money which, in general, was denied him Carr said he would not go to private sources for money to finance the suits, 85 as Wilson had done to the tune of $400,000, mostly from major oil companies. Tyler figures “We’ve probably collected $8 for every $1 the legislature appropriated for us” for these suits. The outcome of the suits still outstanding, Tyler said, depends in large part on the outcome of the Harrington appeal, now before the Texas Supreme Court. Tried and won by Carr’s office in 1963, this suit has established, so far, that the state did not have to prove intent, but only the fact of slant-hole deviation, to be entitled to a judgment. Tyler believes oilmen who have not yet settled cases outstanding against them are waiting for the outcome of the Harrington appeal, hoping it will strengthen their positions. While a few men charged with slant hole offenses may be found among Carr’s campaign contributorsnotably Robert Cargill of LongviewThere are only a very few of them, and none of theme is recorded as having made 4-figure contributions. Those noticed all made their contributions by the summer of 1962 except E. B. Germany of Dallas, who gave $200 in 1964. The Dallas News reported that some of those charged were on hand when Carr was inaugurated, but that 500 persons attended and that the public had been invited.” WHEN, IN THE MIDST of the slant-hole scandals, the Dallas News reported what the Observer had reported years before, that Railroad Cmsr. William Murray had an oil well-drilling business and had made much money from it, Carr participated in the investigation that was launched, and in fact Carr’s report on the facts during a grand jury investigation got into the papers. The grand jury rebuked Carr for this fact, but Carr said he had given his report to Connally, and Connally had released it. 87 \(Carr’s role here is reminiscent of his part in the investigation involving Rep. James Cox, Conroe, and a naturopath lobbyist in bribery charges in 1957: as Speaker of the House, Carr made the matter public and insisted on a full Irregularities in voting in Starr County were reported by Bo Byers in a Houston Chronicle series early in 1963, and Rep. Dick Morgan, Dallas Republican, spoke of Carr’s failure to act in the matter, whereupon Carr made public a letter to the Travis County. district attorney offering to help prosecute two Starr County men under indictment here and expressing hope the legislature would strengethen laws to give him more effective powers in the field.” The two men, minor figures in Starr, were given small fines. The Observer fully reported at the time Carr’s seizure of books and papers of John Stanford, the accused Communist Party official in San Antonio, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling that the books and papers be returned to Stanford because the fourth and fourteenth amendments guarantee him “that no official of the state shall ransack his home and seize his books and papers under the unbridled authority of a general warrant.” 89 Maury Maverick, Jr., San Antonio, had taken Stanford’s case against the search and seizure on the telegraphed request of the American Civil Liberties Union, of which he is San Antonio counsel. As was not reported at that time, before the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Carr released a letter from an official of the U.S. Communist Party asking for legal information on the right of communist candidates to run for office in Texas, and Carr released this letter to the press, along with his reply to the communist in which Carr had written : “I suggest you get your own lawyers to advise you what to do in Texas. You might contact Maury Maverick, Jr., of San Antonio, who is representing John W. Stanford, Jr., against the charge that he has disobeyed the communist laws of Texas.” Neither the Texas dailies nor the Observer published Maverick’s name in connection with this exchange of correspondence at the time.” “I didn’t mean it as any insult to him,” Carr said. On the point of Maverick’s having resented the statement, Carr said, “I regret that, but I was very factual.” Carr has of course been active in many lawsuits.in the name of the state. By law he is charged to defend state laws under challenge. In this capacity he has defended against suits challenging congressional and legislative redistricting laws passed by the legislature. He is defending the Texas poll tax against the U.S. lawsuit seeking to invalidate it, charging in this connection that the U.S. allegations are inflammatory and at one point writing all Texas congressmen asking them if they knew of any evidence to support certain of the federal contentions about discrimination in voting in Texas. He defended the conviction of Estes against the appeal grounded in part of the 1962 trial having been televised, in which case the high court held Estes’ rights had been thus violated. \(In this suit Carr’s office missed a chance to file a minor motion for rehearing with the Supreme Court because the papers were not mailed in time. torney general has been actively opposing petitions of convicts for release on the basis of recent Supreme Court decisions about rights of the accused. He has sought legislation to empower his office to supervise charitable trusts closely; this field could become a source of scandal in the future, he has warned. He unsuccessfully opposed an Army sergeant’s lawsuit to invalidate a Texas requirement that servicemen vote only in the county they lived in when they entered the service. His office churns out opinions for those entitled to them by law, and these hundreds of rulings are available in the state library. Some leaders of faculty groups in Texas are upset with his ruling that the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Assn., a non-profit, Carnegie-endowed association that sells insurance to people in education at extraordinarily cheap rates, can’t function in Texas without a license \(which it does not want to take out because of complications tional institutions are acting as its salesmen, making it a Texas-based company. He has ruled that the criminal code’s new provision requiring that a defendant arrested at night be taken before a magistrate “immediately” means “that he be taken before a magistrate no sooner than the opening of the magistrate’s office during the daylight hours.” 91 Carr played a minor role in the investi gation of the assassination of President Kennedy. He called a press conference in Washington shortly after Kennedy’s funer al to announce a Texas investigation. It is understood that before he did this, he had been in communication with President Johnson. However, a decision was taken to the contrary, and he was thereupon invited to sit in on the Warren hearings. He was present during about 70 of the days, ad vancing minor questions but occassionally, and two other lawyers assisting him were present during times when he was not. In his own supplement to the Warren Report, he concurred with its principal findings9 2 R.D. SOURCES In The Legislature 1. Biography of Carr from the Attorney General’s office; Texarkana Gazette, May 9, 1965; Houston Post, Oct. 22, 1964; Carr press release, April 22, 1962; interview with Carr, Jan. 28, 1966. 2. Biography of Carr from his office. 3. Texas Parade, Jan., 1963. 4. Final Report, Special Committee of the House of Representatives to Investigate Organized Criminal Activities in the State of Texas, Austin, 1953. 5. “The Voting Record of the 52nd Texas Legislature, 1951,” Texas State Industrial Union Council, Austin. 6. “Look at the Record,” Texas State CIO Council Report, 1953. 7. “The Texas State CIO Council Looks at the Record,” 1955. 8. Observer March 28, 1955. 9. Obs., Jan. 15, 1957. 10. Obs., Feb. 12, 1957. 11. Obs., March 19 and 26, May 31, Nov. 22 and 29, 1957. 12. Obs., Nov. 1, 1957. 13. Obs., April 16, March 5, May 21, Nov. 22, 1957. 14. Obs., Sept. 5, 1958, and Jan. 16, March 28, 1959. 15. Obs. July 18, 1959; Austin American, July 15, 1959. 16. Obs., April ,4 and 18, 1959. 17. Obs., June 20 and August 1, 1959. 18. Obs., April 25 and May 16, 1959. 19. Obs., May 14, 1957, and May 7, 1959. 20. Contributions that are reported are on file at the Secretary of State’s office in Austin. 21. See Obs., March 25, April 22, and May 6 and 13, 1960. 22. Dallas News, Aug. 21, 1960. 23. Press release, March 9, 1962. 24. Press release, April 23, 1962. 25. Dallas News, April 22, 1962. 26. Obs., May 19, 1962. 27. Press release from Carr’s 1962 campaign, undated. 28. Press release, May 16, 1962. Recently . On Issues 29. South Texan, November, 1963. 30. Dallas News, June 13, 1963; Houston Post, June 13, 1963. 31. Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Aug. 11, 1963. 32. Houston Post, March 3, 1964. 33. Edinburg Daily Review, Jan. 18, 1966. 34. Dallas News, May 3, 1960. 35. Dallas News, March 10, 1960, 36. Dallas News, May 22, 1960. 37. Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1963. 38. Dallas News, March 25, 1960. 39. Dallas News, June 9, 1956. 40. Dallas News, Nov. 13, 1964. 41. Austin Herald, Feb. 14, 1965. 43. “Motion of Atty. Gen. Waggoner Carr for Rehearing,” Coffee v. Rice University, No. 14.472, First Court of Civil Appeals. Houston, Feb. 11, 1965. 44. Obs., Dec. 10, 1965. 45. Ibid. 46. Dallas Times Herald, July ‘ 5, 1965. 47. Corpus Christi Caller, July 24, 1965. 48.Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Aug. 11, 1963. 49.Edinburg Daily Review, Jan. 18, 1966. 50.See, for example, Dallas Times Herald, Dec. 10, 1965; Dallas News, July 23, 1963 and August 15 1963; Houston Chronicle, Sept. 8, 1963. 51. Houston Chronicle, Feb. 27, 1964. 52.Corpus Christi Caller. Aug. 11, 1965. 53.Alamo Messenger, Aug. 20, 1965. 54. Houston Chronicle, Sept. 30, 1964. 55. Corpus Christi Express, April 24, 1965. 57. Edinburg Daily Review, Jan. 19, 1966. 58. San Antonio Express, Sept. 19. 1964. 59. Press release, 1962, undated. February 4, 1966 11
You May Also Like
The Texas Rangers are tasked with investigating corruption and crimes by public officials. Those officials are rarely held accountable.