Page 5


Viewing the Vote \(Continued From Page bor, which went all out for Maverick, was unable to hold its entire rank-and-file in line under threats mostly from Wright on the right and Gonzalez on the left; and that the Latin vote, without sizeable reinforcements from labor-liberals, was insufficient also to make an impressive showing. The Negro vote, which will have to be analyzed more closely precinct by precinct, was likewise split between the liberals Maverick and Gonzalez, with Wilsonwell known for his “moderate” stance on racegetting a smaller share. The combined vote for the two staunch conservatives Tower and Blakley on the one hand, and the four moderate-to-liberal Democrats on the other, bear a close similarity to the Nixon Lodge and Kennedy Johnson votes last November. The Democrats carried the state in the presidential election by a narrow 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent. Drawing upon the complete but unofficial totals of the Texas Election Bureau, which may have to be slightly modified by official returns, the Wright-Wilson.. Maverick Gonzalez figure was 47.62 percent and the Tower-Blakley total was 49.85. The other 2.5 percent went to the 65 minor candidates on the ballot, including six who had withdrawn, and one who had died. Tower, whose percentage vote as compared with his November senatorial race against Lyndon Johnson dropped by almost ten percent, with most of the ten percent probably going to Blakley and Wilson, led the slate in 113 of the 254 counties and most metropolitan areas. He was out front in deep West Texas, in the Valley and the Panhandle, and along the Gulf Coast. In Harris County he led second-place Maverick, who finished second, 45.4 to 16.2 per cent. The Republican fairly evenly split the Dallas County vote with hometowner Blakley, getting 40,000 to the interim senator’s 36,000. Blakley ran uniformly strongest throughout East Texas. Wright carried 38 counties, centering mostly around his Fort Worth congressional district and territory to the west. In Tarrant County the young congressman polled 35,500 votes to Tower’s 19,700. But his campaign suffered a serious jolt in Harris, where he finished sixth. Wilson led in only 13 counties, including the “boss” domains of Starr and Duval. In county after county the attorney general ran no better than fourth, including Travis, where he was expected to be strongest. He ran there behind Tower, Blakley, and Wright. Gonzalez took nine counties and generally ran strong in Southwest Texas and along the border. His greatest victory was in Bexar, where he polled 30,000 Tower getting 20,000 and fellow, hometowner Maverick 9,000. Maverick carried only two counties, Jefferson and Hardin in strong labor areas. His brightest showing was the second-place in Harris. The sharply divided liberal vote, which could have been expected to rally behind Maverick or Gonzalez if only one of them had been in the race, also suffered by frequent desertions to Wright and Wilson, whom many argued had better chances of making a run-off. Both Maverick and Gonzalez were further deprived of a strong hometown advantage in San Antonio. Most of Gonzalez’ 30,000 votes there would have gone to Maverick, just as most of Maverick’s 9,000 would have gone to Gonzalez. In this instance, both were hurt in relation to Wright’s hometown showing. Wright led Maverick 10-1 and Gonzalez 27-1 in Tarrant County. In the “boss” counties of South Texas, the Gonzalez candidacy cut somewhat into the bloc strength for Wilson and also excluded Maverick from possible votes: Wright’s strong campaign brings a new personality onto the state political scene. He is already being mentioned as a possibility for the gubernatorial race in 1962. For a while just after the election there were the, beginnings of a “Wright-In” campaign in the run-off, but the Fort Worth congressman scotched the move. It is now apparent that Wright, whose broad-based campaign was well-financed, was able to make full use of television to create a highly favorable TV image. An able campaigner with an impressive personality, he also may have taken some moderate support from Wilson by making a more positive appeal to the middle-road voter. For several weeks the Wright campaign seemed to be sliding seriously, but in the last days he began to gain strength. For Wilson, it may have been a major blunder of his political career. He had advanced steadily since he entered politics and has been considered the leading candidate for governor when Price Daniel steps aside. His fourthplace finish wilt no doubt be a damaging blow to his prestige. Since the election he has taken the position that the results proved the voters wanted him to remain at home “to fight to raise the level of government by law in our state.” This may be one of his central themes in a possible gubernatorial bid in ’62. Ironically, despite his fifth-place finish, Maverick’s campaign, his first at the state level, may, as Dawson Duncan of the Dallas News interpreted the election, “have sown the seeds of a statewide organization that could be beneficial in a future political race. But Gonzalez and Maverick, and Wright to some degree, must face the political reality that Texas voters, without any tugging of a party label, demonstrated a substantially larger number for the conservatives than for the outright liberals.” W.M. ings, and that means amendments.” Passage of federal aid to education “will be more difficult than medical care to the aged and minimum wage,” he said. Under those “you have millions who will benefit directly. With education you have fewer with immediate monetary concern. There’s practically no lobby drive back of federal aid to education. But there_ IS one great unorganized lobbythe growing insistence of the people of this country for adequate educational opportunities for their children.” Yarborough believes there is wide misunderstanding in Texas about the benefits of federal aid to education. “Texas would get more out of it than any other state,” he said. “It’s not that we have more children. Our need is greater here. “Our school children don’t go to school” as frequently as the national average, he said. “Our teacher shortage is greater than the national average. We have poorer equipment.” Yarborough continues to work 74-72 on Key Revision AUSTIN The House shored-up its voting record in a two-day debate this week by showing Texans that to a man they are against loan sharks. By a vote of 144-0 they approved an amended version of Rep. Criss Cole’s small loan regulatory act. But the major amendment has Cole confused. He said he hadn’t studied the change made by Rep. George Preston of Paris on a tight 74-72 vote, but feared it would allow the loan companies to “continue excessive interest.” Rep. Malcolm McGregor of El Paso was a little more firm in his conviction about the Preston amendment. “If you want to legalize rates in excess of 40 per cent then you can vote for Preston’s amendment,” he told the House. The amendment provides for a minimum charge of $4 a month on all loans no matter the size. Preston said it was the only way that a lendor could possibly afford to make a $10 or $25 loan and make money. McGregor said it would permit the loan companies to pyramid interest. “If they can’t live on 40 per cent, what can they live on?” he asked. Preston withdrew his original proposal to change it so that the minimum charge could be made only every three months. Preston’s amendment was believed to be the only significant change in the bill recommended by a subcommittee of the House committee on banks and banking. The subcommittee version incorporated small loan regulatory ideas put forth in bills by Cole and Reps. Don Kennard of Fort Worth and Tony Korioth of Sherman. By a vote of 77-59, the House tabled an amendment by Rep. sion that Kennard said was designed to “do this bill in.” De la Garza prefaced his amendment by saying, “I don’t want anyone coming up here and shouting loan shark. This is just a differept concept.” His proposal stipulated that on loans of $1,000 or less there would be a 5 per cent maximum interest, plus $2 per month per $100 hardest on education measures. He is co-authoring a number of education bills and he has renewed his drive for passage of the “Cold War GI Bill.” Some four and one-quarter million veterans would be eligible, he said, and about half that number would be expected to take advantage of the benefits, including over 200,000 Texans. Yarborough has found President Kennedy “a man of tremendous industry and very keen intellect, with a fabulous grasp of ideas, of facts, and of people” and with “great capability in analyzing motives and touching the springs of action in people.” Prospects of congressional approval of the Padre Island bill “are more favorable than they’ve ever been,” he said. A Senate subcommittee hearing is scheduled for this Tuesday. “Some of the croakers and promoters are trying to convince the people they can never get it,” he said, but they are too late. In 1958, when he introduced the Padre Island bill, “there was no mass support behind it. Only three papers supported itthe Corpus charge added to the note. It provided that a $20 loan could be made for only one month, and then graduated the lending time by $20 brackets up to five months for a loan under $100. De la Garza said the system was recommended by the Texas Legislative Council, but after this was denied by House members who worked with the council on the bill, he said he never intended to lead members to believe that his amendment was recommended by the council, only that it includes some of the group’s recommendations. When Kennard asked de la Garza if he knew how much effective interest his amendment would permit, the Mission representative replied he did not. Kennard then inquired why Rep. DeWitt Hale of Corpus Christi withdrew a proposed amendment in favor of de la Garza’s. Sponsors of the bill had Hale’s proposed amendment under attack for more than a week. They changed it would make Texas a “loan shark state” more than in the past. Kennard said the Hale amendment would have permitted up to 160 per cent interest, and said he was afraid the de la Garza proposal would do the same thing. Both Hale and de la Garza were attorneys for a number of the small loan companies that Atty. Gen. Will Wilson brought injunction suits against during the last legislature. De la Garza protested his innocence, saying his amendment was just a “different concept. Reasonable minds may differ,” he said, “But to say this is a subterfuge to keep someone charging illegal interest is not true.” De la Garza said “everybody knows” a small loan company can’t operate on a per cent business, and that they have to make a service charge. He said set interest rates would kill the small lender in Texas and leave the Christi Caller-Times, the Texas Observer, and the Houston Press.” Now a large number of papers are behind it, he said, and most of the general public. Fred Seaton, the Republican secretary of the interior, said the federal government would be prepared to spend $8 million in the first five years on Padre Island. Secretary of the Interior Udall “has stated unequivocally he is for the 88-mile version,” he said. “If we don’t get the 88 miles it’s, just not worth it,” he said. “The federal goVernment wouldn’t have accepted Grand Canyon if they’d put honky-tonks on the north side and allowed the federal government to develop only the south side.” As for “practical considera tions,” Yarborough cited the de cline in tourists to Texas from 10.3 million in 1957 to 8.6 million in 1960. “I think in five years there might be a million visitors a year to Padre Island, and each out-of-state visitor spends an av erage of $45 each visit,” he said. W.M. business for the big out-of-state loan companies. Rep. Dick Cory of ,Victoria then set out to take care of the outof-state companies. The House approved his amendment to require loan companies to be owned by citizens of Texas or that 51 percent of their stock be owned by Texans. He said he was dffering the amendment “in behalf of the independent small loan companies of Texas.” Cory said the amendment would keep in check the big companies like Household Finance and Beneficial Finance. “This is to protect the small against the giants,” he said, warning that if it did not pass the big companies could squeeze the small ones out by taking a loss on the really small loans and by refinancing. Rep. Franklin Spears of San Antonio tacked on an amendment to further limit the chain loan firms. His alteration limits the number of branch offices to 25. Two attempts by Reps. Paul , Haring of Goliad and J. Collier Adams of Lubbock to limit the bill to loans under $300 and loans under $600 failed. During debate on the bill, Rep. Jake Johnson of San Antonio showed newsmen a telegram he received urging him to oppose the measure. It was signed “Owen W. Kilday.” Johnson said he checked with Kilday, who is sheriff of Bexar County, and leafned that he did not send the telegram. He said Western Union told him that the telegram was phoned to San Antonio office with instructions to charge Model Finance Co. of San Antonio with the wire. Johnson said he would turn this information over to Kilday for any possible action against the loan company. The telegram was sent to all of the San Antonio House members. Rep, James Cotten of Weatherford tacked on an amendment to prevent small loan companies from using the state regulation as a means of advertising. He said the companies would use a reference to state supervision “to twist the tail of the debtors.” The House also accepted an amendment by Rep. Marshall 0. Bell of San Antonio to provide for legal fees in usury suits. The House approved the bill on second reading by voice vote and agreed to suspend rules for final passage by a vote of 127-17. The bill would create a state consumer finance commissioner with power to enforce the legislative-set interest rates, license lendors, and examine the industry. The act applies to all loans under $3,000, but does not affect bank financing. Penalties for violation of the act would be $100 to $1,000 fine and up to six months in jail. Small loan companies would have to have at least $25,000 in assets. The companies would have