ustxtxb_obs_1968_06_21_50_00004-00000_000.pdf

Page 13

by

fleas consensus Republicanism.” The vice-presidential nominee, he said, “will be a like-minded person,” and he added, “It won’t be me.” T HE CONVENTION passed resolutions calling for a balanced federal budget, upholding the right to work law, supporting the present 271/2% oil and gas depletion allowance, endorsing bi-lingual education, and opposing a Vietnam settlement that would result in “unilateral with drawal cloaked in a face-saving r ..4.717.7.7 accommo dation that would deny the security or the territorial integrity of South Vietnam and contribute to further communist aggression in Southeast Asia.” In a final resolution, which resolutions committee chairman Jack Cox called his “omnibus” resolution, the convention criticized the Democratic administration for appropriating “vast sums of money annually in an inept and completely mismanaged attempt to eliminate poverty,” for engaging “in a program to create racial balance in public schools by artifi cia] and costly means, including trans porting school children unnecessary dis tances from home,” for failing to force North Korea to release the Pueblo and its crew, for negotiating to return the Pan ama Canal Zone to Panama, and for lag ging in military research. The resolve clause called on voters to study the Johnson-Humphrey record, “a record re plete with failures and fantasies,” and for the vote in November to “reflect a choice in the best interest of the nation.” K.N. The Legislature Connally’s Lame Duck-itis Austin Gov. John Connally is not finding his specially-called tax session of the state legislature particularly cooperative. His program has little chance of passage. The lame duck governor is receiving no support for his program from the two strongest men in state government, Lt. Gov. Preston Smith, the Democratic nominee for governor, and House Speaker Ben Barnes, Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor. HB 1, a combination mini-bottle and liquor reform bill supported by the governor, did manage to squeeze through the house. It was engrossed by a vote of 76 to 71. It was the first significant action of the thirty-day session. The bill survived a barrage of approximately 55 floor amendments virtually intact. The bill allows on a local option basis the sale of alcohol in containers of two ounces or less in any establishment with an “on premise” permit. To qualify for a permit, an establishment must make at least a third of its gross receipts from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Private clubs may continue serving liquor by the drink. Licensing fees and taxes on the small bottles are expected to bring in approximately $14.5 million during the next year. A coalition of wets and drys came close to killing the bill, a compromise proposal that pleased few legislators. Rep. Jake Johnson of San Antonio, representing the hard core wets, introduced an amendment to replace the small bottle provisions with liquor by the drink. “My amendment has no mini bottle, no mini bag, no mini haha,” Johnson quipped. Rep Dick Cory of Victoria, chairman of the state affairs committee which wrote the bill, argued that liquor by the drink would be unconstitutional since the state constitution forbids an open saloon. Johnson replied that the constitution also allows the legislature to define an open saloon. “They’re trying to fool you with talk about something being unconstitutional,” he told his 4 The Texas Observer colleagues. “When the governor had a liquor by the drink bill last session it was amazing that no one, not even the attorney general, said it was unconstitutional at that time,” Guy Floyd of San Antonio added. The amendment failed, gathering only 41 votes. The drys attempted to remove the mini bottle provisions from the bill, leaving just the liquor reforms. Rep. Bill Clayton’s amendment came closer to success than Johnson’s. A motion to table Clayton’s amendment passed 80 to 65. Rep. James Nugent of Kerrville was successful in attaching a “dram shop” clause to the bill over the sponsor’s objections. The amendment holds proprietors who sell small liquor bottles to intoxicated customers liable for damages the customer might cause after he leaves the establishment. Fourteen states have similar laws. Usually proprietors buy insurance coverage to protect themselves against damage suits. The section of the bill relating to the consumption of alcohol on state college campuses was the subject of numerous unsuccessful resolutions. As passed, the bill forbids the sale, consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages on property owned by state supported institutions of higher learning except in married students’ housing, residences of officers or employees of the institution and specific affairs approved in advance by the administrative head of the institution. The liquor reform section of the bill provides stiff penalties for proprietors serving liquor to a minor. It also requires the presence of a parent in court when a minor is charged with breaking the liquor laws unless the parents are out of the court’s jurisdiction. The bill amends presen t law to allow persons sixteen years of age or older to check, sack and carry out sealed alcoholic beverages from grocery stores, supermarkets and wine shops. Other provisions provide for the immediate sale of alcoholic beverages seized by the Liquor Control Board and prohibition of gambling on licensed premises. The bill prohibits a. member of the legis lature from appearing before the LCB as an attorney or in any other representative capacity without first filing an affidavit with the board making full disclosure of the person he represents. Rep. Jim Clark of Dallas introduced an amendment that would prohibit legislators from appearing before the board or before LCB field representatives for compensation. The house, which contains 81 lawyers, defeated the amendment 67 to 79. The bill makes it illegal for drivers or passengers to drink alcoholic beverages in an unsealed container in a moving vehicle on a public road, except in a place where it is inaccessible. The bill now goes to the senate where it is expected to face an even more difficult battle. Connally’s appropriations bill does not appear to be faring as well as his mini bottle bill. While he prepared a one -year appropriations bill calling for $127.2 million in new revenue, the house appropriations committee rewrote the bill raising the tax needs to $133.8 million for fiscal 1969, and the senate appropriations committee called for $145 million in new money. Barnes estimated that the state may need up to $150 million in new taxes if congress passes the president’s surtax bill before the end of the Texas legislative session. If the federal tax is raised, the state comptroller will lower his estimate on the amount of revenue the state might glean from taxes, on the assumption that consumers will have less money to spend. Barnes said he is hoping that final action will not be taken on the surtax until after the close of the special session. Rather than commit himself to Connally’s program, Barnes has encouraged house members, who must originate tax measures, to propose alternative plans. Smith last year opposed Connally’s plan to appropriate funds on an annual rather than a biennial basis. He says he will remain neutral in the scramble to pass one-year appropriations and tax measures. Legislators have received Connally’s tax proposals without enthusiasm. Most lib