far as I can deduce this is sheer speculation.” In 1875, Douglas said, U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish had declared that the U.S. had always asserted that “no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from its coast” and that the threeleague reference in the 1848 treaty was probably designed to prevent smuggling. In the 1930’s the U.S. told Mexico that the 1848 treaty provision was incthded to give the two nations jurisdiction to three leagues at that particular point ” `to prevent smuggling.’ ” ‘The Benefit of Texans’ Douglas continued about the 1848 three-league point: “It had no aim to assert derivatively a title that Texas had claimed. Its aim was merely to mark a zone where . . . our law enforcement agencies could maintain effective controls . . . the U.S. had a national interest in having LEGALS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS To Curtis J. R. Lamb, 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 27th day of June, 1960, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 117,830, in which Jo Ann Lamb is Plaintiff and Curtis J. R. Lamb is defendant, filed in said Court on the 10th day of May, 1960, and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment for plaintiff and against defendant for decree of divorce dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore and now existing between said parties; plaintiff alleges that defendant wholly and completely abandoned plaintiff on August 28, 1957, and left for parts unknown to plaintiff; plaintiff alleges that defendant began a course of unkind, harsh, cruel and tyrannical conduct toward plaintiff prior to their separation, and continued until defendant left plaintiff; plaintiff alleges that defendant cursed and abused plaintiff, and that defendant struck and abused plaintiff, showing an utter disregard for plaintiff’s health; plaintiff alleges that no children were born of this marriage, and no community property was acquired as result of this marriage: plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant and for relief, general and special; 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 purpoies; 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 10th day of May, 1960. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By A. E. JONES, Deputy. THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas Notice is hereby given as follows: To: Mack Dennis, Pickens Dennis, Alberta Dennis Lewis, Lena Dennis Bradford, Sophia Dennis Moore, Mack Dennis, Jr., Henry Dennis, Chets Dennis, Coots Dennis, Horace Dennis, Will Dennis, Rainey Dennis, Janie Oliver, Lena Lewis, Lettie Goff, Maxie Reed, Raifetta Moore, Arthur Moore, and the unknown owner or owners of the property hereinafter described or any interest therein; the heirs and legal representatives and the unknown heirs and legal representatives of each of the above named and mentioned persons who may be deceased; and the corporate officers, trustees, receivers and stockholders of any of the above named or mentioned parties which may be corporations, defunct or otherwise, together with the successors. heirs and assigns of such corporate officers, trustees, receivers, and stockholders, and any and all persons, including adverse claimants, owning or having or claiming any legal or equitable interest in or lein upon the following described property delinquent to Plaintiff herein, for taxes, to-wit: All that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Travis, State of Texas, known and described as division according to the map or LEGALS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Marcelo Jorge Napoles, 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 18th day of July, 1960, and answer the Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 117,048. in which Sue Elizabeth Napoles is Plaintiff and Marcelo Jorge Napoles is defendant, filed in said Court on the 3rd day of June, 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 began a course of unkind, harsh and tyrannical treatment toward plaintiff which continued until plaintiff and defendant separated; plaintiff alleges that defendant was guilty of excesses, cruel treatment and outrages toward plaintiff of such a nature as to render their’ further living together insupportable; plaintiff further alleges that one child was born of their marriage. to-wit; Susana, a girl, age 1 Year, and plaintiff asks that custody of said minor be plat of said Subdivision recorded in Volume 1, page 34, of the plat records of Travis County, Texas. Which said property is delinquent to Plaintiff for taxes in the following amounts: $572.34, exclusive of interest, penalties and costs, and there is included in this suit in addition to the taxes all said interest, penalties and costs thereon, allowed by law up to and including the day of judgment herein. You are hereby notified that suit has been brought by the City of Austin as Plaintiff, against the above named persons, and the Travis as Defendants, by petition filed on the 7th day of April, 1960, in a certain suit styled City of Austin vs. Mack Dennis, et al for collection of the taxes on said property and that suit is now pending in the District Court of Travis County 53rd Judicial District, and the file number of said suit is 117,519, that the names of all taxing units which assess and collect taxes on the property hereinabove described not made parties to this suit are, NONE. Plaintiff and all other taxing units who may set up their tax claims seek recovery of delinquent ad valorem taxes on the property hereinabove described, and in addition to the taxes all interest, penalties, and costs allowed by law thereon’ up to and including the day of judgment herein, and the establishment and foreclosure of liens, if any, securing the payment of same, as provided by law. All parties to this suit, including Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Intervenors, shall take notice that claims not only for any taxes which were delinquent on said property at the time of this suit was filed but all taxes becoming delinquent thereon at any time thereafter up to the day of judgment, including all interest, penalties, and costs allowed by law thereon, may, upon request therefor, be recovered herein without further citation or notice to any parties herein, and all said parties shall take notice of and plead and answer to all claims and pleadings now on file and which may hereafter be filed in said cause by all other parties herein, and all of those taxing units above named who may intervene herein and set up their respective tax claims against said property. You are hereby commanded to appear and defend such suit on the first Monday after the expiraand after the date of issuance hereof. the same being the 27th day of June A.D., 1960, \(which is before the Honorable District Court, 53rd Judicial District of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse thereof, then and there to show cause why judgment shall not be rendered for such taxes, penalties, interests and costs, and condemning said property and ordering foreclosure of the constitutional and statutory tax liens thereon for taxes due the Plaintiff and the taxing units parties hereto, and those who may intervene herein, together with all interest, penalties and costs allowed by law up to and including the day of judgment herein, and all costs of this suit. Issued and given under my hand and seal of said court in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, this 10th day of May A.D., 1960. A. E. JONES, Deputy Clerk of the District Court Travis County, Texas. THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas Notice is hereby given as follows: To: Jerome Simmons, Bobby Simmons, Sam Harris, Lucinda Harris, Verna Gibbs, and the unknown owner or owners of the property hereinafter described or any interest therein; the heirs and legal representatives and the unknown heirs and legal representatives of each of the above named and mentioned persons who may be deceased; and the corporate officers, trustees, receivers and awarded to plaintiff; plaintiff alleges that one 1955 Ford Automobile was acquired as result of their marriage and plaintiff asks that the Court award this aforementioned automobile to plaintiff; Plaintiff prays that Court award the Custody of Minor child, Susana Napoles, to plaintiff, and that Court award the 1955 Ford Automobile to plaintiff, and further prays for relief, general and special; All of which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s First Amended 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 3rd day of June, 1960. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By: A. E. JONES, Deputy. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO Elstine Mackey, 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 stockholders of any of the above named or mentioned parties which may be corporations, defunct or otherwise, together with the successors, heirs and assigns of such corporate officers, trustees, receivers, and stockholders, and any and all persons, including adverse claimants, owning or having or claiming any legal or equitable interest in or lien upon the following described property delinquent to Plaintiff herein, for tax