Page 6


October 5, 1973 23 “A tradition of honesty, accuracy, fairness, and tireless: investigation has enabled the Texas Observer to occupy a: : unique place in Texas journalism.” The Adversaries:: : Politics and The Press, Bill Rivers, ed. \(Beacon Press, “The always impious Texas Observer . . . We recommend it.” I. F. Stone’s Bi-Weekly, May 31, 1971: “One of the best publications in the country remains the Texas Observer.” Pete Hamill, The New York Post,. Dec. 18, 1969 : “The Observer keeps coming out with serious and : thorough news of this critically important state which people inside and out can’t get elsewhere.” Nicholas: von Hoffman, The Washington Post, Sep. 10, 1971 “The Observer is the conscience of the political: community in Texas.” Andrew Kopkind, The New: : Republic, Nov. 20, 1965 “l think the Observer ranks with The Progressive as one: : of the two most useful papers in the United States.” : John Kenneth Galbraith, Sep. 16, 1970 [ One Year $ 8.40 [ I Two Years $14.70 [ I Three Years $19.95 \(Non-Texas addresses exempt from 5% sales tax in reporting to raise some question concerning Mr. Denton’s intentions and motives in this matter. My impression is that Mr. Denton is not really concerned with mental health care in this state, but rather has found a self-serving cause that assures him of ready headlines at the expense of the troubled children of this state. Concerning Mr. Katz’ suggestion of higher office, I tremble to ponder the future of liberal politics in Texas if it is entrusted to the leadership of wolves in sheepskins such as men like Rep. Lane Denton. Paul Furrh, Jr., 5012 Ratama, Houston, Tex. 77017. A bank plan Not long ago, the Constitutional Revision Commission was going round and round on whether or not to retain the present ban on branch banking in our state constitution, taking both positions at different times. I have thought about the pros and cons of this matter, and it seems to me that the chief argument in favor of branch banking is simply that one bank cannot generate enough capital to make the size of loan that modern business requires, that one-branch banks are really too small effectively to serve the business community. On the other hand, the argument against branch banking is that giant monopolies will lock up whole cities as their exclusive banking domain, as the Bank of America has in California. It seems to me, however, that we need not .adopt an all or nothing position in the constitution, but could have the best of both worlds. If our constitution only banned banks from having more than one branch in any single county, then we could have the large aggregations of capital necessary without having the ensuing monopoly problems, that is, we could easily have ten different banks, each with a branch in Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. Furthermore, if the present branch-banking ban is not modified, banks will continue to evade the constitutional provision by setting up bank holding companies. To present this, the state constitution’s ban on more than one branch in any country ought to be extended to cover brother-sister banks controlled by the same holding company. Colin K. Kaufman, P.O. Box 2446, Corpus Christi, Tex. 78402. Wrong again Since that part of “Democratic Nitty-Gritty” concerns facts, I’m sure you will want to correct the non-fact that a Dr. Glen Jones teaches political science here. He does not, never has, and I don’t know THE TEXAS OBSERVER “Probably as close as any publication in America to the : high European standard of informed reportage and commentary.” The South and the Nation by Pat: Name Street City & State Zip [ ] Check encl.; [ Bill me 1600 WEST 7 AUSTI N, TEXAS 78701