Page 9


on FINDING III* ….. the /ANGLE SIHQ0’I N G ttt IP tt .. nant about this, Bullock contacted Sudderth and the campaign was .cut off. Bullock says Cotten, chairman of the constitutional amendments committee, told him he objected to anyone being hired to lobby without representing the interests hiring him fulltime. Bullock says that he turned down one group who tried to hire hima group seeking passage of a bill for a new court. “I told ’em they don’t need a lobbyist,” Bullock says. “If I was out to just make money, I would’a taken that.” The Observer has a copy of a document that purports to be an account of the Feb. 7 meeting. Another copy of this document was seen circulating among representatives during a hearing on the commodities proposal last week. The Observer showed its copy of the document to Reagan, who consulted the association secretary, Wilson, and said they were befuddled about it and could not vouch for its authenticity. The Observer read it to Barnes, who said that “with a few interpretations and corrections, that thing is essentially correct.” However, it is unsigned, and we have not relied upon it in this account.. THE HIRING of another lobbyist, W. T. Oliver of Port Neches, to boost a bill exempting anhydrous ammonia trailers from a requirement that they have special brakes provoked charges this session. The bill was handled in 1961 by Reps. Grainger McIlhany, Wheeler, and H. G. Wells, Tulia, and Sen. Andy Rogers, Childress. It passed in a breeze; but Gov. Daniel, believing that very large trailers should not be so exempted, vetoed it. In the closing days of the session, a bill acceptable to the governor was passed with almost no opposition. After the session it was discovered it had been faultily drafted, and it went by the board. There was no real opposition in the legislature in 1961, and no one hired a lobbyist. The anhydrous ammonia association of Texas decided it did need a lobbyist to pass this bill in 1963. Why? There was a conversation at the Deck Club, involving powerful figures in the House, Mike Crowe, the president of the association, and Oliver; but what was said is not known. Crowe, at this point, is keeping his own counsel. 10 The Texas Observer Oliver was hired. Wells, McIlhany, and Rogers thereupon refused to sponsor the bill any longer. “I refused to handle it,” Sen. Rogers says, “because a lobbyist was hired and Crowe told me that they must hire one or they would not get it out of committee.” Says Wells: “I did not handle the bill, because there was a lobbyist hired, and there were behind the scenes things that made me leery.” The sponsors were Rep. Dick Slack, Pecos, and Sen. H. J. “Doc” Blanchard, Lubbock. Slack says there was nothing to be leery about. Blanchard says he talked over the matter with Oliver and the legislators who dropped the bill and concluded there was “not a damn thing to it.” He says he understood that the original House sponsors withdrew because they were not on the speaker’s team this session. The dispute almost surfaced in House debate on the bill. Rep. Hugh SINCE business values dominate the legislature without serious challenge this session, the game has been a relatively simple one, finding and shooting the angles. This looked like a good session to repealthe corporation franchise tax. However, Gov. Connally said at a press conference he wasn’t willing to go fox higher college tuition at the same time the corporation tax was dropped. The tax bill that was worked out, and which is about to be adopted without substantial change, satisfies both business and Connally by an ingenious stratagem. The franchise tax is extended for one year, instead of two. Since it is a “temporary” tax, this means that it will automatically expire in 1964. The chairman of the House revenue and tax committee, Rep. Ben Atwell, explaining the bill to the House, said quite candidly, “It’s reasonable to presume that when the tax expires next year, the legislature will not be in session to re-enact it.” In addition to $11 million in “new revenue” from the franchise tax ex Parmer, Fort Worth, blurted out, on March 27, “This is an anhydrous ammonia bill, and there’s a scandal behind this bill that makes Billy Sol Estes look like nothing.” Rep. Glenn Kothmann, San Antonio, asked Parmer, “Could you acquaint me with the scandal?” Parmer started to say something, but Speaker Tunnell interrupted him, saying, “Yes, sir, why don’t y’all get over here and talk about it while we vote on this bill?” That ended that. Parmer’s attempt to stall the bill got only 17 votes. Last week Connally signed it into law. A scurrilous anonymous letter, signed “Ed,” was mailed to members on this subject. The Dallas News of April 2 recited some of its contents. It was turned over to the department of public safety, and Rep. Barnes told the Observer late last week that its author had been traced down. The Observer has not relied on this letter in this account. tension, the tax bill this session will raise $22 million in new money from sales tax changes, mainly by abolishing the up-to-$10 clothing exemption and raising the car sales tax. This package was agreed on in a conference in Connally’s office attended by Connally, Lt. Gov. Smith, Tunnell, Atwell, and officials of the state comptroller’s office. For about ten years, the sulphur lobbyists have been working patiently to lower their state taxes. The competitive situation has changed, and Texas sulphur is having a hard time competing with Louisiana and Mexican sulphur. Hub Caven and Benner Dowe of Texas Gulf Sulphur and Obel McAllister of Jefferson Lake Sulphur Co. do not go in for lobbying pyrotechnicsthe blasts, gifts, and pressurethey simply stay at their jobs, and this year, the sulphur tax was reduced, costing the state treasury $1,898,000 in the next two years, the comptroller says. When the sulphur cut passed the House no one asked for a record vote. It came up for a vote in the Senate