The Pine Needle (Kountze, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 12, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 26, 1964 Page: 7 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Rescuing Texas History, 2015 and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Lamar University.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1964
THE PINE-NEEDLE
A Letter to My Daughter
Margaret Carter
Reprinted from the TEXAS OBSERVER
Mrs. Margaret Carter, the worklady of
the loyal Democrats in Fort Worth, having
been invited to explain Texas Democratic
politics to her daughter, (toho was study-
ing political science in an out-of-state col-
lege,) wrote her a long, informal letter on
the subject as Mrs. Carter has herself, year
by year, understood it. Some friends read
the letter and made the Observer aware of
its existence, and Mrs. Carter has now con-
sented to its publication, with some re-
visions with the publication in mind. The
result, we think, is an intriguing, personal,
historically illuminating political memoir,
which is especially relevant now for per-
spective on the era that began when Lyn-
don Johnson became President.
Although the use of the Washington of-
fice of Vice President John Nance Garner
as a center for much effective planning to
undermine New Deal measures was evident
by 1936 and painfully obvious by 1940, a
riot developed in the 1940 state Democratic
convention over the proposal of a faction
led by Congressman Maury Maverick of
San Antonio to endorse Roosevelt, who re-
mained a popular idol in Texas, without
endorsing Garner. Most ordinary voters,
like many convention delegates, saw no
reason for refusing to endorse two men
who had diametrically opposed adminis-
trative records.
In 1944, with two contesting delegations
from Texas seated as one in uneasy proxi-
mity, Speaker Rayburn was made unavail-
able for the vice-presidential nomination
by the fact that he could not depend on the
support of the Texas delegation. That year
the more conservative faction in the dele-
gation rose and stalked out of the con-
vention hall before the session was over.
As the “no third term” group known as
“Texas Regulars,” they succeeded in keep-
ing the Texas delegation to the national
convention from supporting Roosevelt,
even after he no longer needed their con-
vention vote. The entire slate of electors
chosen in the Texas “president's” conven-
tion indicated their intention of following
the instruction of the convention that had
named them to refuse to follow the popular
vote if the Democrats carried Texas in the
upcoming general election. Two lawsuits
and one hard fought “governor’s” conven-
tion later, the electors were replaced with
a new slate committed to follow the popu-
lar vote.
The leaders of the almost impromptu
state convention action to save the 1944
electoral vote were Harry L. Seay of
Dallas, president of an insurance company
and former president of the State Fair of
Texas; William H. Kittrell of Dallas; Con-
gressman Wright Patman of Texarkana;
former speaker of the Texas House of
Representatives Robert W. Calvert; and
former Governor James V. Allred.
Seay and Kittrell were the incoming
chairman and secretary of the State Demo-
cratic Executive Committee. Having been
refused the files of their predecessors, they
undertook, without so much as a list of
newly elected Democratic county chairmen,
a skimpily financed, but highly successful
six weeks’ campaign for the national Demo-
cratic nominees.
The desperation in the clubs where Texas
Regulars gathered on the Wednesday after
the Tuesday after the first Monday in No-
vember was succinctly summarized by one
of them: “Gentlemen,” he announced, “yes-
terday the yokels discovered that they can
outvote us.”
In 1946, the Texas Regulars threatened
openly and seriously to lead a secession
movement unless Texas “tidelands” were
quitclaimed to the state government. That
same year an enterprising member of the
state executive committee made an un-
published tabulation which showed that
Texas delegations to the Democratic na-
tional convention had become completely
unrepresentative of the real opinions of
Texas citizens. The tabulation showed that
since 1924, no Texas delegation had sup-
ported, in the national convention, the
presidential candidate supported by Texas
voters the following November. In 1948,
the Texas Regulars became the States
Rights’ Party, mounting an active but un-
successful campaign for Thurmond and
Wright.
At the 1948 “president’s” convention,
Governor Beauford Jester announced that a
firm intention to support the national
Democratic nominees would be a prerequi-
site for inclusion in the delegation to the
national convention and the electoral col-
lege. His proposal was adopted by the con-
vention, but was simply not .taken serious-
ly. Again five of the electors had to be re-
placed at the September “governor’s” con-
vention, and delegations from urban coun-
ties, carrying signs that read, “Harry,
Henry, Dewey—Phooey!” were replaced by
contesting delegations. Again there was a
lawsuit involving, not electors, but mem-
bers of the Democratic Party’s own state
and county committees. The suit was won
by the loyal faction which had been seated
in the 1948 “governor’s” convention, and
Truman' carried the state in the general
election.
The customary deference to the personal
wishes of the governor at the biennial “gov-
ernor’s” convention had come to an end in
1944. In the “governor’s” convention that
year, Gov. Coke Stevenson, discussing the
question of delivering the state’s electoral
vote to the national candidates who won
the state’s popular vote, had non-com-
mittally observed, “I have friends <Jh both
sides.”
In 1946 and 1948 the question of follow-
ing the statutory requirement that sena-
torial district caucuses select their own
members of the state executive committee
had been insistently raised, buZ by 1950
Allan Shivers, who had become governor
gates to the national convention; tney ac-
tually believed the notation on the conven-
tion agenda that the incoming national
committeeman and national committee-
woman would be elected by the convention.
And, for a crowning impertinence, they
proposed to take responsibility' for the
coming presidential campaign away from
the state executive committee that con-
sisted largely of holdovers from the one
that had joined the Republicans in >1952,
and to elect persons of unquestioned loyalty
to the Democratic Party to replace them.
That this was a violation of custom no one
denied: it seemed to some that a breach of
custom was in order.
On the third point Rayburn and Johnson
were able, by a public and personal appeal,
to avert a rather unceremonious shift of
responsibility for the presidential campaign
to the hands of people who wanted it to
succeed. (Johnson’s timetable called for a
serious presidential campaign in 1960, not
in 1956.) On the first two points, however,
the organized yokels were able to insist.
The congressional leaders were not allowed
to handpick the members of the national
committee: the convention elected Skelton
and Mrs. Randolph. With the exception of
three individuals, district delegations to
the national convention were chosen by
their district caucuses; congressional cro-
nies were confined to the list of delegates
at large to the national convention.
So Johnson returned to Washington, an-
nouncing in a press conference at the
Washington airport that, having subdued
the ultraconservative wing of the Texas
party, he would next vanquish its liberal
wing. This he was to do.
But the democrats of
TEXAS were having their day. A smaller
than one-third minority of the supporters
of Speaker Rayburn’s Democratic Advisory
Council had been elected to the State Demo-
cratic Executive Committee at the stolen
“governor’s” convention in 1956. Yet the
entire state committee had been certified
“loyal” by the retiring chairman of the
D.A.C., Byron Skelton, who had been
elected national committeeman with D.A.C.
support. His pronouncement was remark-
able because one of the two district caucus
nominees (out of a total of 62) who had
been stricken from the state committee by
gubernatorial veto, with the express ap-
proval of Rayburn and Johnson, was Mrs.
Voigt of San Antonio, who had served with
Skelton as secretary of the D.A.C. and its
most effective traveling organizer. (Texas
Democrats are conspicuously ungrateful to
their successful secretaries.)
Byron Abernethy was a member of the
platform committee at the stolen “gov-
ernor’s” convention in September, 1956.
Toward the end of a long day he sought
and obtained recognition, probably because
he was not known to the officers of the
convention. He delivered in a monotone an
explicit and scathing account of what the
govemor-nominate and the two most in-
fluential members of the Texas congres-
sional delegation had that day done to the
duly chosen representatives of the Demo-
crats of Texas in convention assembled.
His style was so impersonal, and his ex-
temporaneous analysis so compelling, that
the surprised and scattered delegates who
heard it sat glued to their chairs. Not one
of the armed guards who had been brought
in as assistant sergeants-at-arms so much
as moved in the direction of cutting off the
microphone. For all the guards could tell,
Abernethy was a respected adviser to the
convention management. For a brief mo-
ment he was just that. Then the chairman
came to life and adjourned the convention.
There is no text of that indictment. The
fact that it is lost to history is probably
the reason why it did not lose Dr. Aber-
nethy his professorship at Texas Techno- .
logical College, in Lubbock, at the time.
In May, 1957, members of the group who
had produced Johnson’s loyal delegation to
the national convention the year before
gathered in Austin, 1,500 strong, to con-
tinue the work of organizing Texas Demo-
crats. Abemethy’s moderate, forward-
looking, repetitious—and recorded—key-
note speech then to the D.O.T.' appears to
have cost him his job, since at their subse-
quent meeting, the Shivers-appointed
regents voted not to renew his contract.
The 1957 organizing session of the Demo-
crats of Texas adopted a constitution and
elected Mrs. Randolph, the new national
committeewoman, their chairman, Alex.
Dickie—president of the Texas Farmers*
Union — their vice-chairman, and Fath
their secretary. Their effectiveness was at-
tested to by the 1957 victory of Rdlpfc/Ya^-
borough in the special election to fill the
vacancy in the United States Senate cre-
ated by Senator Price Daniel’s election as
governor, followed by Yarborough’s regu-
lar primary victory in 1958, the adoption
of a watered-down party registration bill
by the state legislature in 1959, and the
vigorous campaign of the State Democratic
Executive Committee agdinst the D.O.T.
throughout the period of its existence.
The State Democratic Executive Com-
mittee set up a headquarters in charge of
Jake Pickle. The. state committee had
forces. The stale convention was won with never before operated an interim head*
the organized strength of dependable quarters. The cost of this one was about
Democrats, and a' successful organized equal to Texas’, quota for the expense of
campaign was made to send to the Demo- the Democratic National Committee. That
cratic national convention a delegation quota went unpaid while Pickle waged con-
composed entirely of Defnocrats who would tinuous propaganda warfare against the
return to Texas and support the nominees Democrats of Texas. No single influence
of that convention. was more helpful in maintaining the
The incentive for achieving this objective solidarity of the D.O.T.
after Beauford Jester’s death early in his
second term, grimly returned the Texas
Democratic Party machinery to his firm
personal control. In 1952, at the “gover-
nor’s” convention, Shivers delivered that
machinery openly and formally to the
Eisenhower campaign. That was the day.
Loyal Democrats, who had taken a contest-
ing delegation led by Maury Maverick to
the Democratic national convention to pre-
dict that the “regular” delegation would
do just this, watched their victorious
Democratic rivals incorporated into the Re-
publican campaign organization. So did ob-
servers from other states, who were also
watching Senator Lyndon Johnson’s grow-
ing presidential ambition.
T O FILL THE VACUUM in of-
ficial Texas Democratic leadership, Speak-
er Sam Rayburn came to Dallas to head the
presidential campaign. Liberals and labor
leaders whom he had systematically snub-
bed for years came to his aid with such
organized support as could be hurriedly
assembled, but he received few four-figure
contributions.
The census records alone made an ab-
surdity of any effort to win the national
election in 1952 by addressing the Texas
campaign to farmers and country mer-
chants. Yet precisely that strategy was
followed by the Democrats, under the well-
intentioned personal leadership of Speaker
Rayburn, who represented the smallest of
the four congressional districts in Texas
with shrinking populations.
Temporarily impressed with the need for
organization, Rayburn agreed to sponsor a
continuing operation after election day.
That day came and passed; Texas had gone
Republican. In January, 1953, when the
files for a loyal Democratic Party opera-
tion were still be.ng withheld from those
who wanted to get it started, Rayburn was
visited in Washington by spokesmen for
the county managers to whom the files
had been promised. He said the files would
be available when he was convinced that
organization would be timely; that tact
and judgment must be used to win over
influential persons who had left the party;
and that organizing effort would not suc-
ceed until he was ready to sponsor it.
Then began the organizing effort, with-
out Rayburn. In May, 1953, Creekmore
Fath of Austin, who had served on the
staff of the Democratic National Com-
mittee; D. Roy Harrington, then secretary
of the Texas C.I.O.; Minnie Fisher Cun-
ningham of New Waverly, dean of Texas
rural liberals; Walter Hall, Galveston
County banker; plaintiffs’ lawyers Frank-
lin Jones of Marshall, Edwin Smith of
Houston, and Jack Carter of Fort Worth;
labor lawyers Robert Eckhardt of Houston
and Otto Mullinax and L.N.D. Wells, Jr.,
both of Dallas; former congressman Mave-
rick of San Antonio; union staff members
Ross* Mathevtfs and Paul Gray, of Fort
Worth and Don Ellinger of Dallas; and
determined women like Frankie Randolph
of Houston, Jean Lee of Austin, and Kath-
leen Voigt of San Antonio gathered the
faithful from the Stevenson campaign for
a weekend session at Buchanan Dam, a Hill
County conservation and hydroelectric
power project that had been sponsored by
a young congressman named Lyndon John-
son and named for the congressman he
had served as secretary.
An astonishing number of seasoned cam-
paigners checked into the fishing camps
that dot the surrounding hills and gathered
in the lodge at the damsite. There was a
respectable sprinkling of elected officials.
Byron Skelton of Temple; Lillian Collier,
a sophisticated Central Texas cotton farm-
er; and Fath were elected officers of the
Democratic Organizing Committee (the
“DOC”).
Within a year sufficient progress had
been made in almost all the state’s .31
senatorial districts to leave Speaker Ray-
burn feeling like a leader whose followers
had surged ahead of him. He put himself
at the head of the column by directing the
board to transform the organization into
the Democratic Advisory Council, (the
DAC,) to which additions were to be made
by appointment of the Democratic national
chairman, after clearance, it was under-
stood, with Speaker Rayburn. This change
was effected at a little publicized meeting
at Skelton’s cottage on the Nolan River
near Salado, in Central Texas. All the ex-
isting leaders were confirmed except Fath,
who was replaced by Mrs. Voigt. (Fath’s
senatorial district promptly resubmitted
his name as their representative on the
executive committee of the council.) For
about a year no significant organizing
activity took place at the state level.
But Frankie Randolph went right on or-
ganizing Houston. Other urban counties
tried to follow the example of her Harris
County Democrats. Lyndon Johnson, con-
vinced that his presidential ambitions
would never be taken seriously until he had
attended at least one national convention
in the company of loyal Texas Democrats,
joined Speaker Rayburn as a standard
bearer for the campaign to win the 1956
“president’s” qpnvention from the Shivers
was Johnson’s; the organization was not.
In 1956, the shift of population to the
cities had gone even further. Out of a
In 1958 the principal speaker for the
annual D.O.T. meeting was Glen Anderson,
an organizer of the Democratic Clubs in
Democratic comity chairman. The state
group responded to a call from the state
executive committee for help in raising the
quota for the national committee, with the
state committee sharing in the proceeds,
by offering to send contributions directly
to the national committee. The slogan for
this policy was “Dollars for Democrats, but
not a nickel for Pickle.”
In 1959 the D.O.T. adopted as its plat-
form the report of the 1956 state Demo-
cratic convention’s platform committee,
the one Dr. Abernethy had helped to write.
The party convention whose platform com-
mittee had produced it had torn it to
shreds, following recommendations from a
minority of the committee, .after the cre-
dentials committee had rigged the conven-
tion roll.
The 1960 D.O.T. convention readopted
the precise wording of the resolution on
support of national nominees which Skel-
ton had prepared and Johnson had sup-
ported when he needed a loyal delegation
to the national convention in 1956. Four
years later, needing the help of some who
were wavering and some who were even
hostile to the national Democratic Party,
Johnson found the 1956 resolution obnoxi-
ous. D.O.T. delegates to the 1960 “presi-
dent’s” convention stubbornly insisted on
a loyalty affirmation which would have a
binding effect on presidential electors.
(Shades of every state convention dispute
since 19441) But Johnson’s unbiquitous
personal staff, with much to offer, both
rewards and reprisals, engineered the de-
fection of many sad and ordinarily respon
sible Democrats. During the 24 hours be-
fore the “president’s” convention, the
young men in charge of the key San An-
tonio delegation, the Texas A.F.L.-C.I.O.,
and even the Texas Farmers’ Union joined
the virtually unanimous majority for
L. B. J., without securing adequate com-
mitments to the nominees of the Los
Angeles convention.
Through public theft of the 1956 gover-
nor’s convention in a clumsily handled re-
port on credentials; terminating the 1958
convention in disorder before its work was
finished; and combining appeals to cupid-
ity with threats of retaliation to dominate
the 1960 presidential convention, the group
whose survivors may now be called Estab-
lishment Democrats had dispersed the ef-
fective leadership of the Democrats of Tex-
as, successor to the Democratic Advisory
Committee.
Johnson’s staff did not
produce this crushing defeat for the D.O.T.
without encouraging the resurgence of
noisily anti - Johnson ultraconservatives
who would avoid the label Democrat in
any situation but a one-party structure.
Their information comes from the publica-
tions of Merwin K. Hart’s National Eco-
nomic Council, Edward Rumely’s Com-
mittee for Constitutional Government, and
Samuel Pettingill’s Christian Americans.
They have read Walter Steele’s- National
Republic and Gerald L. K. Smith’s The
Cross and the Flag, plus the homegrown
homilies of Dan Smoot’s Facts Forum
News and Ida Darden’s Southern Conserva-
tive. Their opinions are borrowed from
Upton Close, Fulton Lewis, Jr., Clarence
Manion, and “Doc” Benson of Harding
College at Searcy, Arkansas. (If it is ob-
jected that some of the foregoing propa-
gandists are currently inactive, so are the
minds of. the vocal- convention delegates
whose views they have influenced.) Their
favorite local listening is H. L. Hunt’s “Life
Line.”
The true allegiance of a majority of the
Houston delegation to the state Democratic
convention in September, 1960, and of large
numbers in the Dallas and Fort Worth dele-
gations, was to the Texas Manufacturers’
Association, the Texas Medical Society, and
the Constitution Party; to such specialized
propaganda groups as Americans for
Constitutional Action, Freedom in Action,
Pro-America, the Minute Women, the John
Birch Society, and the White Citizens’
Council; in short, to the antebellum nine-
teenth century. Between elections they
concern themselves with the textbooks used
in the public schools. Ultraconservative
pronouncements are promoted as “Ameri-
canism,” “anticommunism,” and “economic
understanding.” Their contemporary idols
are the late Senator Joseph McCarthy,
whose friendship with Dallas financier
Clint Murchison was well known; and Re-
publican Senator Barry Goldwater.
The same delegates who had vowed in
May to go “All the Way with L.B.J.” met
in September, after the nomination of Ken-
nedy and Johnson. Although they replaced
two disloyal electors, they denounced the
national platform and refused to endorse
either of the national nominees. Many
worked during the presidential campaign
under Shivers’ direction as “Democrats for
Nixon and Lodge.” Many others sat the
campaign out. (To be concluded)
Income Tax
Facts
total of 254 counties, a majority of the poll California, now lieutenant governor of that
tax payers lived 'in the largest thirteen, state. The Texas organization was encour-
Raybum and Johnson had not reckoned aged by the conspicuous success of the
with the potential in organized strength. Hanftte County Democrats iri winning pri-
The organized upstarts not only insisted mary victories for all but one of their
on having each district name its own dele- candidates, from United States senator £0
INTEREST
You must include in your return
any interest you received or which was
credited to your account (whether en-
tered in your passbook or not) and
can be withdrawn by you. All inter-
est on bonds, debentures, notes, sav-
ings accounts, or loans is .taxable,
except on State and municipal bonds
and securities.
If you own United States Savings
or War bonds, the gradual increase in
value of each bond is considered in-
terest, but you need not report it in
your tax return until you cash the
bond or until the year of final matu-
rity, whichever is earlier. However,
you may at any tune elect to report
each year the annual increase in value,
but if you do so you must report in
the first year the entire increase to
date on all such bonds and must con-
tinue to report the annual increase
each year.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Stect
A SINCERE AND DEDICATED DEMOCRAT
PAGE SEVEN
FUENTES
n
sliff
'-m.
Jr.
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY - MAY 2, 1964
“I PLEDGE A VIGOROUS ADMINISTRATION
DEDICATED TO PUBLIC SERVICE"
Dedicated ubEral
PARTY HUMAN RIGHTS
g£llfl
Sail
M0
DERATE
TAXATION
ConseRvATsve
ECONOMICS
HOSPITAL Ad Paidfor b^ustodninTanDTreTatiC Club'
CHARTS march
ADMITTED;
Terry Granger, Silsbee
Amos Laird, Kountze
Bobby Joe Westlerbrook, Silsbe
J, ,C. Johnson, Kountze
Fl&yd A. Jenkins, Fred
Leroy Mitchell, Buna
Rachel Howell, S^sbee
Mary Ellen Allen, Silsbee
Ethel Robinson, Kountze
Billy J. Harvill, Silsbee
James Hutto, Fred
Jo Ann Lacy, Kountze
Biela Ewing, Silsbee
Frankie Mae Williamson, Silsl
Trudy Totten, Buna
Annie Chiles, Silsbee
Nancy Brown, Kountze
ElberryW. Creel, Silsbee
Glenda Margan, Sour Lake
Berdie Hoffpower, Sour Lake
W. J. Kelly, Village Mills
Gladys Lindsey, .Winnie
Marvis Doucette, Saratoga
Zachariah Davis, Kountze
Sherrill Olan Jones, Silsbee
George Kennedy, Silsbee
Shirley Gilbert, Buna
Donald D, Kendrick, Silsbee
Jessie L. Williams, Kountze
Edith Whitehead, Vidor
Dorothy Riley, Kountze
Georgia Overstreet, Kountze
Onedia Garcia, Kountze
B. T, Denny, Sour Lake
Ernest Theriot, Kountze
R. F, Cooley, Silsbee
Verra Mae Jerrell, Buna
Thad Douglas Burnett, Saratoga
Ora Simmons, Sour Lake
Mary O'Neil, Kountze
Barbara Luther, Silsbee
Margie Rowland, Silsbee
Jewel Massey, Sour Lake
James Hutto, Fred
Andra Hare, Kountze
Dallas Collier, Silsbee
DISMISSED;
J, C. Johnson
Jimmie Jordan
Ethel Robinson ,
Cliffton Caraway
Frankie Mae Williamson
Tracy Carson
Trudy Totten
Annie Chiles
Mildred Flowers
Sherrill Jones (expired)
Gladys Lindsey
Billy Harrill
James Hutto
Olida Carrier
Bobby Joe Westlerbrook,
Edith Whitehead
Jessie Williams
tylarvis Doucette
W, J, Kelly (expired)
Jo Ann Lacy
Joe L. Wilson
Vera Mae Jarrell
BIRTHS;
Mr, and Mrs, Chester Hobson
Jarrell, Buna, Son, Keith Ed-
ward Jarrell, 81bs, 13 oz,, 3-
17-64. 6*30 p.m,
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Robert
Qaudio, Silsbee, Son, Robert
MarkGaudio, 71bs. 15oz., 3-
10-64. 10;04 p.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnny Ray
Burk, Kountze, Daughter, Ruby
Ann Burk, 81bs. 4 1j2 oz., 3-
10-64., 4;33p.m.
Mr. and Mrs. James Thomas
Hobbs, Silsbee, Son, James
Thomas Hobbs, Jr., 91bs. 9oz.
3-10-64, 12;05p. m.
Mr, and Mrs. Frank Carlton
Drake, Buna, Daughter, Debra
Ruth Drake, 81bs. 2oz., 3-10-
64., 9; 00 a.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Odies Harold
Vines, Silsbee, Son, Patrick
Allen Vines, 61bs. 1AI/2 oz,
3-10-64,, 10;55 a.m.
Mr. and Mrs. Gene Edward
Holleyfield, Silsbee, Son, Andy
Gene Holleyfield, 81bs. 1 oz.,
3-11-64, 8;17 a. m.
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Taylor
Smith, Kirbyville, Daughter,
Connie Smith, 51bs, 71/2 oz.
3-11-64, 3:47 a.m.
MONTH
• Nothing To Buy! Simply
register in our store. You
may win a Ford Falcon be-
ing GIVEN AWAY during
March.
YOU COULD BE THE WINNER
OF A NEW FORD FALCON!
Your Best Washer Buy
MAYTAG
Big Capacity Automatic
Model A-20.Q: ~ '
features that make
your vyashday easier
• Unsurpassed Big Load capacity
with Lint Remover Tub • Zinc
Coated Cabinet protected against
rust • Safety Lid stops action in
seconds • Swirlaway Draining • Hot
or Warm wash water • Maytag Agi-
tato* Action _
PER
7 c month ,
>l/./3 ONLY
MAYTAG
!!’■: v "i.hibSe automatics
This time insist on dependability - insist on MAYTAG!
OVERSTREET
BUTANE SERVICE
YOUR
Re-Elect
EMMETT
LACK
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
19th District
A MATURE, EXPERIENCED LAWMAKER
A TRIED AND PROVEN DEMOCRAT
SUBJECT TO ACTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY
Re-Elect LACK
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE
FOR EXPERIENCE
Emmett Lack has served in both
the 57th and 58th Legislatures.
• Two Regular Sessions
• 3 Special Sessions
Emmett Lack is now serving his
second term as a member of these
important House Committees:
• Highways and Roads
• Labor
• Agriculture
Emmett Lack is now vice-chairman
of the Preparedness Sub-Commit-
tee. Military and Veterans Affairs.
Was active member of the Rules
and Public Lands and Buildings
Committee^ in 57th Legislature.
Let’s Back LACK
KOI! ANOTHER TERM
HE IS DOING A GOOD JOB!
EMMETT LACK
Representing Hardin, Polk and
San Jacinto Counties
Paid for by Emmett Lack
“ YARBOROUGH
FOR
GOVERNOR
New Day for Texas
DON YARBOROUGH'S
1st IN PERSONAL INCOME
1st IN ECONOMIC GROWTH
1st IN OLD AGE ASSISTANCE
1st IN EDUCATION
Help Save Our Natural Resources
Ad paid for by Hardin County Democratic Club
Houston Thompson, Pres.
7
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Thompson, Houston. The Pine Needle (Kountze, Tex.), Vol. 1, No. 12, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 26, 1964, newspaper, March 26, 1964; Kountze, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth847636/m1/7/?rotate=270: accessed July 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Lamar University.