ustxtxb_obs_1965_04_16_50_00016-00000_000.pdf

tics. It was just sound business practice.” On the morning of April 3, the Dallas News ran, on its front page, a picture of Mayor Jonsson alongside Gov. Connally, Lt. Gov. Preston Smith, and House Speaker Ben Barnes. Connally was quoted: “I have nothing to say about your mayoral race here. . . . But . . . I’ve already demonstrated my admiration and respect for Mayor Erik Jonsson. . . one of the outstanding businessmen and leaders of the nation. But as far as my injecting myself into the local political situation, I certainly am not going to do this.” Jonsson is a Republican. Dallas city elections are “non-partisan.” Election day Mrs. Blessing took a fullpage political ad in which she said, “I am heartbroken at the cruelty and the jabs which have been leveled against me.” The league’s best showing was made by Negro attorney C. B. Bunkley, who lost with 38% of the vote. Joe Moody, a league candidate, charged that the CCA put Negro George Allen into the race as an ostensible independent, along with a CCA-backed white candidate, to beat him. Moody trailed into a runoff with the other white; it will be held April 20. Since Mrs. Blessing was the only independent on the council in addition to Moody, if Moody loses April 20 the CCA will have the entire city council. Attempts to challenge the present city school board members were also defeated in Dallas. The slate of the Dallas Committee for Good Schools won for the 16th straight year. A hard-fought campaign by candidates endorsed by the League for Educational Advancement in Dallas did not avail, but they got substantial support and LEAD ‘spokesmen said the fight will be renewed. 16 The Texas Observer J. Willard Gragg, one of the winners, made the hardest attack on LEAD, an attack which was subsequently spelled out in a political ad paid for by the Dallas Committee for Good Schools. This ad charged that LEAD involved “liberal extremists,” namely: “The leader of the Communications Workers of America Labor Union in Dallas. . . The wife of a labor lawyer whose firm represents the major CIO unions, including the Teamsters Union. . . . A leader of the NAACP in Dallas. . . . LEAD’s mailing address is the residence of a U.S. Labor Dept. wage and hour investigator, whose wife is LEAD vice-president.” Rabbi Levi Olan, a member of the LEAD board and a University of Texas regent, said these tactics against LEAD were reminiscent of the climate that existed in Dallas before the assassination. Willard Barr, mayor pro-tern of Fort Worth who has long been associated with organized labor, won the first popular election for mayor in Fort Worth over three opponents without a runoff. A Negro candidate for city council in Fort Worth lost. In Austin, restaurateur Harry Akin, who came out against a city sales tax and against “the power group,” and Negro George Hammond lost to incumbent city councilmen. Latin-American militancy lost ground in Crystal City and gained in Mathis. Mayor Juan Cornejo’s PASO-backed slate was thrown out in Crystal City, getting only about 40% of the vote against a slate of three Latins and two Anglos backed by the anti-PASO group. In Mathis, three “Action” Party candidates, an Anglo and two Latins, won city council seats in very close voting that was taken as a victory of more militant Latin-American voters over the “in” group. Leo J. Leo, a PASO leader, was elected mayor of his town, La Joya, and a Latin-American employee of Reynolds Metal Co. became the first person of his ethnic background ever elected to city office in Taft, going on the city council. Negro school trustees were elected for the first time in Beaumont, LaMarque, and Hitchcock school districts. Negroes ran for city offices in Tyler, Madisonville, and Waxahachie for the first time and were all defeated. Negro citizens incorporated their community, called King City, just north of the Cleveland, Tex., city . limits between the Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. Dialogue An Organization of liberals “The Texas Liberals” is a wonderful idea. I’m sure you will have a favorable response; already I’ve heard some discussion of it.John Rogers, 723 Clower, San Antonio, Tex. Guest Editorial H. M. Baggarly, editor of the Tulia Herald, writes in his column: A dangerous trend which began more than 15 years ago in Texas is continuing and becoming even more dangerous. . . . 1.Texas big business, represented by the oil, gas, utility, and insurance companies, primarily, successors to the railroads, took over Texas politics and has controlled it since the end of the administration of Gov. James V. Allred. Governor Allred was the last people’s governor the state has had. Virtually every governor since has had the same philosophy . . . the public be damned, take the tax burden off the rich and put it on the backs of the poor, spend no more than the minimum on education, rule Texas by a handful of Texas multi-millionaires. 2.Instead of serving the traditional two terms, the governors have sought to perpetuate themselves in office; notably Allan Shivers. As a result of these two trends, we have awakened to find state boards composed 100% of one governor’s appointees. . . . By the time Allan Shivers finally stepped down, he had dominated every state board! And these boards continued to serve long after Shivers was out of the picture. We saw all kinds of wierd things happen. We found J. Evetts Haley on the board of regents at Texas Tech! Now we find a third trend developing … as if the governor didn’t already have a tight enough hold on education, highways, state hospitals, and all the other state functions. . . . There is now a movement under way to elect the governor for four years instead of two. If this becomes law, even a two-term governor would serve eight years . . . time enough to remake the state in his own image. And to top it all, the governor seems to be trying to centralize even more his control of education and keep it under his thumb. He is seeking to combine boards, to enlarge the scope of a board’s authority. . . . Our last several governors seem to feel that the sole requirement for governing our institutions of higher learning is to be the president of an oil or gas company, a wealthy rancher . . . or the head of an insurance company. . . . It’s a funny thing . . . the very ones who are most concerned with fighting centralized power in Washington are also those who seem to favor centralized power on the state level. Frankly, we are of the opinion that Washington is much closer to the people than is Austin. We believe that Washington is more sympathetic to the needs of the masses than is Austin. We believe that the people can come much closer holding their own against Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Insurance, and Big Utilities in Washington than in Austin. H. M. BAGGARLY