ustxtxb_obs_1961_10_13_50_00008-00000_000.pdf

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: Earl Shelton, Stuart C. Shelton, Greer Shelton, Tom Shelton, Willie . K. Shelton, Catherine Shelton, John E. Shelton, John E. Shelton III and Mrs. John E. Shelton, 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 lien 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 follows: .777 acres of land out of the Southeast corner of Lot 14, Evergreen Heights, a subdivision out of the Isaac Decker League, and being the .777 acres described in the deed dated July 7, 1939, from Sallie Middlebrook to Earl Shelton recorded in Volume 665, page 544 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, save and except however a small triangular piece of land sold to Harben Lock by Earl Shelton by deed dated June 13, 1957 recorded in Volume 1822, page 493 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas. Which said property is delinquent to Plaintiff for taxes in the following amounts : $958.33, 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 State of Texas and the County of Travis as Defendants, by petition filed on the 7th day of September, 1961, in a certain suit styled City of Austin vs. ‘Earl Shelton, 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 123,558, 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 November A.D., 1961 \(which 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 October A.D., 1961. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Court, Travis County, Texas. By A. E. Jones, Dep. Dist. Clerk. CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS and wife, VELMA C. WEED, if living, and if dead, the legal representatives of each of said named Defendants, and the unknown heirs of each of said named Defendants; the legal representatives of the unknown heirs of each of said named Defendants, if the unknown heirs of said Defendants are dead; the unknown heirs of the unknown heirs of said named Defendants, if the unknown heirs of the unknown heirs of said named Defendants are dead; Defendants, in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: by commanded to appear before the 53rd 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 20th day of November, 1961, and answer the petition of plaintiffs in Cause Number 123,801, in which HERBERT J. KONZE, ET UX and wife ALMA KONZE are Plaintiffs, and the hereinabove named Defendants are Defendants, filed in said Court on the 3rd day of October, 1961, and the nature of which said suit as follows: Being an action and prayer for Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant for title to and possession of the following described tract of land, to-wit: “A part of Lots Nos. Two tition of the Elijah Morris 4.42 acre tract of land out of the Henry P. Hill League in Travis County, Texas, as shown by a partition deed and map which is recorded in Book 197, pp 425-428, Travis County Deed Records; Plaintiffs allege that on the 15th day of November, 1960, they were, and still are, the owners in fee simple of said lands; and that on said date Defendants entered and dispossessed Plaintiffs from such premises, and withholds from the possession thereof, to which possession they were and are legally entitled. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages for the rental value of said premises in the sum of $200.00. Plaintiffs pray for relief, general or special, legal or equitable, to which they might be entitled. All of which more fully appears from Plaintiff’s Original Petition on file in this Office. 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 4th day of October, 1961. 0. T. MARTIN, JR. Clerk of the District Courts, Travis County, Texas. By: 0. T. MARTIN, JR. THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS NOTICE OF SHERIFF’S SALE By virtue of an corder of sale is sued out of the 98th District Court BRAVE NEW WORLD? Arguing `Realities of Goldwater Conservatism’ damentally concerned with the spiritual and intellectual creativi ties of our people. But what is our voting recordas ,individuals and as congressmen? If given the prac tical choice without the dramatic placement of the alternatives, it seems to me we almost invariably choose the material benefits.” Suppose, Bagalay said, “the worst fears of the liberal as to the consequencies of Sen. Goldwater’s philosophy should happen to come true.” Painting “the bleakest picture I can think of,” he said “some would have to go without the best medical care available, and have only a minimum standard of living provided by social security benefits. This is tragicand it is also a comment upon man’s inhumanity to man, the lack of charity. It is deplorable, it is even unmitigated greed. Most important of all, men may even suffer physical and mental pain. All this may be true granting the most extreme fears of the liberals should Goldwater’s political philosophy prevail. “But an equally bleak picture is available on the other side, should we intentionally adopt the course to which we unintentionally seem to have committed ourselves. Suppose we now decide as a nation that all citizens are owed economic security and satisfaction, physical well-being and contentment in old age. We could just probably provide all of this, but the price we would pay would be measured in terms of the dignity and creativity which constitute the essence of the human being.” Bagalay cited “the accumulation of power that such a gigantic project would entailin the hands of what Goldwater refers to as the ‘guardians’, separated in physical and intellectual space from the rest of us, dispensing the nation’s goods to undifferentiated, bored human beings. ‘Forced to Be Free’ “It is often said, we cannot afford to provide a less than substandard of living for all our peopie if we are to preserve our economic security; and if some people don’t want the benefit we will have to force them to take it anyway. As Rousseau said, ‘We will force a man to be free.’ This was the ‘height of folly when Rousseau suggested it; it is still the height of folly to suggest that whether our people want the benefits or not, we will compel them to take it in order to make our nation stronger. “At this point, a remark from Brave New World is most appropriate. Savage is discussing the advantages of the brave new world, but he is slightly unhappy about what has happened to him. He is complaining that everything seems to get done for him. He says he wants the right `to be unhappy, not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent, the right to have syphilis and cancer, the right to have too little to eat, the right to be lousy, the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow, the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind, the right to sin. I claim them all,’ Savage said. “He claims them all, at what price?” Bagalay asked. “At the price of ease and ‘satisfaction, at the price of physical well-being, but I gather that Savage would probably say with Socrates that there are just some lives which are not worth living.” Opposing View Shattuck argued that Goldwater conservatism “is not a powerful new conservative force sweeping the country,” but rather “a trans parent misconception of all our political traditions and political responsibilities . . . He has probably performed the neatest trick of the year in making conservatismor rather his version of political fundamentalism seem dangerous, something radical, something that is way out and that is going to excite the student bodies as perhaps it has here.” Goldwater, he charged, is “a front man who has every right to give cause for disturbance to the true conservatives who are in the background. “As with most of his cohorts, he argues almost exclusively by oversimplification and empty abstractions. He like to call his abstractions ‘fundamental changeless principles’ which do not change with the changing of circumstances. “He starts right off \(in Ms the state. And he acts as if the government and the state are something which have no relationship to you and me; it is a disembodied force which we have not created by elections or any such relationship, a malevolent force taking our money away from us, imposing the welfare state upon us, as if we ourselves had not produced this government. Were our political institutions in such a terrible condition, our first responsibility would be to repair those institutions, and Goldwater should be most concerned with it but it is not this that he is writing about. “He speaks about the natural operation of the free market. I hope I don’t have to point out that the free market is by no means natural but takes a great deal of regulation in order to have the merest semblance of being free. “He speaks of spiritual welfare, but there is no definition of what spiritual welfare is, and in all the reading I’ve done on what Goldwater has pronounced, I find no sense of any greater spiritual welfare emerging from his program. “But the greatest generality ‘of all,” Shattuck said, “is Goldwater’s solution to the cold war . . His solution is that We should try, not for coexistence, but for victory. He never tells us what victory is, he never tells us how to start it, he never tells us whether it means launching aggressive conquest, whether it means occupying the entire world including Russia, whether it means nuclear commit ment but victory is the solution, and no discussion of what victory means, of how far we go. “A suggestion ‘is that, yes, we should carry on our attack on all fronts, the whole spectrum of international maneuvers possible, and with enough strength to fall short of a nuclear war. This, of course, is what we are doingbut he said victory. “But more important than the oversimplifications,” Shattuck said, “are some of the contradictions which appear not to worry my colleague but which worry me very muoh, because these lead to the basic unsoundness of the ‘entire Goldwater program.” As “a prime example of the dissociation of practice and preaching,” Shattuck quoted Goldwater: ‘The conscience of the conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the human being.’ “There are two forces in this country now which debase the dignity of the individual human being: one is the House un-American Activities Committee, the other are the forces trying to restrain integration of education and public facilities. Goldwater has associated himself with both these forces, very clearly and without ambiguity, and yet he claims to be the champion of the dignity of the individual., “He is for universal voting in this country, and yet he has voted against the abolition of the poll tax. “He is against any loose interpretation of the Constitution, rather by the exact intention of the founding fathers, and yet he finds no difficulty in voting for roads, voting for pure food acts, and voting for pork barrel for Arizona. “But these are superficial,” Shattuck continued, “compared to the principal issue on which Gold