ustxtxb_obs_1968_06_07_50_00010-00000_000.pdf

#rip if z’ Since 1866 The Place in Austin GOOD FOOD GOOD BEER 1607 San Jacinto GR 7-4171 BUMPERSTRIPS: McCARTHY PRESIDENT PEACE Fluorescent, genuine peel-off Also Campaign Buttons 1 for 25c 5 for $1 1,000 for $65 DISSENTING DEMOCRATS OF TEXAS Box 876, Austin, Texas 78767 Results of the Democratic referendum on liquor-by-the-drink, showing the representative and senator districts. cessfully placed before the legislature last year. Ostensibly the “baby bottle” approach is easier to regulate and offers a more efficient standard for collecting tax revenue. It also has the advantage of being a less radical departure from the present law and therefore is easier to justify to constituents. But for Connally the real advantage of the “baby bottle” alternative is that it placates the liquor lobby, which foresaw a drop in package store sales of expensive liquor that would not be balanced by bar and restaurant purchases of inexpensive brands. The “baby bottle” approach offers the best hope yet to those favoring a revision of Texas’s liquor laws. But even that compromise may not be enough to satisfy Lt. Gov. Smith, who may well be the one person who will make the ultimate decision whether liquor-by-the-drink becomes law. Smith’s campaign position on liquor-by-the-drink during his race for governor seemed on occasion inconsistent. In East Texas he flatly opposed it; in Houston he spoke of the merits of local option elections. He had the support of Abner McCall of Baylor University, but he also had the backing of Sen. Red 10 The’ Texas Observer Berry, a longtime advocate of liquor-bythe-drink and parimutuel betting. He regards the referendum vote as inconclusive, except that it “indicates to me there’s no overwhelming demand for this to be passed.” As for the possibility that house action and senate pressure might possibly force Smith to yield, there are those who say that there is scant precedent to suggest that the lieutenant governor values the wishes of a majority of the senate any higher than he values the wishes of a majority of the referendum voters. SMITH ALSO questions the constitutionality of a liquor-by-the-drink law, pointing out that the Texas constitution contains language prohibiting open saloons, and arguing that the legislature should first submit a constitutional amendment to the voters. The dispute over the ambiguous’ term “open saloon” may eventually be referred to Atty. Gen. Crawford Martin for an advisory opinion. If Martin rules against the constitutionality of the bill, Smith can force the question of open saloons to be submitted in the form of a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment; submission to the voters requires a two-thirds majority of each house. Such a majority does not MARTIN ELFANT Sun Life of Canada 1001 Century Building Houston, Texas CA 4-0686 exist but may after further reapportionments. A similar two-thirds provision has stripped the bill of any significance as a source of revenue for the next fiscal year. Connally knows that he cannot this summer recruit to the cause the 100 representatives and 21 senators needed to vote the bill into immediate effect. If it should pass the legislature by a simple majority, its provisions cannot become effective until after the beginning of the fiscal year, Sept. 1, and any income will not materialize until local option elections are held. If the bill has any significance outside the realm of liquor policy, it is as a symbolic test of power. The three leading figuresConnally, Smith, and Barnes all are lame ducks in their respective positions, and the one who is most able to command old loyalties is likely to have his way. A member of the special House committee on liquor policy said recently that the liquor-by-the-drink bill Connally proposed last year probably would have passed the house but would have died in the senate. That still sounds like a good guess. El