ustxtxb_obs_1969_12_19_50_00007-00000_000.pdf

M.MitHt!Mi”AYI ~P entire Union, but the board decided to restrict only the use of the Chuck Wagon. As policy now stands, a non-student may enter the Chuck Wagon as a guest of and accompanied by a university person only three times this semester. Sentries stand at a single entrance to check credentials. Approximately three weeks after the second Chuck Wagon incident, an Austin grand jury issued sealed indictments for riot and destruction of property against 22 persons. The jury gathered information from police reports and by looking at photographs taken by police and Daily Texan photographers. Apparently the grand jury believes that anyone who could be identified as being in the Chuck Wagon is liable. for prosecution under Texas riot laws. Some of the persons indicted probably slashed tires or abused the police during the fracas, but others were simply there. One student arrested, a leftist who is not a movement leader, told the Observer he was identified by police when he made a short speech during the rally outside the building. He gave his social security number and urged the crowd to enter the Chuck Wagon and make citizens arrests of police for disturbing the peace of students who wanted to drink coffee without the presence of armed law enforcers. He said he entered the Chuck Wagon but was in no way involved in violence or the destruction of property. Another young man said the police learned his name when he drove a friend down to police headquarters to file a complaint of harsh treatment during the runaway’s arrest. He said he merely had been present when the girl was driven away. A non-student contends he was taken simply for urging a friend who was resisting arrest to “cool it.” As the Observer went to press, 18 persons had been apprehended or had turned themselves into police. The FBI has charged two non-students with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. AT LEAST SEVEN of the 22 have decided to fight their arrests on “political” grounds. They will attempt to move to an offensive position, pointing out the injustices the “establishment” have forced upon them. In a press release, the seven charge that the Chuck Wagon incidents “were provoked and aggravated by university administrators, student bureaucrats, local prosecutors,: and the state and local police hierarchies.” They say the primary purpose of their arrests “is to make other people afraid to speak out, afraid to take political action, afraid to challenge this society about the basic values and practices.” The seven are correct in asserting that their arrests have quieted dissent on the campus. The result has been panic. Student leftists who usually hold rallies at the slightest possible excuse are afraid to meet publicly to criticize the arrests. They fear they too will be identified and arrested. Although no more indictments had been made public, police are predicting many more arrests. One black student said his probation officer told him there would be as many as 300 indictments. There is some question as to whether more indictments really are in the offing or whether the police simply want to scare campus activists. The university administration has taken a hands-off position on the arrests. Both the Union board and the administration have been criticized by liberals for calling the police to the Chuck Wagon. It is seldom that outside law enforcement officers have entered the campus, except to direct traffic after football games. The Austin grand jury is now emphasizing the city’s right to police the campus. In an unprecedented statement, the jury pointed out that “all of the general and criminal laws of this state are in full force and effect on the university campus, and enforcement is vested concurrently in all law enforcement officers whose geographic area of responsibility includes the campus area.” The district attorney, who drew up the statement, added on his own, “The Houston In evaluating what happened in the 1969 Houston Mayoral election all trails seem to lead inevitably to the conclusion that Houston voters are extremely negative toward black candidates. The campaign and election are curiously paradoxical. The Texas Observer described Tony Proffitt and Hawkins Menefee [Nov. 21] the lack-luster of the campaign as “A Ho-Hum Race In Houston,” yet there was an unprecedented turnout of some 190,000 voters breaking a long-standing voting record which had been set in 1952 when the city elections were held at the same time as the presidential contest. The contenders for city hall’s top post, incumbent Mayor Louie Welch and State Rep. Curtis M. Graves, the only Negro in the six-man race, both stacked up Mr. Proffitt formerly was on the staff of Austin Cong. J. J. Pickle and worked on tbe Austin and Temple dailies. He was active in Houston mayoral campaign of Curtis Graves. Mr. Menefee, formerly on the staff of Houston State Rep. Rex Braun, now is associated with the Southwest Center for Urban Research at Houston. campus has always been a part of the Austin community and as such cannot become a sanctuary for lawbreakers.” Neither the faculty nor the administration seems disturbed by the arrests or the way the police handled the disturbances. The faculty refused to endorse a resolution condemning the use of outside police forces and instead decided to make a study of events leading up to the Chuck Wagon incidents. A number of university administrators said they are not inclined to interfere when outside law officials are dealing with a situation on the campus. “When you ask a professional to do a job, you leave it to him to do it,” President Norman Hackerman said. While legitimate dissent seems to have been inhibited for the time being at the University of Texas, incidents of vandalism are increasing at a disturbing rate. Seven fires have been reported in the Union Building since the Chuck Wagon incidents. Two fires have been discovered in the Main Building, and an abortive fire-bomb and ground glass were discovered on the AstroTurf in Memorial Stadium. Arson is indicated in most of the fires. K.N. impressive numbers of votes over the other four candidates. The third place candidate, Robert Nesmith, nevertheless cut into the Graves-Welch vote total, but three other candidates received a total of 2.10% of the city-wide vote total. Graves narrowly missed forcing Welch, who received 52.31% of the vote, into a runoff. On the other hand, Welch was so confident and secure in his bid for reelection that he refused to debate other candidates, and ran a low-keyed, polished campaign avoiding any discussion of the issues. The issues, themselves, were ill-defined; discussion of them seemed to be limited to politicians, campaign workers, and campaign hangers-on, and occasional radio talk shows. There was surprisingly little press coverage for a city that boasts two of the state’s largest daily newspapers and three television stations. Race was “ruled out” as an issue early in the campaign by a Houston Post editorial that supported a pledge by both Welch and Graves that black-versus-white politics had no place in Houston city elections. Viable and legitimate issues either were left un-discussed by the candidates or their exposure was thwarted by the news media. Anyway, most of the campaign rhetoric was lethargic and uninspiring. What makes the election and a post-mortem of it significant at all is how it December 19, 1969 7 Houston Postmortem