LUBBOCK COTJKTT AHD TEXAS POLITICS, 1934-1956

by RONALD ALBERT AVERB), B.A. A THESIS iir

GOVERNMENT Submitted to the Grraduate Faculty of Texas Technological College in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OP ARTS

Approved

Accepted

Dean of the Graduate School

August, 1958 TO trm A. PHILLIPS Qentleaaan, Scholar, Adviser and Friend ACraOITLEDGEMENT

Apprsolation is grateftilly aolcnowledged to Professor William B. Oden for his direotlon of this thesis and to the othsr members of my coimlttee. Professors J. William Davis and S. S« MoSayt for their helpful criticism and to the staff of i3iB Dspairtment of Crovemment for their assistance and enoouragement. INlHaDUCTIOM

TBSBBLB politlos have always proved to be interesting and unpredictable. Thin study has covered a period in those politics froift 193^ to 1936 in Liibbook County. Lubbock County polities have also proved to be very interesting. Ihe gabematorial, senatorial^ and congressional races in this period were studied in the light of what happened in Lubbock County in the JiOy and August Primaries.^ Campaigns over the state were not analyzed except when necessary to tie in the looal phase of the mce with the over-all cam­ paign. As ncmination in either of the two summer primaries ia tantamount to election in TBX&B, very little emphasis was given to the general or Novesaber elections in the guberna­ torial^ senatorial^ and congressional races. The presidential campaii^iis and elections in the 193^- 1956 period were also studied in view of what transpired in Lubbock County. The looal interest which those campaigns genemted was also studied. Ih all the races stiidied, the

^ Texas Elections laws require that a candidate receive a najcxrity of votes cast in the Democratic Primary to be nominated for office. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast in the first primary, the two leading candidates campaign in a runoff primary and the winner re- oeives the nomination. Ihe first primary is held on the fourth Saturday in July, and the aecond or runoff primary is held on the fourth Saturday in August.

IV vote in Lubbock County was compared with that of the re­ mainder of the state. Faoti(»)alism in Texas politics, state and looal, was studied to see if Lubbock voters consistently supported oamlidates of any faction. The eampaigns and oampai^i methods of the Texas factions were also studied. Ite cam- pai0is were observed individually because the warring factions tended to sake the races independent of each other.

Factional tickets embracing all offices are unlaiown to Texas primary polities. Ohe race for each office or place tends to be an isolated and more or less independent matter. Greatest interest is shown in the divisions of factions of the party that have developed in connection with thB ncHDination and election of a Presidential ticket.^

There were no Joint campaigns in the state because the oampaigna were run independently of each other. "Cam­ paigns for (Governor steer scrupulously clear of formal oonnecticms with other state races and races for federal and looal offices. "3 issues in a senatorial race usually did not influence a gubernatorial race, ccxigressional race, or presidential contest.

^ 0. Douglas lyeeks. Texas One«»Barty Politics In 1956 (Austin t metitute of Public Affairs, the Uhiveriity orrexas, 1957)* P. 3^. 3 V. 0. Key Jr. Southern Politics m State and nation (New York: Alfred A. Enopf, 19*^9),"?. 404. vi TbB choices of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, as evidenced by its editorial support, were also studied. The Lubbock AvBlanche-Joumal was organized in IS^T* Morning and Sunday editions were published. An evening edition was begun in 19^8. m 1956, Parker Prouty was President of the newspaper, Charles A. (hxy was Editor and Publisher, and Charles W. Ratliff was Associate Editor. Comparisons of the Lubbock County vote and the counties bordering Lubbock, which comprise the bulk of the circulation area of the paper, were made to see to what extent the newspaper may have in- fltienoed public opinion in the mrious races. Even with the newspaper's part in the eampaigne, it v^s necessary to see if the voters went to the polls on election day to support scmie well qmlified contestant or to vote against BomB candidate, as has too often been the case in Texas. This was difficult to determine since a vote for candidate A registered the same as a vote against candidate B. Too, the votes had to be studied to see if a vote might have ^^h for or against the Avalanche-Journal. The files of the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal were the eource of most of the material concerning political cam*- jAigns in Lubbock County. The minutes and records of the pemooratie Barty of Lubbock County also proved quite useful. TABLE OP OQNTSNTS

Page INTRODtlOTION iv

Chester !• LTIBBOCK COTJBTT, TEXAS 1 II. THE GOTERNATORIAL ELECT IONS 4 III. THE SENATORIAL ELECTIONS 66 rv. THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS, NINETEENTH 9? CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT V. THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 113 VI. THE EDITORIAL POLICY OF TBE LUBBOCK 133 AYALANCH&"JOTIRNAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18? AP5CTDIX 185 CHAPTER I LUBBOCK AND LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS

Lubbock Co\mty, Texas, has an area of 892 square miles and is looated on the High Plains of Texas. It was created in 1876, and organized In 1891, from Baylor County. The county and the city were both named for Colonel Tom S. Lubbook, organizer of a Southern force in the Civil War called Terry's Texas Rangers. The county's population in 1930 waB 39,104, and that of the city ?0,5?0. In July, 1956, the Chamber of Commerce estimated the county population at 163,138, and the city's at 132,634» The city witnessed one of the most rs^id growths of any city of coiiQ)arable sise in the United States during the 1920-1955 period.^ The city is the largest in the ooimty and the largest metropolitan city in the Hi^ Plains section of Texas. In 1950, with a county population of 101,048, and a city population of 71,747, the population breakdown

L^^ Sga? Aliff^nac, 19?6^^7 (Dallas? A. H. Belo Corporation, 1957;, p. 673. Hereafter cited as TJ^ Texas

^ Ibid.. 1936, p. 4?8. ' The Lubbock Evening Journal. July 11, 1956. ^ The tej^ Almanac. 1956«*57. p. 673* according to residence listed 76^ of the population as inrban, 1?,4^ as nonfarm nnral, and 11.6^ farm rural. At the same time, the racial division of the population showed that 87*85^ of the people were Anglo American, 7.3jS Negro and 4«49^ Latin American. In the fall of each year there are large numbers of Latin American farm workers, mostly braoeros. who are in Lubbock for the harvest season only. Agriculture is the main industry of the county. I Lubbock County is the top ranking cotton producing coxxnty in the United States and the city is the third raziking in-» : land cotton market in the world. While ootton is the basic crop in the county, grain sori^ums, wheat, soybeans, and I truck crops of onions, potatoes and tomatoes are also pro* duced o(»neroially. ^ In 1956 there were about 188 industrial plants in 1 the city of lubbock aiid thr.e hundr-jd and fifty .hol.eal. I and Jobbing hotxses. The working force ws^ sli^tly under I fifty thousand. Retail sales had reached Sl75,079,OO0, and bank deposits had reached $194,6^5,000. Wages had also I reached an all time high of t54,095,924* Looated in Lubbock, 'The Hub of the Plains, * is Texas Teohnological College, second largest state college !in Texas. Also looated in Lubbock is MdKenzie State Park,

5 The TBtXMB Almanac. 1956-57. p. 673. ^ Ibid. Reese 4ir Force Base is looated a few miles west of the city.

The number of people participating in Primary elec­ tions in the county increased steadily from 5,542 in 1930, to 19,954 in 1956.*^ The vote increased in the general elections from 1,373 in 1930 to ?5,576, althou^ a record 27,835 votes were cast in 1952.® The population increase from 1930 to 1956 was 553.65f»; the voting increase for the same period in the Democratic Primary was 260.05^'. The voting increase in the same period for the November votes compared to the record vote in 1952 was an astonishing 1,927.31^. The population gain was great in this period, but the voting gain, percentagewise, was even greater.

griiaary Election Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party. Lubbook. Texas, 1222 JBS 32S^ o Election Returns. Office of Jhg County Clerk. Lubbock. Texas. Tg^remTlgftr^ ** -^ -'"*'" CHAPTER II THE GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS

The gubernatorial elections in Texas usually interest­ ed the voters of the state more than any other race. More votes were cast for Governor in the primaries than in any other contest. Custom in the state has allowed a victorious candidate two terms with few exceptions. Nomination in the primary virtually meant election as the November elections were not seriously contested by the Republicans except for the formal nomination of a candidate to oppose the Demo­ cratic nominee on the ballot. No cangjaign for the governorship was ever an easy race except for possibly a few incumbents seeking a second term. Bitter political enemies took to the highwajrs and byways to blast euxd ridicule their opponents. Perhaps the bitter­ est campaign for governor in the history of state politics was that of 1946 between Beauford Jester and Dr. Homer F. Rainey, although the race between Allen iShiverb and Ralph Yarborou^ in 1954 was also a bitter battle.

The Election of 1934

Miriam A. Ferguson defeated incumbent Governor Ross Sterling in 1932 to win the second term she had sou^t on previous occasions. She was not a candidate for re-election in 1934 and seven men announced for the office. They were James V. Allred, Attorney General of Texas, of Wichita Falls; Tom Hunter of Wichita Palls; CO. McDonald, also of Wichita Falls; State Senator Clint Small of Amarillo; Maury Hu^es of Dallas; Lt. Governor Edgar Witt of Waco; and Edward K. Russell of Detroit, Texas. All seven candidates visited Lubbock. James E. Ferguson also visited the city. Hunter, an independent oil man, had run a strong third for governor in 1932, and Small hsui done the same in the 1930 contest. This was the first campaign in many years that had no Ferguson or ex-governor as a candidate althou^ McDonald was si;Q)ported by the Fergusons. There was a definite lack of issues in the 1934 con­ test and, as a result, a great deal of di:?)lication in the candidates' platforms. Interest in Lubbock and over the state developed slowly becaiise people were more concerned with the depression than with politics. C. C. McDonald was the first candidate to visit Lubbock. He came to the city in May and spoke in the dis­ trict courtroom. McDonald emphasij^ed that he would cooper­ ate fully with President Franklin Roosevelt on the national level. He outlined part of his platform concerning more assistance to the schools of the state, a program to pro­ tect bank savings and advocated a rigid economy in state government. No mention was made regarding the sir.e of his audience, but the story of the meeting stated that the 6 grot^ was very attentive to McDonald's comments.-^ May 31, 1934, fOTmd Maury Hu^es of Dallas caii5)aign- ing in Lubbock. He stressed his program of support of public education with special emphasis on 8\:q?port for Texas Tech. He also praised Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Mr. Phil Overton of Lubbock was to be the leader of the Hughes campaign for the South Plains.^ The next candidate to visit Lubbock was James V. Allred, the youngest aspirant in the race. Allred spoke to a crowd estimated at 3,300 people.^ He attacked some of his opponents in his talk and discussed his platform in a speech of one horn:* and forty-five minutes. He was especially con­ cerned with the deficit in the State Treasury. A.llred was definitely in favor of a state law enforcement commission. Clint Small brou^t his can5)aign to Lubbock on June 26. His speech of one hotn* was delivered to a crowd esti­ mated at 4,500 or five thousand persons.^ Small claimed that law enforcement was a main issue in the can^aign. He advocated a state police to work with loceil law officers.

The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. May 23, 1934. " The Lubbock Evening Journal. June 1, igM. The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. June 6, 1934. ^ Ibid. ^ Ibid.. June 27, 1934. He also wanted a more restrictive pardoning policy and eccmomy in government. He warned, however, that econcmiy in state government should not be obtained at the expense of the ediicational program. Tcmi Hunter, described in his advertisements as the "Friend of the Plain People," came to the city a few days later and spoke to about 1,300 people.' Hunter made several critical remarks concerning Allred and talked to the crowd about his platform with special emphasis on his plans for economic recovery. "We must restore our state government to the plain people for their interest and contentanent through a political recovery at the polls so that we may then, together, accomplish an ecc»iomic recovery in this state. "^ Edward K. Russell, in Lubbock July 11, condemned his opponents as "professionals."^ A few days later, he with- 10 drew frcmi the race. Edgar Witt approached the Lubbock electorate with the argument that he deserved a promotion to the office of

^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 27, 1934. "^ Ibid., June 29, 1934. 8 Ibid. ^ Ibid., July 12, 1934. ^0 Ibid., July 19, 1934. 8 IGovemor. He cited his work as Lt. Governor and was criti­ cal of his opponents without mentioning any names."^"^ Perhaps the most colorfva of all Texas campaieners Itfas James E. "Jim" Ferguson, who appeared in Lubbock in ftupport of C. C. McDonald. Most of Ferguson's talk was a tirade directed against Allred and Hunter. He claimed HcDonald was the best man in the race and told the crowd that Clint Small had about as much chance of winning "as one pt you boys has being the Pope of Rcaae."^ Large advert!secisnts appeared in the local paper for )iunter and Snail prior to the elction. Hunter's advertise­ ment gave his backgrovind and sevez^l reasons why he should be elected. It also stated that Big Business was seeking )iis defeat and urged the independent merchants to stay with tlunter. 13 Small's large pictured advertisement stressed his record in the State Senate and made a special appeal to West iTexans. "If West Tesoas will vote for Clint Small, we will elect him Ctovemor. A vote for Clint Small is a vote for 14 Vest Texas."

^^ Tfee Lubbock Morning Amlanohe, July 24, 1934. ^^ Ibid. ^^ IMd., July 27, 1934. ^^ Ibid. The results of the July Primary in Lubbock County and the state were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBBOCK-^^ STATK"'"^ ALLRED 2,312 297,656 SMALL 2,312 124,206 HUNTER 1,362 241,339 MCDONALD 1,307 206,007 OTHERS 724 124,803

Allred carried 29.01^ of the Lubbock vote and 29.94ff. of the state vote. Small's percentage was much hi^er in Lubbock than it was over the state. McDonald and Hunter both had higher percentages over the state than in Lubbock. The runoff contest between Allred and Hunter was a heated one. Both men caaipaigned over the state. Hunter was the first to visit Lubbock. He described himself as 'The Economy Candidate," and the 'Candidate of the Plain 17 People. ' ' He assailed the trusts, chain stores, and Big Business in general, maintaining that monopoly and trust control were the main issues of the race.^^

Rgcord of Primary Election Retigne. Lubbock Democratic I^arty.jCubbock. Texas. 1934* Hereafter cited as Election Returns. Lubbock Democratic Party and year. The Texas Almanac. 1936 (Dallas! A.. H. Belo Corporation, 1935), p. 473. Hereafter cited as The Texas Almanac and year. The Lubbook Morning Avalanche. August 9, 1934. ^® Ibid. 10 Allred came to Lubbock and spoke to a crowd of two thousand.^^ He described "Hitler Hunter" as an oil man with "visicms of power.'*^^ He wondered if Hunter had promised James Ferguson tlie Texas National Democratic Committeeman's post. The newspaper report of the meeting said Allred de­ livered "a fiery speech, with the use of sarcasm, irony, and humor throughout. "^•*- Host of the defeated July candidates supported Hunter in the runoff. None, however, can^ to Lubbock. Hunter had newspaper advertisements in several of the August papers, one linking his name with Sam Houston and James S. Hogg.*^^ The resxats of the runoff primary gave Allred 4,454 votes m Lubbock to 3,012 votes for H\mter.^3 Allred re­ ceived a state total of 499,343 votes and Hunter's state oil vote total was 459,106. Allred's Lubbock percentage of 39.66 was somewhat higher than his state total of 32.1^.

^^ '^^ Lvhbock Morning Avalanche, August 14, 1934. ^^ Ihid. ^^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., August 12, 1934. ^IMB^J^ Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1934. 2^ The Texas Almanac, 1936, p. 473. 11

The Election of 1936

Governor Allred's first term appeared to be a satis­ factory one. The young Governor was very popular and in great demand for speeches in various part of the state. He maintained pleasant relationships with the national adminis­ tration and was known to be well liked by President Roose­ velt. The Texas Centennial of 1936 created a great amount of interest that year; politics were relegated to the back­ ground. Governor Allred was opposed for the second term by State Senator Roy Sanderford of Belton; Tom Hunter of Wichita Falls; F. W. Fischer of Tyler; and Pierce P. Brooks of Dallas. The Governor campaigned less than a month. All of the other candidates campaigned longer and made tours of the state. Sanderford, Fischer, and Hunter can5)aigned in Lubbock. Sanderford spoke at Lubbock on May 27. He attacked Allred as 'a bridge builder and a queen crowner. ' -^ He out- lined his platform; the main plank was a 3r sales tax. ^

^5 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. May 28, 1936. ^6 Ibid. 12 In June, P. w. Fischer spoke to a crowd of about four hundred at the City Park.^7 He attacked Allred's pen­ sion and natiiral resources programs. Tiae main plank in his platform was an increase in the natural resources taxes.^^ Tom Hunter also attacked Allred as "a queen crowner and bridge opener," as well as "a week-end Governor. "^^ His main point in seeking votes in Lubbock was a state in­ come tax of one percent on income over six thousand dollars a year.30 The results of the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBB0CK3^ S!mTE32

ALLRED 5#116 553*219 HUNTER 1,631 239,460 FISCHER 1,019 145>877 OTHERS 617 114,561 Allred tallied 61.035^ of the Lubbock vote and 52.53^ of the state vote, winning in the first primary. Hie Lubbock per­ centages of the other candidates were all lower than their

^7 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 19, 1936. ^^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., July 3s 1936. 3Q Ibid. ^^ PrlPftry Returns, Lubbock Democratic Barty, 1936, 32 The Texas Almanac, 1939^40, p. 378. 13 statewide percentages. In speaking of the main issue of taxation one author­ ity made an observation with which the Lubbock voters appar- ently agreed: The voters had overwhelmingly rejected the one candidate who advocated the general sales tax, Sanderford securing only eight percent of the state totals. Hunter, who sponsored a state in­ come tax, polled only twenty-three percent over the state. Fischer, who would have levied a very high tax on natuz

The Election of 1938

Ctovemor Allred's decision not to seek a third term left the field for the governorship wide open in 1938. Thirteen candidates filed for the post. The four major candidates were Ernest 0. Thompson of Amarillo, member of the Railroad Commission; Attorney General William McCraw of Dallas; Tom Hunter of Wichita Falls, who was making his fourth try for the office; and W. Lee 0'Daniel, a flour manufacturer fr<»B Fort Worth. No concern was expressed over

33 s. s. McKay, Texas Politics, 1906-19»^4 (Lubbock: The Texas Tech Press, li^j, p. 3«^. 14 0'Daniel's candidacy until about the middle of June when he started toitring the state with a hillbilly band. Political observers over the state were of the opinion that the race would be between Thompson and McCraw, with Hunter placing third. The Editor of The Lubbock A.valanohe-Joumal. in his Plainsman column, anticipated a struggle for the governorship between Thoi^son and McCraw. He said that both candidates haul plenty of money to finance a race and plenty of friends.^^ Later, before 0'Daniel spoke in Lubbock, the Plaii^man predicted a McCraw lead of about fifty thotisand votes over Thompson and a close runoff between those two men.^^ Mr. Thompson made several visits to Lubbock. In April, he attended the Engineering Show at Texas Technologi­ cal College. He was a former member of the Board of Direc­ tors of that institution. The Lubbock paper had a front page feature story on Thoiapson's career, faxaily life, and platform, coa^lete with pictures.^6 Sometime later Thompson was again in Lubbock and spoke to a crowd of between 3,500

^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. April 13, 1938. ^^ Ibid.. June 8, 1938. The Lubbock Avalanche-J ournal. April 10, 1938. 15 and four thousand people.37 He discussed his record as a member of the Railroad Commission and also the issues in the gubernatorial race. Thompson championed lower freight rates for farmers and ranchers, lower ^s rates for consumers, and a more orderly state controlled production of oil.38 Thompson's final visit in Lubbock was on July 13, when he spoke to a crowd of almost five thousand people about his "coxmnon sense" platfonn, a platform which he claimed would bring more industry to Texas.39 He supported a state utili­ ties commission and soil conservation program, but was opposed to any new taxes. Thompson reiterated his support of Texas Technological College .^^ W. Lee 0'Daniel came to Lubbock in June. Interest had picked up in the race and 0'Daniel's campaign was the talk of the state. Hie flour salesman traat Fort Worth spoke to about four thousand people in Lubbook; many of the audience were rural people.41 The crowd was very enthusias­ tic. 0'Daniel'3 hillbilly band performed and his daughter.

37 The Lubbock A va lane he-Journal, June 19, 1938. 3^ Ibid. ^^ The Lubbock Evening Journal, July 13, 1938. ^0 Ibid. ^^ J3» Lubbock Morning W^lanche, June 17, 1938, . 16 Holly, passed out small barrels labeled "flour—not pork," among the crowd for contributions.^^ In his speech 0'Daniel talked about the Ten Commandments and condemned the "pro­ fessional politicians." He talked of his proposal for a pension for everyone over sixty-five years of age.43 An editorial in the morning paper of June l8, was entitled: "The Aaaaaing Mr. O'Danlel." The writer ccwmnented that O'Danlel was certainly waging a colorful campaign. It was difficult to explain the O'Danlel candidacy or where he woiad wind up in the race although he would get a substantial vote and had his rivals worried. While the editorial still predicted a McCraw-Thompson runoff, it closed with "watch 0'Daniel. "^^ The results of the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBBOC] STfl'EE4 6 0 'DANIEL 3*405 573,166 THOMPSON 2,712 231,630 MCCRAW 1,169 152,278 HUNTER 695 117,634 OTHERS 182 40,277

*2 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, Jiaie 17, 1938. •^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., June 18, 1938. Primary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1938. ^^ The Texas Almanac, 1939, p. 358. ___ 17 Lubbock voters had seen and heard O'Danlel and voted for him although not as overwhelmingly as the rest of the state. O'Danlel's lAibbock percentage was 41.71 while his statewide percentage was 51.41. Thompson's percentage in Lubbock was higher than his state figure, McCraw's was about the same; Hunter's was not as high. In his post-election analysis, the Plainsman said of O'Ddniel, "No man has ever had a freer hand. "^7 He was of the opinion that O'Danlel could do almost as he pleased because the people had given him that opportunity.^^ Early in August, O'Danlel presented a check for $801. 30 to the American Red Cross. This was his profit in the gubernatorial race.*^ In a radio address on August 11, O'Danlel made an unprecedented move when he indicated his choices for the six state offices which were not filled in the July Primary. The governor-nominee picked Walter Woodul for Attorney general, C. V. Terrell for the Railroad Commission, Coke Stevenson for Lt. Governor, Bascom 6iles for Land Commis- eioner, and Richard Critz and Harry Graves for Court posts.30 Reaction to the O'Danlel announcement was mild in Lubbock.

^7 J3J£ Lubbock Evening Journal, July 26, 1938. ^Q Ibid. ^^ S. S. McKay. W. Lee O'Danlel and Texas Politics, 1938-1942 (Lubbock: Ohe^eSui Tech FTeaTTxy^S), p. 53. 50 Ibid., p. 62. — 18 The Plainsman supported the choices with the exception of Judge Graves because of Graves' opposition to Texas Tech when he was in the legislature. The Plainsman argued that O'Danlel had the right to make his preferences known because he had to work with the men elected.51 The next day an editorial again gave support to the move but questioned 0'Daniel's motives for such action.52 O'Danlel»s wishes had apparently very little effect on the Lubbock voters, however. Only Walter Woodul led in Lubbock County in the July Primary. In the runoff primary all six of the O'Danlel choices ran second in Lubbock Co\inty53 Stevenson, Giles, Crltz, and Graves were state winners while the other two choices lost.54 There was a great deal of conjecture as to whether O'Danlel's support hurt or helped candidates.

The Election of 19^0

O'Danlel's first administration was anything but

51 The Lubbock Evening Journal, A\igust 12, 1938. 52 Ibid., August 14, 1938. Pyjg^yy Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1938. 5^ The Texas Almanac, 1939, p. 358. 19 peaceful. He warred with the legislature almost from the start and later feuded with the newspapers. For awhile some thought he would not be a candidate for re-election, but he filed in the spring of 19^0 for another term. His major opposition came from Harry Nines, member of the State High­ way Commission from Dallas; Jerry Sadler, member of the Railroad Commission; former Governor Miriam A. Ferguson; and Ernest Thompson of Amarillo. O'Danlel used the same tactics as in the 1938 contest. His entourage was further supplemented in 19^0 with the addition of a dcsne-topped so\3nd truck, which almost becaune an issue in the race. Sadler also had a hillbilly band. Hines and Thompson campaigned without any hillbilly bands. Thompson was the last candidate to file because he had entered and withdrawn from a congressional race. Mrs. Ferguson and her husband campaigned together. O'Danlel, Sadler, Hines and C. C. McDonald, campaigning for the Fergusons, visited Lubbock. There we3?e no definite issues in the 19^0 race and interest was not vea^y high. The war in Europe was almost a year old and people in Texas, as well as the nation, were more concerned with international politics than state politics. All of the candidates attacked O'Danlel for not carrying out his campaign promises, especially his pension program. He in turn blamed the legislature. 20 Railroad Commissioner Sadler was the first guberna­ torial hopeful to visit Lubbock. He brought with him a hillbilly band, starring Leon Huff, who in 1938 had toured the area with W. Lee O'Danlel. Also with Sadler was John Kimbrough, former All-American football star of Texas A & M College. Sadler spoke to a crowd of about five hundred and was vehemently opposed to a sales tax.55 He proposed a tax at the well on oil, ^s and sulphur. He spoke of "tax in­ equities," and said the large corporations were against him. 56

C. C. McDonald was in Lubbock the following day on behalf of Mrs. Ferguson. McDonald maintained that O'Danlel was a good man and a religious man but inadequate as chief executive. He spent most of his time praising the Fergusons, telling the audience what good people "Ma" and "Pa" were and what good Governors they would make.57 The third active candidate to campaign in Lubbock was Harry Hines of the State Highway Commission. He pro­ posed increased taxes on natural resources and a franchise

^^ .^ 3^^hbock Morning Avalanche, July 19, 1940.

56 Ibid. ^"^ Ibid. 21 tax on corporations. He spoke at noon and only about fifty people heard him.^® W. Lee 0'Daniel, star performer delux, was in Lubbock the Thursday night preceding the election on Saturday. His entire family accompanied him to Lubbock and the crowd was estimated at two thousand.^^ The hillbilly band played for the first thirty minutes of the program, closing their part of the program with 0'Daniel's new composition: 'There Ain't Gonna Be No Runoffi '^^ O'Danlel then introduced his family and began to speak. He condemned the legislature for its failinre to do something for the old folks, and blasted the State Game, Fish, and Ojrster Commission, something he had done throughout the can^aign. The Dallas Morning News was also sharply critici?;ed by the Governor. At the close of his speech, Governor O'Danlel invited everyone to his open house in Austin on election day. The flour barrels were passed out for contributions. The Governor, dressed in a tdiite suit, looked, according to newspaper reports, very chipper and smilingly posed for several photographs.

^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July 24, 1940. 59 Ibid.. July 26, 1940. ^^ Ibid. 22 In the week preceding the vote, Thompson had a plc- tu3?ed advertisement featxiring his major Ideas published in the paper. In short, he was against a sales tax, for repeal of the seven thousand pound truck limit law, for a soil con­ servation law for farmers and he advocated a tax of five cents a barrel on oil.6l Most observers felt O'Danlel would lead but thought that Thompson or Hines might possibly force the Governor into a runoff. That question was answered with headlines of the Avalanche -Journal on Sunday morning: "THERE AIN'T GONNA BE NO RUNOFF--INCOMPLETE RETURNS INDICATE."^ The totals for the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBBOC] :^3 STME64

0'DANIEL 4,330 645,646 THOMPSON 2,869 256,923 HINES 1,972 119,121 FERGUSON 353 100,578 SADLER 253 61,396 OIHERS 30 5,626 O'Danlel received 44.155^ of the votes cast in Lubbock County

^ j^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 25, 19*^0. ^ The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, J\ily 28, 19*^0. PyJP^^ Returns, Lubbock Democratic Barty, 19*^0. ^ The Texas Almanac, 1941-42, p. 384. 23 $LXkd his statewide percentage was 54.29^. The percentages of ^he other major candidates, with the exception of Sadler, were higher in Lubbock than the state as a whole.

The Elections of 19^2 and 19^4

When W. Lee O'Danlel won election to the United States Senate in 19^1, in a special election, Lt. Ctovemor Coke Stevenson became Governor of Texas.65 Stevenson served the remainder of O'Danlel's term and was elected in 19^2 and 19'^4 by large majorities in the July Primaries. Stevenson's quiet and imeventful tezms of office were in marked contrast to O'Danlel's stormy sojoium in Austin. Pearl Harbor and the United States entry into World War II followed Stevenson's first Inauguration by about four months. He was the wartime Governor of the state and 4tll issues and state problems were put aside by the majority of Texans for the duration of the war. Very little Interest was shown in state politics. It was a foregone conclusion that Stevenson would be re-elected in both 1942 and 19^4. He did not campaign vigorously for either race. His main opponent of five in 19^2 was one of O'Danlel's cohorts, Hal Collins of Mineral

^ See Chapter III, p. 6 24 1— Wells. Collins traveled around the state with O'Danlel in connection with the latter's race for a six year Senate term. Collins campaigned in Lubbock and irritated the citi­ zenry with a statement that army camps or military camps led to deterioration of the towns where they were located. This was taken as a direct slam against Reece Air Force Base by the Plainsman who took Collins to task for the statement In his column and x*emarked that "Pal Hal" could not win the election on a bet.66 On the eve of the election, a full page pictured ad­ vertisement for Coke Stevenson appeared in the evening paper. The advertisement gave Stevenson's record and solicited votes for him. It was signed by over two hundred Lubbock citizens.^^ Stevenson polled 6,667 votes in Lubbock, Collins 991 votes, and four others 151 votes.68 over the state Steven- eon received 651,218 votes, Collins 272,469 votes and the Others 27,529 votes.69 Stevenson garnered 85.4j^ of the Lubbock vote and 68.5^ of the statewide vote.

^ The Lubbock Evening Journal, July 8, 19*^2. ^"^ Ibid., July 24, 19»^2. Primary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 19^2. ^^ The Texas Almanac, 19^^3-44, p. 249. 25 Stevenson was opposed by eight candidates in 19*^4 but won handily. His Lubbock vote was 7,346 out of 8,193 votes

The Election of 19^6

Governor Stevenson's retirement to private life in 19^6 resulted in a rush of candidates hoping to succeed him and ushered in the bitterest gubernatorial campal^ in Texas history. No other campaign ever engendered such personal bitterness and vilification as did the X9^6 race. The impressive list of candidates Included Dr. Homer ]^. Rainey, former President of the University of Texas; Attorney General Grover Sellers; former Railroad Commission­ er Jerry Sadler, making his second try for the office; Lt. (kovemor John Lee Smith; and Beauford Jester, member of the lltailroad Cosmission. There were nine other candidates but

70 Primary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 19^4. 71 The Texas Almanac, 19*^5-46, p. 529. 26 they were unable to muster enou^ votes to be considered as anything other than minor candidates. Ihe soldier vote was expected to boost the Texas total a great deal and to be a factor in the election, but it was not a bloc vote and had no influence on the election. There was, however, a large increase in the voting over that of 19«^4. The main iS8\;ie in the campaign began when Dr. Rainey was fired as President of the University of Texas in November, 19^4. Academic freedom became a major issue in the campaign along with Rainey's administration of the institution. Rainey was favored in the race and all of his oppcments centered their campaigns on an anti-Rainey theme. Another issue in the contest was that of organized labor. Texas industries had been the object of some strikes since the end of the war and the spotlight was focused on management-labor relations. Generally speaking, the atti­ tude of most Texans was anti-labor. The Supreme Court of the United States had ruled ligainst the so-called "White Primary" and Negroes were allowed to vote in the 1946 election.72 Also, Neman Marion Sweatt, a Negro, was engaged in liti^tion to gain

72 Smith V. Allwri^t 321 U.S. 649, 88L. Ed. 987, 19^4. 27 admittance to the University of Texas law school. Racial questions, althou^ kept mostly in the background, were raised from time to time in the campaign. All of the major candidates stumped the state and appealed to voters via any medium possible. Sadler, Smith, and Sellers used hillbilly bands or some other form of en­ tertainment in an attempt to entice votes. Jester used the radio more than any of the other candidates. All of the major candidates campai^ed in Lubbock. John Lee Smith visited Liibbock on May 31, and again on July 11. On his first trip he stressed his platform plank which would establish a labor court. He maintained that such a court would bring about a solution to the problems caused by the "wrangling between management and labor."73 on his second trip. Smith devoted most of two talks, one to supporters and one on the radio, to attacks on Dr. Rainey. Rainey had complained to the Federal Com­ munications Commission that the Texas Qiality Network was denying him radio time. Smith was very critical of the Rainey charges. The Lt. Governor was particularly vicious in his condemnation of John Dos Passes' book, U.S.A,,

^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 1, 19^6. 28 portions of which had been used at the University for a time. Smith said Rainey was all right but he was misguided. He also said that certain members of the fac\aty of the University of Texas were "communistic propagandists. "74 Mr. Smith did not mention any names. Early in June a minor candidate, Caso March, passed through Lubbock with his slogian of "Forward With March. "75 There was no indication that he campaigned in Lubbock. Attorney General Sellers' rally in Lubbock was high­ lighted by a group of musical entertainers and a five piece string band. The crowd of about one thousand heard Sellers pledge to maintain segregation in the public schools and to Work for legislative redis trie ting. 76 He also wanted to institute a veterans land program and strengthen the state Health and Hi^way Departments.77 In the latter part of Jxuie, Jerry Sadler and his "Grand Ole Opry" entertainers campaigned in the city. Sadler based his platform on: "A return to God, Texas, and the Constitution. "78 He also pledged to work for legislative

"^^ !^ I*uhbock Morning Avalanche, June 12, I9'f6. "^5 Ibid., June l4, 19^6. 7^ Ibid., June 15, 19»^6. 77 Ibid. 7^ Ibid., June 26, 19^6. 29 redistrlcting and wanted a fair deal for Texas Tech, includ­ ing admittance into the Southwest Conference. He championed a square deal for veterans, a tax of one cent per gallon of gasoline for four years to construct farm-to-narket roads and he criticized the "honey money boys."'^ Other Sadler planks included a veterans bonus, increased teachers salaries, and maintenance of the Texas National Guard as long as it was needed.^^ Beauford Jester's visit to Lubbock conflicted with a rodeo and baseball ^me, but his rally was still attended by three hundred people.^^ The distinguished looking Jester called for redistrlcting, continued school consolidation, raises in teachers salaries, old age pensions of forty dollars a month, and a veterans affairs bureau. He wanted to encourage more industry to come to Texas and he discussed his record on the Railroad Commission. Jester also made the Statement that he was a lifelong Democrat.^ftp^ Homer Rainey drew the largest crowd of any guberna­ torial candidate in Lubbock, but no estimate of the size was

79 rjtj^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 26, 19^6.

QQ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., June 29, 19^6. ^ Ibid. _J0 made. Former State Senator George H. Nelson introduced Rainey who spoke for almost two hours. Rainey delivered a fighting speech. He charged that "monopolistic forces ^erej draining the state's resources to a point that many people J^ere/ being denied a decent standard of living. "^3 Rainey claimed he would tax outgoing raw materials to im­ prove the state's programs in health, welfare, and education and bring them up to at least a par with other states. Rainey pointed out the low farm income in the state. He discussed the state's wealth in natural resources and asked why there was not more to show for that wealth.^ Rainey was at his best when he discussed academic freedom. He talked of lobbyists at the state capital and of the attempts to control the thinking of the faculty and students at the University of Texas. He was interrupted by applause from the audience, including some Tech faculty members and st\idents, when he charged that the Tech Board of Directors "... /^is^ sought to de story the tenure system and /J^^ intimidated the faculty members of Texas Tech so that they ^BveJ afraid to teach the truth or say what they know

j^xe Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 13, 19*^6. ^ Ibid. 31 for fear of losing their jobs. '85 Rainey further charged that the "monopolistic forces' made sure that teachers and preachers 'toed the mark. "^6

In commenting on John Dos Passes' U.S.A.. Rainey told his listeners that only one portion of the book had ever been used at the University. When complaints of the book reached Rainey, he conferred with the English Depart­ ment and the book was removed from the library. 'I did not endorse the book . . . but I did oppose the Board of Regents for the manner in which they conducted an 'inquisition' over the English Department of the University. '7

Rainey mentioned that if he were in the runoff, 88 great sums of money would be spent to defeat him. Smith, Sellers and Jester advertised extensively in the newspapers; Jester had more advertisements than all the rest of the gubernatorial candidates combined. John Lee Smith's advertisements stressed the fact that he had always fought the 'GTO Labor racketeers. '^

^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July 13, 1946. 86 Ibid. ^ Ibid. ^ Ibid. The Lubbock Avalancho^J oTimal. July 14, 1946. 32

Sellers had two stereotyped advertisements which em- phasissed his record and the statement that 'he will uphold the Constitution in full. Including the segregation of Negroes and Whites in public schools.'^^ Jester's advertisements included a picture of the candidate, a quotation from his program—'The People's Path'—and announcements of the times of his radio broad­ casts.^ These advertisements started on Jtily 14 and appeared in almost every paper throu^out July and August. On election day, the Lubbock morning paper contained a feature story of the endorsement of Rainey in the gubema^- torial race by the Lubbock Chapter of the Negro Voters League.^

CANDIDATE LUHB0CK93 STATE^^

JESTER 5,583 443,804 RAINEY 3,9?3 291,282 SELLERS 1,071 162,431 SMITH 1,009 102,941 SADLER 537 103,120 OTHERS 293 39,077

^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July 16, 1946. ^^ The Lubbock Avalanche-Jommal. July 14, 1946. ^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. Jtily 27, 1946. ^^ Primary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1946. ^^ The Texas Almanac. 1947«>48. p. 4^^. . 33 Jester surprised the state and probably himself by taking such a long lead over Rainey. He received 38.155^ of the state vote and 44.97$^ of the Lubbock County vote. Rainey's percentage was hi^er in Lubbock than the state while Sadler's and Sellers' were lower and Smith's about the same. Rainey tried valiantly to overcome the long Jester lead. Sellers and Smith supported Jester in the runoff; Sadler supported Rainey. Jester campaigned by radio a gceat deal and stayed in the more populous areas of the state. Rainey toured the state in an all-out effort to gain votes. Rainey returned to Lubbock about a week before the runoff election date, and spoke to a crowd of about 1,200 or OS fifteen hundred people."^-^ He charged that over a million dollars had gone into the campaign to defeat him and that his opponent's "People's Bath," was in reality a "Petroleum Path. "^ Rainey further charged that the Magnolia Petroleum Compe.ny was a strong supporter of Jester, who was simply a "representative of the oil companies."^ On the platform with Rainey was his publicity director and former Texas Tech

^ ^g Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 17, 19^6.

^ Ibid. 34 student, Jim Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey was to be a key figure in a similar academic freedom controversy at his alma mater in later years. While the Texas poll showed Rainey far behind, he nay have been consoled to some extent with the results of a poll at Texas Tech. The college poll gave Rainey 565^, Jester 435^, and one per cent was undecided.^ In the runoff, first in a gubernatorial race since 1934, Jester won easily in Lubbock by a vote of 6,441 to 3*879 votes for Rainey. ^^ The state totals ^vc Jester 701,018 votes: Rainey 355*564.^^^ Jester's percentage was 62.41 in Lubbock and 66.34 over the state.

The Election of 19^8

Governor Jester's first term was apparently accept­ able to most people and he did very little in the way of campaigning for re-election. His two main opponents in a field of seven who filed were Roger Q. Evans, a state repre­ sentative from Grayson County, and Baylor University Law Professor, Caso March.

^ .SS I'^hbock Evening Journal, Atigust I6, 1946. ^^ I5i55ffi Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 19*^6. 100 ^jije Y^jjas Almanac, 19^7-48, p. 402. i 35 Lubbock was practically ignored in the campaign. Roger c.. Evans visited in the city with some friends and hoped to have a rally before the election, but his plans did not materialize, in his one short visit to the city, Evans stressed soil conservation and a veterans bonus to be paid for by a tax on natural resoxirces.^Ol i^ the Lubbock papers a few days before the election, Evans had a few very small advertisements which stated simply, "Roger Q. Evans for Governor. "-^^ The restilts of the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBBOCK"^ ^3 smTE"^^ EVANS 8,261 279,602 JESTER 1,863 642,025 MARCH 1,713 187,658 OTHERS 593 95i 9ri

Jester received only 14.99^ of the Lubbock vote as compared with 53*^1% of the state totals. Lubbock and West Texas voters generally were angry with Jester for his support of a cCTitroversial constitutional amendment and indicated their anger at the polls.

101 ^e Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 7, 19'*6. ^^ Ibid., July 21, 19^8. ^^3 Primary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 19t^8. ^^ The Texas Almanac, 19*^9-50, p. 461. 36 In 1947, by a close margin of 102,531 votes to 97,318 votes, a constitutional amendment was adopted which changed the method of financing buildings at state colleges and universities. 5 tj^ amendment was bitterly opposed in Lubbock and West Texas. In Lubbock there were 125 votes for the amendment and 4,3l4 votes a^inst it.-*"^^ Those opposed to the amendment claimed it benefitted only the University of Texas and Texas km. All West Texas counties voted against the amendment. Jester, Lt. Governor Allen Shivers, and Attorney General Price Daniel were criticized for sup­ porting the amendment.^7 ^ giant protest rally was held in Lubbock prior to the election. Plans were made at the rally, attended by over five thousand people, for a campaign to oppose the amendment.^^^ Roger Q. Evans was actively opposed to the amendment and led a campaign against its adoption. That fact probably explains his receipt of more than 66^ of the votes in Lub­ bock County in his race for Governor in 19^8.

1^5 Harold J. Marbuerger, Amendments to the Texas Constitution of I876 (Austin: Legislative ReTerenoe Division, Texas S'fS^ Library, 1956), p. 42. ^ Election Returns, Office of the County Clerk, Lubbock, Ttex&'s, 1W7* Hereafter cltecTaFTlectlon Returns, Lubbock County. Clerk's Office and year. ^^ .52£ Lubbock Evening Journal, August 26, 19^7. ^^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 20, 19^7. 37

The Election of 1950

Lt. Governor Allen Shivers succeeded to the goveitior- ship on the death of Beauford Jester in July, 19'f9. He filed for election in 1950, and made no campaign except for a few speeches over the state, although the speeches rarely dealt with the primary election. Of Shivers' six opponents (mly Caso March of Waco, was able to poll a vote worth pnentioning. The Governor spoke in Lubbock at a joint meeting of the American Business Club and the Lubbock County Bar Association. He indicated support of the Canadian River Project and urged Texans to unite and support the national govemnmit in the Korean var.^°^ Shivers also had some newspaper advertisements in the Lubbock paper. These adver­ tisements gave his record in public life and asked for "a term of my own. ""0 Shivers was an easy victor in the election. He polled 7,908 of the 9#697 votes cast in Lubbock Coimty.^^*^ He re­ ceived 829,730 votes in the state to 195*997 votes for 112 March, and 60,483 votes for the other candidates.

^^^ ^flie Lubbock Evening Journal, June 30, 1950. ^^0 Ibid., July 21, 1950. Ill P^^^J'^yy Returns, Lubbock Demociatic Barty, 1950. 11^ Bie Texas Almanac, 195^-53* P. 491. •^8

The Election of 1952

'In 1952, the Texas state races, more than ever be­ fore, were tied in with national issuen and national poli­ tics. In fact, it wac difficult to decide where the nation­ al oampAign ended and the state campaigns began!' ^^ Nation­ al issues forced the state campaigns into the background. Texans were greatly interested in the nominating conventions' of the two major political parties which were held during the summer. There was a large amount of anti-Truman feeling in Texas and Governor Shivers was the acknowledged leader of such opposition. Governor Shivers was opposed in his bid for re-elec­ tion by Attorney Ralph Yarborough of Aiistin, and Mrs. Allene M. Traylor. Shivers can^aigned hardly more than he did in 1950. Yarborough was fairly active; Mrs. Traylor campaigned very little. A.11 three candidates visited in Lubbock. Ralph Yarborough spoke at a rally' and made two radio speeches while in Lubbock. He accused the Shivers' adminis­ tration of trying to completely centralize state government in Austin and condemned the Governor for letting gambling go unchecked in Galveston until an election 3rear. Yarborough

^^5 S. S. McKay, Texas and the Pair De^. 1945-1952 (San Antonio: The Naylor Company, x954}, pTTr7. 39 presented several parts of his platform in Lubbock. He was opposed to an increase in gasoline taxes. He also indicated opposition to a sales tax or state income tax. Yarborough believed in Texas ownership of the tidelands and was for a water and soil conservation program, modem scientific care and treatment for the mentally ill, and wanted to end 'bossism' in Texas. ^^ Shivers spoke in Lubbock in early July. He condemned Communism and the conduct of the Korean War. The Governor claimed the people needed responsible persons in high places 'to try to find the ri^t answers to effect /eio/ peace in our time, ' and directed his talk almost solely toward nation- al and international problwas and issues. -^ Mrs. Traylor spoke at a public rally sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The rally was held at Chapman field house and attended by about tour hundred people.-^-^^ Mrs. Traylor attacked Shivers* administration and called for an increase of thirty-five per cent in teachers salaries, an old age pension of one hundred dollars a month, constructive programs for all groups, and a 'fair and just tax on natural resources. '^**'7

^^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. June 17, 195^. 1^5 Ibid.. July 10, 1952. 116 ^^ Lubbock Evening Journal. July ''4, 1952. 117 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July 25, 1952. 40 Both Shivers and Yarborou^ had advertisements of radio speeches in the papers throughout the campaign. A few days before the election a large advertisement appeared in the paper for Yarboroiagh. It gave his back­ ground and platform and urged voters 'to give Texas a mature, sincere, diligent and able Governor of ?^om all can be proud. 118

The Shivers advertisement asked voters to give the Governor a chance 'to continue his leadership for economy, rural roauis, old age assistance, tidelands and rural elec­ trification, 'l-'-^ Also included was Shivers' cai!5>aign slogan: 'Together we will build a greater Texas."-^^ Yarborou^'s chances for victory were dimmed consid­ erably because he was considered, either rightly or wrongly, as the New Deal candidate. Shivers was a definite favorite and defeated his opponents by a large margin. The vote in the July Primary was as follows t

CANDIDATE LUBBOOK^^^ STATE^^^ SHIVERS 11,216 833,861 YARBOROUGH 4,687 488,345 TRAYLOR 309 34,186

118 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July :^5, 1952. 119 Ibid.. July 19, 1952. ^^ Ibid. Urinary Returns. Lubbook Democratic Party. 195: 122 The Texas Almanac, 1954-55. p. 453. 41 Shivers' percentage in Lubbock of 69.18 was hi^er than his state percentage of 61.48. Shivers announced on October 2, 1952 that he would vote for Dwight D. Eisenhower, the GOP nominee for Presi- dent. One of the results was the cross-filing of Shivers by the Republicans, jL.^., he became the nominee of the Republican Party also. In the November election Shivers received 18,815 votes on the Democratic ticket in Lubbock and 5,97'^ votes on the Republican ticket.-^^^ His Lubbock percentage of 73.93 on the Democratic ticket was almost equal to hie state percentage of 74.6. Shivers re­ ceived 1,375,547 votes on the Democratic ticket and 468,319 votes on the Republican ticket."^^^

The Electic^n jgf 12SA>

Governor Shivers' announcement for an unprecedented third term was not totally unexpected in 1954 nor was Ralph Yarborough's decision to oppose him. Two other men, defi­ nitely minor candidates, J. J. Holmes and Cyclone Davis, entered the race. Several Texas insurance companies had failed early

^^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. October 3, 1952. •^''^ Election Returns. Lubbock County Clerk's Office. 1952, 1^5 The Texas Almanac. 1954-55. p. 448. 42

in 1954, and the question was raised conemin^ insurance regulations in the state and the State Insurance Commission. Yarboroiigh used as issues in the 1954 canQ)aign the insurance failures. Shivers* support of Eisenhower in 1952, a Valley real estate transaction of Shivers' and a Mission, Texas printing concern ?feich was partially owned by the Governor and doing some state printing. In his campaign Shivers replied to Yarborough's charges and claimed that the Austin attorney was the hand picked candidate of organised labor and that the Political Action Committee of the CIO, the Nationsul Association for the Advancement of Colored People, George Parr sympathi7:ers, and left wingers would all campaign against the Governor. Shivers also brought up the question of segregation in his csui^aign. The United States Supreme Court in May, 1954 had declared segregation in the public schools to be unconstitu­ tional. Shivers pledged to fight the Court rtiling and said the Negro vote would go almost entirely to Yarborough. The campaign started slowly but gained eoqphasis as time progressed. The race was keenly followed in Lubbock. Shivers, Yarborough and Holmes brought their campaigns to

Lubbock. In an early spring editorial the gubernatorial race was pictured as a rematch between Shivers and Yarborough. The writer felt that Holmes and Davis would get very few 43 votes between them and that the race, as in 1952, would be between Shivers and Yarborough.-^^^ Interest was f\n*ther heightened in Lubbock with a June editorial entitledt Insiarance Mess—^Let Us Hear More." The article questioned the relationship of John Van Cronk- hite, former aide of Shivers, with a defunct insurance com­ pany. The editorial also wondered what effect the Insiirance troubles might have on the Governor's chances for re-elec-

As the heat of the race increased another editorial predicted a runoff if Holmes and Davis together polled as many as fifty tho\isand votes. On the same day, the Plainsman remarked about the contest and commented on the intensity of the campaigns of both Shivers and Yarborough. ^ J. J. Holmes was the first candidate to appeal for Lubbock votes. An advertisement of a radio talk said, ''I'm not mad at anybody. I just want to give Texas back to the people. '*'0 Hoimee talked of the voters turning him down 1*^1 two years before for a 'Republicrat. ' ^ In his talk he

1^6 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. May 5, 1954. 1^ Ibid., June 11, 1954. 128 The Lubbock Evening Journal, July 15, 1954.

^^5 rbid. 130 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. June 10, 1954. ^"^^ Ibid., June 11, 1954. 44 advocated a nine point platform, including one for an elec­ ted insurance commissioner. Another plank dealt with his opposition to new taxes.^^^ Shivers made two trips to Lubbock. The first was primarily an organisational and keynote meeting with about seventy-five of his friends and supporters. ^ Shivers claimed his record on education, state hospitals, highways. Communism, the tidelands, old age assistance, and the water problem justified his re-election. He argued that the issues 'in this election J^ere/ the record and /Zf/ philoso­ phy of government. ''^ He defended his support of Eisen­ hower in 1952 by saying that Texas would have lost posses­ sion of the tidelands if Stevenson had won the election. 'I never deserted the Democratic Party in my life. I be­ lieve in the Democratic principles of Jefferson and Jackson and Wilson. '"^^^ Shivers indicated his opposition to a sales tax and spoke of states' rights. 'I am against strong central government. '-^'^ He also pointed out his cleaniap of George

1^'^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. June 12, 1954. "^^^ Ibid.. June 17, 1954. "• Ibid. ^'5 Ibid. "« Ibid. 45 Parr's Duval Coimty and sniped at the segregation rtaing of the United States Supreme Court, claiming that school prob­ lems were local problems out of the resujh of the federal 137 government. Shivers returned approximately a month later and spoke to a crowd of five hundred. ' He talked for twenty- five minutes, mostly about his record in office, but reit­ erated his opposition to a sales tax. The handsome Governor urged Yarborough to take a stand on segregation and mentioned in passing that he had always supported Texas Tech. Yar­ borough supporters lined the windows of an adjacent building with posters of their champion but Shivers gave no indication 139 that he saw them. Yarborou^ caii?)aigned in Lubbock in July. He spoke to a grov^ of friends and boosters at the Caprock Hotel. The challenger repudiated Shivers' charge that the cleanup in Duval County would stop if Yarborou^ won the race. 'It's ridiculous and absurd. He's trying to get the eyes of Texas off the mess in Austin, ' retorted Yarborough. ^ Yarborough also took the Governor to task about the insurance

1^7 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. Jime 17, 1954. ^^^ The Lubbock Avalanche-J oumal. July 18, 1954. ^'9 Ibid. ^^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July 8, 1954. 46 scandals and his Valley land transactions, saying that Shivers had already given four different explanations about the latter.^

Both men advertised a great deal through the means of radio, television and the newspaper. Shivers had many more advertisements in the newspaper than Yarborough did and these were of different types. He also had many more radio and television advertisements. One large newspaper adver­ tisement for Shivers gave his record and stressed that the people shoxild not let those gains be lost to the CIO-PAC. Further, the advertisement asked the voters if they wanted to lose the peace, progress, prosperity, dignity, courage and victory they had with Shivers and risk strife, turmoil, unrest, apology, surrender and defeat with someone else, 142 referring of course to Yarborough. Another Shivers' advertisement urged a vote for the Governor on the basis of political freedom. 'To those who want political freedom in Texas, vote for Allen Shivers as 143 your Governor of Texas. ' The Yarborough advertisement announcing his visit to

141 The Lubbock Morning \valanche, July 8, 1954. ^^^ The Lubbock Evening Journal. July 20, 1954. "^^' The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 23, 1954. 47 Lubbock stressed that 'he /Ks£^ a constructive program, ' and mentioned Yarborough's ideas on education, hi^^ays, conservation, old age assistance, health, telephone rates, and an insurance program. ^

Another Yarborough advertisement gave a partial re­ print of an editorial of The Lubbock Morning Avalanche of June 11, 1954 on the insurance failures and the possibility of the involvement of a Shivers' aide. The advertisement urged: 'Let's Help Ralph Yarborough Clean Up The Mess In Austin. '-^^^ The Lubbock League of Women Voters sent a three question questionnaire to gubernatorial candidates and printed their replies. The questions asked by the League were J

1. What do 3rou consider the three most iniportant issues now facing the people of Texas? 2. What election law changes would you 8iQ)port to promote a two-party system in Texas? 3. What specific changes would you recommend in our state tax structure?146

144 The Lubbock Avalanche-Joxarnal. July 4, 1954. 145 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. July 23, 1954. 146 The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. July 11, 1954. 48

Yarborough'8 answer to the first question was integ­ rity in government, soil and water conservation, and security in the fields of health, education and welfare. He felt Texas should have a party registration law and, replying to the last question, was opposed to a sales tax, would repeal the taxes on automobiles and gross receipts and would recom­ mend a constitutional tax on the natural gas pipelines transporting Texas gas out of the state.•^^' Shivers felt the three most basic Issues were water and soil conservation, improvement and strengthening of criminal law and procedure and recodification and strength­ ening of the insurance code. He thought that no election law changes were needed and would continue his efforts to reduce taxes whenever that could be done without reducing 143 essential state services. The results of the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBBOCK^^^ STATT:150

SHIVERS 7,304 668,913 YARBOROUGH 6,348 645,991 OTHERS 393 35,845

^^'^ IM I^uhbock Avalanohe^Joumal. Jtdy 11, 1954. 148 Ibid, ^^^ ^ifflary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1954. ^^^ The Texas Almanac, 1956-57. p. 5n. 49 A runoff was in doubt for several days. Shivers received 52^ of the Lubbock votes; his statewide percentage was 49.5 All the charges made d\n*ing the first primary were added to and elaborated on in the r\moff and the race approached the bitterness comparable to the 1946 election. Efforts were redoubled to obtain the votes which went to Davis and Holmes. Shivers emphasized his charges that Yarborough was the labor candidate. In one statewide speech Shivers re­ viewed a strike situation at Port Arthur. Ho claimed the strike was started by a Communist-dominated grot^ later taken over by an international vice president of the CIO- PAC. The Governor charged that if Yarborou^ were elected, any industrial city in Texas aigjht be in a similar position 151 as Port Arthur. Throu^out the runoff campaign, the Lubbock papers carried front page stories on ecwh candidate's progress. Both men broke precedent in the runoff by cas^aigning on Sunday. Yarborough made two trips to Lubbock during the runoff. The first was to organize his forces for the oan^aign. He spoke to 250 or more of his supporters and

^^^ The Lubbock Evening Journal. August 11, 1954.

TEXAS TKCH.NDLUGICAL COLLEGE LIBBAUX LUBBOCK. TEXAS 50 told them he felt he would win.^^^ On August 10, Yarborou^ spoke to a crowd of six hundred at the baseball park in Lubbock."^^^ He charged that state printing contracts had been awarded to a Mission, Texas printing company and Shivers was part owner of the firm. Awarding of printing contracts to that firm resulted in a violation of the Constitution, charged Yarborough. He also renewed his charges of corruption in Austin and crook­ edness in Shivers' land transactions in the Valley. The Governor had made an acknowledged profit of $425,000 on his transactions. The challenger also accused Shivers of being a Republican.^^^ Shivers, in his Lubbock runoff rally, talked to three hundred people and urged them to make "a block-to- block, precinot-to-precinct, house-to-house' drive for 1*5*5 votes. "^'^ He defended his record in office and mentioned that he had led Yarborough in the latter*s home precinct in July by almost three votes to one in the totals.^ The Governor conducted a very intensive radio and

1^^ The Lubbock Evening Joxomal. August 3, 1954. 1^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche. August 11, 1954. ^^^ Ibid. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. August 8, 1954. 156 IMd. 51 newspaper advertising campaign in Lubbock. One newspaper advertisement was a statement from a former District Judge at Edinburg verifying the legality of Shivers* real estate transactions. Also included was the vote in the first pri­ mary for Hidalgo County, site of the real estate actions. Shivers led Iffiirborough by several thousand votes in that county and the question was asked in the advertisement why Shivers led if his land transactions were dishonest.^^^ Another advertisement warned farmers and ranchers of the plans of the CIO to take control of the state's farms and ranches, and argued that a vote for Shivers was also a vote for Texas because "Texas ccmies first with Allen Shivers. "^^ A similar advertisement showed a sample ballot with two choices to mark: Texas and the CIO. The advertisement begins "How you voting Pardner?", and had the Texas block checked. Readers were reminded ag^in that "Texas comes first with Allen Shivers. "^^^ ISiis advertise­ ment appeared in almost all the papers during the last week of the campaigii. Another large advertisement was devoted to Shivers'

^^^ The Lubbock Avalanche-J oumal, August 22, 1954. 158 ^ie Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 25, 1954 159 Ibid. 52 "Blueprints For A Better Texas."^^^ The advertisement men­ tioned better hospitals, better roads, better schools and better soil and water conservation would be obtained by the people with Allen Shivers as Governor. "^^"^ A panel of state legislators loade a statewide tele­ vision appeal for Shivers. On the panel was Rep3?esentative Waggoner Cai^ of Lubbock.-^^ On election eve, George Dupree and E. L. Klett, both of Lubbock and both Texas Regular leaders in 19^4, made a local radio broadcast on behalf of Governor Shivers. ^ Also on election eve. Shivers* campaigi headquarters advertised an offer of free transportati<»i to the polls the 164 next day. One of Y&rborou^'s newspaper advertisements compared statemaits by Shivers to acti^os or lack of such by Shivers. The Governor was condemned for supporting Eisenhower, doing nothing about the water problem, old age assistance non- support, doing nothing about teachers pay, and lack of integrity and honesty in state government."^"^

^^ ^^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 27, 1954. ^^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., August 25, 1954. ^^3 Ibid., August 27, 1954. ^^ jn^ Lubbock Evening Journal, August 27, 1954. ^^5 Wie Lubbock Morning Avalanche, A^igust 23, 1954. 53 Another Yarborough advertisement urged voters to ' "see and hear the truth about the Valley land deals. "^^ Attorney Garland P. Smith who took the sworn testimony of Governor Shivers in the vailey real estate transactions was to make a television speech on the subject on Yarborough*s behalf. ' Yarborough also advertised his statewide radio addresses. The Port Arthur situation was brought to Lubbock in August. An advertisement addressed to Lubbock citizens in- cl\2ded a picture of a CIO picket with a sign asking support for Yarborough. The advertisement claimed the Port Arthur labor troubles had been Ccxzmimist inspired. It also stated that Shivers, Attorney John Ben Shepperd and other "patri­ otic Texans"^^^ had helped Port Arthur people in their fight against the labor organizers, but if Shivers were de­ feated, the cause would be lost and the same fate would probably befall Lubbock. The advertisement was paid for by 169 Port Arthur citizens.*^'=^ A group of three people from Port Arthur, two women

^^ 5^ I^uhbock Morning Avalanche, August I8, 1954. 167 Ibid. ^^ Ibid., August 20, 1954. ^^9 Ibid. 54 and one man, spoke in Lubbock at the Caprock Hotel. They comprised one of three teams of citizens fraa Port Arthvir who were touring the state. The group denied they were con­ nected with the Shivers campaign, but claimed that if Shivers were defeated, the labor organizers would be encotir- aged to new efforts in the coast city. They charged that all of the Port Arthur vmions were supporting Ralph Yarborouch, The three talked of what the labor organizers had done to Port Arthur with their "hate, fear, and violence. "^^^ Lubbock Joined the rest of the state in casting more votes in the runoff primary than in the first primary. Lubbock County gave Shivers 9,133 votes to 6,788 votes for his opponent. ' Shivers became the first incumbent Governor to ever win a runoff by defeating Yarborough 775.088 vote, to 683.I32 votea.172 shivers' percentage of the state vote was 53*X5» SL few points lower than his 57.3^ of the Lubbock votes.

The Election of 1956

Several events occured prior to the election of 1956

"^^^ j3j£ I^uhbock Avalanche-Journal, August 22, 1954. "^^"^ Prifflstry Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1954. 172 fjtf^ Texas Almanac, 1956-57, P. 521. 55 which had direct effects on the election. One after another, insurance cc»npanies failed and questions were raised as to the fitness of the Shivers appointed Insxirance Cosmission. Several state senators were discovered to have been in the employ of some of these insiirance firms. State Land Conmissioner Basccmi Giles resigned his position on Janiaary 1, 1955. His indictment for "conspiracy to commit theft" in connection with the Veterans Land Pro­ gram came in March, 1955, and that was the beginning of a series of indictments that eventually led the Commissioner 173 to the state penitentiary. Six men filed for the office of Governor; three were considered major contenders. Ralph Yarborough sought the office for the third time and pledged restoration of "honor, integrity, and dignity to state government. "I?'' United States Senator Price Daniel was a candidate and former Governor and United States Senator W. Lee O'Danlel entered the race. The other candidates were J. J. Holmes, a peren­ nial candidate; Reuben Senterfitt, former Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives; and J. Evetts Haley, Canyon rancher who claimed to be a XMgged individualist. Haley

173 tj^ij^ Lubbock Avalanche Journal, March 6, 1955. ^'^^ The Lxibbock Evening Journal, March 28, 1956. 56 had been associated with Texas Technological College in tubbook for a short time. He based his campaiga almost eolely on segregaticai and criticism of the United States Supreme Court. O'Danlel, Daniel and Yarboro\igh campaigned in tubbock. All three of the major candidates used a hillbilly band or similar group at one time or another. O'Danlel toured the state with a fire truck and a red, white and blue |)U8. Daniel took advantage of the Davey Crockett craze and $ecured the services of Pess Barker, Walt Disney's Davey Crockett. Barker was master of ceremonies for a statewide Daniel rally frcaa the Alamo.^^^ Texas racists secured enough petitions to have the segregation issue listed on the July ballot. Three ques­ tions concerning integration, intermarriage, and interposi­ tion were submitted to the voters. ' The questions as they were put to the voters in the referendum were so poorly worded that they confused many of the balloters who, as a ifesult, did not vote at all on the three questions. Issues in the 1956 race included corsniption in state government, Daniel's support of Eisenhower in 1952, segrega­ tion, and charges against Yarborough of being the labor and

^^^ J2i£. I'^hhock Morning Avalanche, July 25, 1956. •^^^ !]^ I'nhbock Evening Journal, June 1, 1956. 57 NAACP candidate. O'Danlel attacked his opponents as profes­ sional politicians. O'Danlel was the first candidate to visit Lubbock and by far the most colorful one. He was an hour and a half late and had to ask directions to McKenzie Bark at the Police station. The old park whex*e he spoke in earlier years was the site of the present police and fire stations and the Chamber of Commerce. 0'Daniel's crowd at McKenzie Park niambered about 250.^^^ O'Danlel's fire truck bore numerous signs. His old platform of The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule were still in operation, but a more appropriate sign on the fire truck read: "Qlie burning issue In Texas State Government: Graft, Corruption, Bribes, Scandals. Let's put out the fire. Elect W. Lee O'Danlel Governor."^' *Rie hillbilly band played several tunes, including "I like Mountain Music," "San Antonio Rose," "Black Mountain Rag," and "Beautiftxl, Beautiful Texas. "-^-^^ O'Danlel intro­ duced a young girl as his *'Young Texas Rose," and she sang "I Got That Million Dollar Smile," and "Let The Sunshine in. ""^ His reti3?ement had not changed 0'Daniel's introduction: "How do you do ladies and gentlemen and hello boys and

177 jnie Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 2, 1956. ^7Q Ibid.

ifio TTTZ girls. "•*-°-*- The

^^^ ^^ Lubbook Morning Avalanche, June 2, 1956.

^®3 Ibid. ^^ Ibid. ^85 Ibid. 59 The program closed when "Young Texas Rose" sang "There Ain't Gonna Be No Runoff."^^^ Senator Price Daniel made two trips to the Lubbock area. Early in June he spoke at Slaton and Lubbock. To a group of about I50 at Slaton, Daniel menticmed the possibility of government participation in the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority.l^**^ In Lubbock he addressed a group of 188 about seventy-five campaign workers. Daniel advocated legislation which would require all state boards and commis­ sions to open all their meetings to the public, and called for a state law enforcement commission along with a thorough investi^ticm of the land scandals. Daniel said he wanted to imite tznae conservatives and true moderates to form a Democratic coalition in the state. He made known his opposi­ tion to enforced integration. The Senator also made two television speeches. 189"^ His Lubbock campal^i nanager was Roy Bass. Again in Liibbock in July, Daniel maintained that none of the transactions in the land scandals took place while he was Attorney General and said soil and water conservation

The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 2, 1956. The Lubbock Evening Journal, June 6, 1956. jBbe Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 7, 1956. ^^9 Ibid., July 19, 1956. 60 were the main problems of the state. He favored 90J^ of parity for the farmers and claimed the state needed a nar­ cotics bill similar to the one he wrote while serving in the Senate. Daniel a^in warned of the plans of Walter Reuther and the CIO to take over Texas farms and ranches and hurled the "candidate of labor" charge at Yarborough.^^ Yarborough made a campaign tour through Lubbock in late June. He conferred with his Lubbock campaign managers Bob Dennis and Ralph Brock and spoke to six himdred people at a McKenzie Park rally.^^ Yarborough called for a clean up in state government. He advocated a raise in teachers salaries, better care for the mentally ill, increased pen­ sions and 9P5^ parity for the farmers. He indicated his opposition to forced integration. In a Jibe at Daniel's support of Eisenhower in 1952, Y&rborough said: "A man seeking the leadership of a party is morally, politically and govemmentally boimd to support the party in what it does. If a candidate cannot support the party then he should quit the party. ""^^ Yarborough had a hillbilly trio with him on the trip and they played after he finished speaking. The candidate circulated among

^^ 3J£ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 19, 1956. ^^"^ j^ l'^hbock Avalanche-Journal, July 24, 1956. ^^ Ibid. 61 the crowd and shook hands. The Yarborough forces also sought contributions from the crowd.^^ Yarborough and Daniel made frequent television addresses. O'Danlel used the radio more for his campaigning. "S^rborough's Lubbock newspaper advertisements stressed "It's Clean-Up Time In Texas," and described him as the "only real democrat in the race."!^ Daniel's advertisements claimed teacher support, stressed his record in public office and said he had helped save the tidelands for Texas. ^ It was believed that Daniel would lead in the first primary with Yarborotagh and O'Danlel close behind, but not necessarily in that order. The totals for the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBBOC] 1^ S'mTEl57 DANIEL 9,445 628,914 YARBOROUGH 5,371 463,416 0 'DANIEL 3,309 347,757 HALEY 1,131 88,772 SENTERFITT 600 37,774 HOLMES 98 10,165

193 fjt^Q Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, July 24, 1^6. ^g Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 26, 1956. •^^ Ibid., July 27, 1956. ^iP^yy Returns, Lxibbock Democratic Party, 1956. 197 roie Texas Almanac, 1958-59. 62 Daniel's lead was surprising to all concerned. He polled 47.33^ of the vote in Lubbock and 39.895^ of the state vote. Yarborough received 26.925^ of the votes in Lubbock County and 29.39?^ of the state votes. O'Danlel's figures were 16.58^ in Lubbock compared to 22.05J^ for the state. The segregation issues carried easily in Lubbock. However, the votes cast on the questlcms in Lubbock County were from two to tliree thoiisand less than those cast in the gubernatorial race. ^ The state totals on the segregation questions were almost one half of one million less than those cast in the gubernatorial race.^^ Daniel's lead appeared insurmountable and he was an easy favorite for an August victory. As a result, some of his workez*s may have slackened their efforts in the znmoff campaigi. Yarborough stumx)ed the state and campai^fied hard. He ehallenged Daniel to a debate and accused Governor Allen 200 Shivers of directing a smear campaign against him. Yarborough was back in Liibbock on August 10, and 201 spoke to a group of 175 supporters. **• He said he was ask­ ing the people of Lubbock to go out and talk a campaign of truth and warned: "Ihis is the last chance to get rid of

^^ Pyjg'^^fy Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1956. 1^9 f^ Texas Almanac, 1958-59, p. 455. ^^ j^ Lubbock Evening Journal, August 1, 1956. ^^1 Ibid., August 10, 1956. 63 crooked government in Texas. "^^ He claimed that "Daniel, in nine and one-half years of public of f iceholding, ^d/ done nothing about the water problem of the state," and also claimed that the "Texas NAACP—No Action Against Crooked Politicians—" was operating against hlm.^^^ A week later Daniel met with his area campai^i mana­ gers and supporters. He said he felt he could do a better Job for the state as Governor instead of Senator and that Yfetrborou^'s cry of debate was a loser's tactic of trying to dx^w a crowd. He added that Yarborotagh would only sling mud anyway in a debate and avoid the issues.^^ In a morning broadcast of the same date, Daniel pointed out his work in the old age pension program, saying, "I have a record of performance instead of promises." ^ Yarborough's runoff advertisements stated his oppo- BitXcn to a sales tax and state Income tax. He advocated a modexcite tax on natural resources, an increase in produc­ tion of natural ^s and pledged his support to the nominees of the Democratic Party. Daniel was ccmdemned for not taldng a stand on any of the above .^^

^^ jflie Lubbock Evening Journal, August 1, 1956. ^^^ Ibid., August 10, 1956. onh, - 3!J£ I^nbbock Morning Avalanche, August 17, 1956. ^^^ 5^ ^uhbock Evening Journal, August 17, 1956. 206 jjjg Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 24, 1956. 64 Another advertisement condemned the Senator for re- t\xaa.l to debate with Yarborough and belittled his record as Attorney General and Senator. It also mentioned that |)aniel had never supported Texas Tech and was not doing so in 1956.^^7

The Lubbock Democratic County Caivention passed a absolution early in August commending Yarborough for his ^"loyalty to the Democratic Barty of Texas and its prlncl- |>les," but did not endorse hlm.^^ Yarboro\i€* upset predictions in Lubbock by winning the Coimty with 8,585 votes to Daniel's 7,918 votes.^^^ 2he upset was almost one of a statewide nature, but after ail the votes were coimted and disputed ballots checked, Daniel eked out a very narrow margin of victory. His state totals were 698,001 votes to 69*^,830 votes for Yarborough.^^^ Daniel's pez>centage of 47.96 in Lubbock County increased to 50.11J< for tiie state. W. Lee 0'Daniel announced in August he would be an Independent candidate for Governor in the November

The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 24, 1956. 208 The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, August 5, 1956. 209 Primary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1^6. ^^^ The Texas Almanac, 1958-59, p. 475- , 65 elections.^-^"^ In Septeniber, however, he accepted the nomination of the Constitution Iferty for Govemor.^^ The Secretary of State ruled that O'Danlel's name coiad not go on the ballot in November because he had been a candidate on the Democratic ticlflet in July.^^2 The State Supreme Court ruled against O'Danlel, whereupon he announced as a write-in candidate.^**-^ Mrs. O'Danlel subsequently tried to file as a candi­ date for Governor on the Constitution ticket but was denied a place on the ballot.^^^ W. Lee O'Danlel campaigied by radio from about the middle of October imtll election day in November. Ihe November returns gave Daniel 21,191 votes in Lubbock County to 2,344 votes for GOP nominee W. R. Bryant and 1,172 write-in votes for O'Daniel.^-***^ Daniel polled 1,350,736 votes over the state, Bryant 261,283 votes and O'Danlel 110,234 votes.^^"^

^^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 17, 1956. 212 The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, September 9, 1956. ^^^ .^ I'Uhbock Evening Journal, September 12, 1956. 214 Ibid. ^^ j^ I'Uhbock Morning Avalanche, September 29, 1956. 216 Election Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, 1956. p,„ K» Texas Almanac, 1958-59, P. 455. CHAPTER III THE SENATCBIAL ELECTIONS

Texas had several heated senatorial elections In the period from 1934 to 1956 with the exceptl<»i of the Connally-Shepperd elections. Texans felt they were ably represented in the upper chamber of Congress by Senators Tom Ccmnally and Moirls Shepperd. Neither of these gentle­ men ever faced formidable opposition in their races for re­ election and rarely ever campaigned. 1^ Lubbock electorate agreed with that of the state and supported both men in every election. Senatcxr Connally won a second term in 1934 by easily defeating Congressman Joseph W. Bailey, Jr., althou£^ Bailey waged an agg^ssive campaign. Senator Connally had only token opposition in 19^0 and 19^6, and won easily both I times. He retired in 1952 after serving twenty-four years in the Senate. Senator Moiris Shepperd easily defeated five oppo­ nents for re-election in 1936, and had annoimced for re­ election in the 19''l'2 race. However, the able Senator died unexpectedly in April, 1941. He had served in the Senate since 1913. The special senatorial election of 1941, and the regular elections of 19^2 and 19*^8, were all close, 66 67 hard-fou^t contests, especially the latter. In the sena- tozrlal election of 19^8, the winner's margin was only eighty-seven votes. The race was the closest in Texas political history. The senatorial elections of 1952 and 1954 created very little interest.

The Election of 19^1

Shortly after the death of Senator Morris Shepperd of Texas, Governor W. Lee O'Danlel appointed Andrew Jackson Houston, eighty-six year old son of Sam Houston, as interim Senator until the seat could be filled in a special elec­ tion. O'Danlel was bitterly criticized for his appointment of Houston. The elder Texan attended only a few sessions of the Senate before he died on June 26, 19^1. The names of twenty-nine candidates appeared on the June 28 ballot, but of these only four were given a chance of winning. These four were Attorney General Gerald Mann; Congressman I^rndon B. Johnson and Martin Dies; and Governor W. Lee O'Danlel. Bie winner needed only a plurality of the votes and would serve the remainder of Shepperd's term. The holocaust in Europe had caused Texans to become concerned about national and intenaational matters.

^ !^ I^nhbook Evening Journal, June 26, 19"^!. 68 Support of President Roosevelt and the nation's preparedness program became issiaes in the campaign. All four of the major candidates spoke in Lubbock. Interest in the campai^ was negligible until about the last three weeks. Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson of Austin was the first candidate to visit Lubbock and the only one to visit the cit^ twice. Early in May he spoke at a dinner meeting attended by 125 people.^ Johnson indicated his opposition to strikes and told his listeners, "my conscience tells me to vote for war. . . . Lyndcai Johnson will give up his Senate seat to go to the trenches with your boy. "3 In June, Johnson stressed his support of titie Roose­ velt program and denied a charge by Mann that he voted against full parity for farmers. Johnson said that Mann had mis-read The Ccmgressional Record.^ Congressman Martin Dies' visit to Lubbock came a few days after Johnson's first visit. Dies stressed that his experience in Congress as Chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee qualified him for the Senate. He claimed he had supported legislation to curb monopolies

2 The Lubbock Evening Journal, May 8, 1?H. Ibid. The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 12, XS^X 70 and denounced strikes in defense plants, attacking the CIO in the process. The Lufkln Congressman also urged that America needed to be protected from internal enemies as well as external enemies.^ Attorney General Gerald Mann pledged to increase the minimum base pay for soldiers and sailors from $21 to forty dollars a month and stressed preparedness in his Lubbock speech.^ Governor O'Danlel was the last candidate to speak in Lubbock. His hillbilly band furnished entertainment for a crowd of four thousand people who heard O'Danlel censure his opponents as part of a political machine Intent cxi de­ feating the Governor.' The state legislature was condemned for not acting favorably on more of O'Danlel's recommenda­ tions. The Governor gave an account of his Austin work, striking at lobbyists in the process, and Informed the crowd that he would straighten things out when he got to Washington.^ All of the candidates advertised in the Lubbock newspapers, Johnson more so than the rest. Ihe Governor

^ ^nie Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 12, 19^1. ^ JSlS. Luhbock Evening Journal, June 20, 19^1. ^ The Lubbock Avalanche-J oumal, June 22, 19^1. 8 Ibid. ___ 71 only advertised his visit to Lubbock, describing himself as "The Ccamnon Citizens' Candidate For Senator."^ Johnson's advertisements emphasized that he was "For Roosevelt and Unity. "1^ Prior to his June visit, the paper was filled with several pictorial advertisements, each pertaining to some sequent of American life along with a cor3?espending quotation by Johnson; one stressed that he was "The President's Friend. "H Others pertained to John­ son's ideas on preparedness, strikes, rural electrification, farmers, and the war.^ Later advertisements included an open letter to west Texans outlining Johnson's life and career.^^ Another stressed that Johnson's influence and experience were badly needed in Washington.-^-^ Mann's pictured advertisement ^ve the results of the Belden or Texas Poll, which showed the Attorney General leading, and included his slogan of "Watch the landslide to Mann's side."15

9 The Lubbock Evening Journal, J\me 20, 1941. ^^ Ibid., June 11, 19^1. ^^ Ibid. ^ Ibid. ^3 The Lubbock Avalanche-J oumal, June 22, XS^X, ^^ The Lubbock Evening Journal, June 27, 19^1. ^5 Ibid., June 18, XS^X. 72 Dies' motto was "America For Americans Of All Races And Creeds.'"-^^ His plctuaped advertisement gave his record in Congress and stressed that he should be promoted to the Senate.l*i^ On the day preceding the election, the Editor of The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, in hia Plainsman column, made what turned out to be a very acciirate prediction. The Editor picked O'Danlel first in the Senate race "by a hair because of his vest pocket vote,"'*' Johnson second because "he ^s/ riding FDR's coattails, "^^ Mann third because he could combat neither 0'Daniel's tactics nor Johnson's use of all the state's federal employees for camipalgnlns pur­ poses.^^ Dies was picked fourth because of poor or^niza- 21 tion. The results of the special electi

^^ SB Lubbock Evening Journal, June 27, 19^1. 17 Ibid. IS Ibid. ^^ Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. - 73 CANDIDATE LUBBOCK^^ STATE^^ MANN 1,153 140,807 JOHNSON 825 174,279 0'DANIEL 783 175,590 DIES 428 80,653 OTHERS 16 4,550

Mann's percentage in Lubbock was almost 36, but dropped to 24.45^ for the state. Johnscm's 25.lk% and O'Danlel's 24.35^ were lower than their state percentages of 30.26, and 30.49, respectively. Dies' 13.35J^ of the Lubbock vote was not far below his 14.01^^ of the state total. Early returns indicated a Johnson victory and the race was in doubt for several days. The rural votes, however, finally enabled O'Danlel to overtake Johnson and win his third election in as many tries in Texas politics.

The Election of 1942

O'Danlel made a bid for a full six year Senate term in 1942 and was opposed by former Governors Dan Moody and James V. Allred. One other candidate, Floyd E. Ryan, was in the race also.

22 Election Returns, Office of the County Clerk, Lubbock, Texas, 1941. Hereafter ciWd'-gs' ii;iect;lorrKe"gums, Lubbock Couhty Clerg's Office, and year. 23 The Ttocas Almanac, 19'*3-44 (Dallas: A. H. Belo Corporati'Sir 19*^4), p. i^oi. Hereafter cited as The Texas Almanac and year. 74 World War II was barely six months old when the campaign began and the main Interest of the nation was to win the war. Allred and Moody attacked O'Danlel's record as a Senator and claimed he was unfit to represent Texas. O'Danlel centered his campaign primarily an an anti-labor theme. Allred resigned as a federal Judge to make the race and his chances were certainly weakened by rumors that he would receive another appointment if he lost the i«ice. All three of the candidates campaigned in Lubbock, Moody and O'Danlel on the same night. Efforts by the Moody forces to have a Joint rally and debate with O'Danlel proved un­ successful as the Governor refused the offer. Allred was the first candidate to campaign in Lub­ bock. He made a non-political radio speech on a patriotic theme on the afternoon of his visit and a campaign speech that night at the city hall park. Allred attacked the z*ecox^ of the Junior Senator from Texas as one of "obstrue- on tionism and isolationism." He told his audience of 1,600 that O'Danlel's representation left a great deal to be de­ sired and pledged his support to President Roosevelt.25 "Our first objective is to win the war. . . but after the

^* The Lubbock Evening Journal, June 12, 1942. ^^ Ibid. 75 war we must win the peace. "26 O'Danlel and Moody spoke in Lubbock on J\ay 2, and held their rallies only a few blocks apart. O'D niel cam­ paigned with gubernatorial candidate Hal Collins for the alleged purpose of conserving gasoline and tires. The news­ paper story on 0'Daniel's rally mentioned that the Senator staged his "usual medicine show with himself as the star attraction. "27 The stoa?y also stated that the O'Drniel "circus"28 attracted three thousand people, but many left after the entertainment. O'Danlel, in his speech, insisted that the war was not an issue in the race but that the big issue was labor racketeers. He further insisted that "there ain't gonna be no gasoline rationing in Texas, we ain't gonna lose the war, and there ain't gonna be no inmoff. "29 At the same time of O'Danlel's rally. Moody spoke to about 1,800 people.30 He had advertised that the only attraction would be a frank and sincere discussion of the issues of the senatorial campaign. He contended that the winning of the war and of the peace to follow were the only issues worthy of consideration in the campaiga and scored

2^ The Lubbock Evening Journal, June 12, 19^2. ^'^ Ibid., July 3, 19^2. ^Q Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 76 0'Daniel's isolationism. Moody pledged, if elected, to concentrate all his capabilities as Senator to winning the war.31 A feature article in the newspaper on July 8, stated that Allred would ask President Roosevelt for all Infoma- tion possible concerning the war's "Lost Batalllon," an Army unit composed largely of Lubbock and South Plains men.32 Allred later released his correspondence with President Roosevelt to the Avalanche-Journal when he was informed that he was being accused of using the question of the Lost Batalllon for political purposes.33 Allred released a statement that Mrs. 0. W. Kiethly of Austin, whose husband was a member of the batalllon, had requested him to see what he could find out about the l^te of the group.34 A particularly personal and vicious attack was made on Allred in a newspaper advertisement signed by Dan W. Powers, W. L. Hester, J. B. McCauley and others. The ad­ vertisement claimed that Allred's only Interest in the Lost Batalllon was for political expediency.35

^^ ^E Lubbock Evening Journal, July 3, 19*^2. 32 Ibid., July 8, 19*^2. 33 Ibid., July 12, 19»^2. 3^ Ibid. 35 Ibid., Jiily 24, 19*^2. 77 Allred had several advertisements In the papers prior to the July 25 election. One advertisement urged the election of a West Texan to the Senate and gave reasons why Allred should be supported. It urged a vote for All- red was also a vote for intelligence, dlgilty, and integ­ rity. 3^ A pictured advertisement stressed that Allred would cooperate with the President and other members of the Senate. It was called "an appeal to solid thinking. "37 An advertisement attacking O'Danlel and paid for by J. Frank Norris was addressed to "Fathers and Mothers of Sons Killed in Action. "3° The advertisement announced a statewide broadcast by Mr. Norris against O'Danlel and attacked the Senator's isolationism. The advertisement asked the people to whom it was addressed if they wanted to send to the Senate a man who had boasted: "I am not worried about the war and the war has no place in the race for the Senate."39 A week before the election an A va lanche -J ouma 1 editorial speculated that while anything could happen in

^^ J5]!£ Lubbock Evening Journal, July 12, 19*^2. 37 Ibid., July 24, 19^2. 3^ The L\a)bock Avalanche-J oumal, July 19, 19^2. 39 Ibid. 78 the race, Allred and O'Danlel appea3?ed to be heading for a runoff .^o The Plainsman a few days later predicted a slight O'Danlel lead over Allred and a close runoff between the two.'^l The results of the July Primary were as follows:

CANDIDATE LUBB0CK^2 sa^TE^3 ALLRED 3,157 317,301 0'DANIEL 2,852 475,541 MOODY 1,745 178,471 RYAN 50 12,213 O'Danlel led from the first and for a few days it appeared he might win without a runoff, but late retuims cut his percentage of the total votes to 48.3. Allred received 32.25^ of the state vote and Moody, who had apparently been handicapped by his twelve year absence from the political ax«na, had l8.2^. In Lubbock Allred polled 40.45^ of the votes, O'Danlel 36.55^ and Moody 22.36j[5. O'Danlel campaigned for two weeks in the runoff; Allred for three. O'Doniel financed both his Jxily and August campaigns through his newspaper, the W. Le£ 0'Daniel

40 The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, July 19, 19*^2. ^^ SE. Lubbock Evening Journal, July 22, 191^2. ^2 Prinary Election Returns, Lubbock Democratic party, Lubbook, Texas, 19^2. Hereafter cited"aFTriaary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party and year. *^ The Texas Almanac, 19^2-43, p. 249. 79 News. He had referred to Moody and Allred in the first primary as "The Gold Dust Twins. "^^ m the runoff Allred became, "my little yes-mn opponent."^^ O'Danlel insisted during the runoff campaign that he had supported President Roosevelt and stressed time and time a^in that communistic labor leader racketeers were trying to defeat him.^^ Allred came back to Lubbock in the runoff campai0i; O'Danlel did not. Allred pledged his all out efforts in war and peace as a Senator. He pointed out tiiat the old age pensicm program for the state had its beginning while he was Governor and not his opponent. Allred repeated his support of Franklin Roosevelt and said he would seek a minimum price for cotton in aiding the farmers. Allred also promised to aid the ranchers and he, too, was opposed to labor racketeering. The former Governor and Federal Judge spoke to approximately three thousand people.^7 Allred's runoff advertisements gave his platform and what he would do in the Senate in ccanparlson with what 0'D<^niel had done in that legislative body.^lif°t

^^ The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, June 21, 1942. *5 Ibid., AvigUBt 5, 19'^2. »6 Ibid. 47 ^Q>e Lubbock Evening Journal, August 6, 19^2. ^^ Ibid., August 19, 19»^2. 80 Organized labor in Texas had statewide advertise­ ments in the newspapers which, without mentioning any names, blasted O'Danlel for his anti-labor stand and anti-labor remarks.^9

Allred defeated O'Danlel in Lubbock County by 4,455 votes to 2,761 votes.50 O'Danlel emerged the victor In the state, however, by outpolling his opponent 451,354 votes to 433,203 votes.5^ O'Danlel received only 37-35^ of the Lub­ bock vote but 51^ of the state totals.

The Election of 19^8

J\mlor Senator W. Lee O'Danlel declined to seek re­ election in 19^8. Eleven men sought to be his successor. The main contenders were Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson and former Governor Coke Stevenson. Houston lawyer George E. B. Peddy alternated somewhere between the status of a major contender and a minor candidate. Johnson was making his second try for the Senate after losing to O'Danlel in 19'^1. Stevenson had been in retirement since he left the Governor's office. Peddy had made an unsuccessful race for the United

!^ Lut>l30ck Evening Journal, August 20, 19*^2. ^iBg^yy Returns, Lubbock Democratic Barty, 1942. ^ The Texas Almanac, 1943-44, p. 249. 81 States Senate in 1922. ^ lie hSid been an independent write, in candidate in that race. All three candidates toured the state; Peddy and Johnson came to Lubbock. All three men stressed economy in government, national defense, and opposition to Communism. Stevenson was the favorite of the race and Johnson and Peddy attacked "Calculating Coke" and his record. Johnson especially stressed his youth and Stevenson's age. All of the men made several statewide radio addresses. Peddy used the radio more than the other two. Stevenscxi relied pri­ marily on a hand shaking campal^i while driving over the state and Jchxiaon toured the state in a helicopter which b2*ought him state and national publicity. George Peddy was the first candidate to seek the Lubbock vote. He spoke at a noon meeting of the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Peddy claimed world peace was the foremost issue in the campaign and condemned isolationists. He advocated universal military training and said the united States had to maintain its military strength.53 Lubbock citizens did not see another senatorial

^ McKay, Texas And The Fair Deal, 19^5-1952 (San Antonio: The Naylor companyTl^TT, p. 169. Hereafter cited as McKay, Texas And The Fair Deal. 53 The Lubbock Evening Journal, April 26, 19^8. 82 candidate for over two months. Johnson and his helicopter, "The Johnson City Windmill," arrived in early July.^ The helicopter had been the subject of a feature story in state papers a few weeks earlier. The story said that the heli­ copter created the first interest in the campaign.^^ Johnson made several appearances over the South Plains before he arrived in Lubbock. His Lubbock crowd of about one thousand heard him talk of his "People's Platform, Peace, Preparedness, and Progress."^^ Johnson supported soil and water conservation, a million man army and a one half million man navy, and a seventy group air force. He wanted hi^er pay for teachers through federal aid, a mini­ mum old age pension of fifty dollars per month, extension of farm-to-market roads, and rural electrification lines all over the state. He stressed his l^iashington experience and his age of forty, which made him the youngest of the three main candidates. Johnson also made several radio talks during the day.*^57' All three men advertised in the papers. One of Peddy'8 advertisements publicized his stand on several

!!!£. Liibbock Morning Avalanche, July 2, 19^8. ^^ !S!B Lubbock Evening Journal, June 17, 19*^8. I!3£ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 2, 19^8. 57 Ibid. 83 issues inelxuUng preparedness, universal military training, foreign polioy, halting inflation, and economy and effieiency in government. His baekground and qualifications were given to the voters and his opponents were criticized i *Ve do not need rabble rousing, pilblielty stunting, professional, eal« eulating^ fenee-straddling politicians or eongressional repQ^sentatives who cater to big money interests for their own enriehaent and give only lip service to the problems of the plain people."5^ Stevenson's advertisements gave his record as Lt. Qovemor and Governor and stressed that he was a West Texan. 59 Johnson*s supporters, via the newspapers, urged a vote for the Congressnan as "the man who will do for West Texas what he has accoiiQ;>llshed in his own district as Con- gre.n»w. "^ Stat«»nt. .ere »de on pr.par.dne.., ato»ie energy, the eost of living^ houslng« and conservation. Headers were larged to cast their ballots for "the man who gets the Job done.'*^'^

^ j^ Lubbook Avalanche-Journal, July 18, 19»^8. 59 Ibid. ^ 2£ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 22, 19^8. ^^ Ibid. 84 Stevensai was the leader in the Texas poll until the last week of the campaign when he and Johnson were almost even. The Lubbock Avalanche-J oumal conducted two polio, supposedly interviewing voters of all ages and in­ come brackets. On the first poll, Johnson received 178 straw votes, Stevenson 127, and Peddy thirty-nine.^ Ten days later another poll ^ve Johnson 290 votes, Stevenson 158, and Peddy fifty-five.^3 In early May, the Plainsman predicted a Stevenson victory although it was observed that Johnscai would be a strong candidate if the younger voters supported him. The writer also remarked that Stevenson had never had to cam­ paign hard before but this time he wo\ild have to take to the "hustings."* The results of the July Primary were as follows:

6S! Olie Liabbock Avalanche-J oumal, July 11, 19*^8. 63 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 21, 1948.

^^^ Lubbock Evening Joum^J, May 14, 19*^8. 85

CANDIDATE LUBB0CK^5 SmiE^ JOHNSON 6,285 405,615 STEVENSON 4,193 477,077 OTHERPEDDYS 1,374545 237,1982,5025

Johnson polled 51.06j^ of the Lubbock Co\mty votes as com­ pared to 33.73:^ of the state totals. Stevenson's Lubbock percentage of 34.07 rose to 39.68^ of the state totals. Paddy's state percentage was about eight points higher than his Lubbock percentage. In the runoff, Johnson did not use his helicopter and campaigned mostly in the large cities. Both men made short trips to Washington, Stevenson to make a study of foreign relations and Johnsoi to attend a special session Ox Congress.^7 Neither candidate campaigned in Lubbock in the runoff. Local supporters carx*led on the Lubbock campai^lng for the two men. One item of interest was a Johnson charge that a Stevenson speaker on a statewide broadcast in attacking Johnson did not quote all of a statement in one

mtkm ^Iggtry Retxims, Lubbock Democratic Barty, 1948. ^ The Texas Almanac, 1949-50, p. 461. 67 McKay, Texas And The Fair Deal, p. 219. Q6 of Dr. S. S. McKay's books pertaining to Texas politics.^ Johnson's advertisements stressed his experience, ability, and energy with frequent references to his age. The Johnson program of "Peace, Preparedness, Progress" was also plugged heavily. ^9 An additional advertisement which supported Johnson stated that while Stevenson was Governor he pardoned Jim Thomas who was serving a priscm sentence for the attempted murder of a Lubbock peace officer. After his release on parole, Thomas was tried and c cm vie ted three times for complicity in the murders of a prominent Littlefleld physician and his wife.70 rj^ae advertisement was paid for by Burton S. Burks, Lubbock attoiney and District Attorney when T3iomas was paroled. Burks claimed that he was never asked for his opini<»i on the matter. Burks urged West Texas

yhg Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, August 8, 19^6. The misquo^^ statement was in Dr. Moby's W. Lee O'Danlel and Texas Politics, 1938-19^2, and pertained to a Johnson B'^iatorial raiiy in 1941. At the rally Jc^inson read com­ plimentary letters on his congressional work from, various dignitallies, including Vice President Henry A. Wallace, Navy Secretary Prank Knox, Congressman Carl Vinson, and Secretaapy of the Interior Harold Ickes. The Stevenson speaker in 1948 deleted all the names but Henry Wallace from the statement. At that time Wallace was very unpopular for his progressive ideas especially in re^rd to Russia. ^^ The Liabbock A valanche-J oumal, August 22, 1948. '^^ Tt^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 27, 1948. _ 87 to remember that "Coke Stevenson Paroled Jim Thomas, ""^^ when they went to the polls to select a Senator. Former Lt. Governor John Lee Smith, a Lubbock resi­ dent, made the statement that Stevenson's claims of wiping out the deficit while he was Governor were "a lot of bunk," aiid cariticized Stevenson's entire tenure of off ice. ^^ Stevenson's advertisements gave his record in public office and stressed his economic administration as Governor. The advertisements also asked, "why is the Political Action Committee of the CIO supporting Lyndon Johnson for United States Senator," and wanted to know why Johnsc»i was not on the CIO blacklist."^3 Lubbock County ^ve Jcflmson 6,445 votes in the runoff to 3,2l8 for Stevenscaa, a percentage of 66.7 for Johnson. Statewide 3?esuloS were so close that a winner was not certified until September 13 by the State Demo­ cratic Executive Comoittee. Johnson was declared the winner by a margin of eighty-seven votes, polling 49*^,191 votes to 494,104 for Stevenson.^3 Johnson's percentage was

50.005.

"^"^ ^^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 27, 1948. '^^ Ibid. 73 ©le Lubbock Evening Journal, Axigust 26, 19^8. 88 Stevenson claimed fraud and took the election re­ sults to court. He and Johnson threw charge and counter­ charge at each other in the press and suit and counter-suit against each other in Court. Finally, on October 5, 19^8, a court decision cleared the way for Johnson as the Demo­ cratic nominee.76 Stevenson, on October 12, 19^8, Issued a statement supporting Johnson's GOP opponent Jack Porter and announced he would campaign for Porter.77 Porter's advertisements claimed fraud In Johnson's victory over Stevenson and said a vote for Porter would be a vote for "honest elections. "7^ Another advertisement called Porter "a better democrat than his opponent. "79 Johnson won easily in Lubbock County and over the state, but his 10,891 votes in Lubbock were about fifteen hundred votes less than those of other Democratic candi- 80 dates. Hio state total of 702,985 votes was also con­ siderably less than Democratic votes for other racea while

The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, October 6, 1948. 77 Ibid., October 13, 19^8. ?^ Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, October 31, 1948. 79 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, November 2, 1948. ^ Election Returns, Lubbook County Clerk's Office, 1948. 89 Porter's 349,665 votes were more than those polled by other GOP candidates.^1

The Election of 1952

With Tom Connally's retirement three candidates sought his seat in the Senate; only tvjo were given a chance of winning. Attoamey General Price Daniel, a heavy favorite, vied with Congressman Lindley Beckworth for the vacated seat. E. W. Napier of Wichita Fslls also made the race. Both of the major candidates visited Lubbock. Beckworth spoke to fifty people and emphasized that the people, not big money, should be the ones to make the ftp selections for office. He stressed his fourteen years in Congress, and vowed support for both farmers and business- men. 8-^3 Daniel made a radio speech and campaign address in Lubbock. He spoke of "Prosperity Without Regimentation. "^ Daniel said "all of the gains made by the farmers and ranchers ^ere/ being threatened by hi^ taxes, big spending

^1 ©ie Otexas Almanac, 19^9-50, p. 475. ^ 5J£ Lubbock Evening Journal, June 26, 1952. ^3 Ibid. 84 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, J\ay 8, 1952. 90 and government regimentation. "^5 He criticized the Brannan Farm Plan and corrupticxi in government. Daniel wanted to cut waste and extravagance in government.^^ Duniel capitalized on his fight for the tidelands of Texas in his bid for the Senate post and Beckworth was dubbed the New Deal candidate in the race. Daniel defeated both opponents easily in Lubbock as well as over the state to win in the first primary. Daniel's 12,042 votes in Lubbock coiad not be matched by Beckworth's 2,363 votes nor Napier's 1,467 votes.^7 state totals ^ve Daniel 9^0,770 votes to Beckworth»s 285,842 votes, and Napier's 70,132 votes.^ Daniel's percentage in Lubbock of 75.87 was slightly higher than his 72.5^ of the state votes.

The Election of 1954

Only Dudley Dougherty of Beevllle opposed Lyndon Johnson's bid for a second term in 1954. Johnson did not campaign; Dougherty waged a vigorous race but to no avail. Coke Stevenson, still smarting from his loss to Johnson in 19^8, campaigned for Doiigherty. The youthful

85 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 8, 1952. 86 Ibid. P^^'lM^J^ Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1952. 88 Thie Texas Almanac, 1954-55, P. 453. 91 former state legislator hammered away at the fraud charges of Jcfimson's 19^8 election. In Lubbock Dougherty commented, "without my entry, hundreds of thousands or people who have definitely considered opinions concerning this race woiild have no voice. "^^ Doui^rty, speaking to a Rotary Club luncheon, said he was running in the interest of honest elections and opposed bloc voting. He also claimed he had definite programs for water conservation and progress for the state.90 Johnson received 9,874 votes in Lubbock County: Dougherty received 3,636 votes.^-^ Johnson's total vote reached 883,264; Dougherty's total reached 354,188 votes.92 Johnson polled 73-093^ of the votes in Lubbock County and 71.38^ of the votes cast in the state.

89 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 8, 1954. 90 Tbid. ^isns^yy Returns, Lubbock Democratic ]terty, 1954. ^ 5^ ^^« Almanac, 1956-57, P. 521. CHAPTE31 IV THE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

The 19th Congressional District was created by the state legislature in 1933. The District was composed of twenty-five counties. They were Bailey, Lamb, Hale, Cochran, Hockley, Floyd, Lubbock, Crosby, Dickens, King, Yoakum, Terry, Lynn, Garza, Kent, Stonewall, Haskell, Gaines, Dawson, Borden, Scurry, Mitchell, Andrews, Martin, and Howard.* Lubbock was the only city of any size in the district. Big Spring, in Howard County, and Snyder, in Scurry County, developed into the only cities of any con­ sequential size in the south end of the district. The district was primarily a farm district in 1934 although there were oil fields in the counties on the west edge. The population of the district in 1934 was 254,367, and 369,315, in 1956.^

The Election of 1934

The first Congressional election for the 19th Con­ gressional District was in 1934. The district has had only one Congressman since its Inception. The elction of 1934

^ ®^ Senate Journal. Texas Senate, 43rd Legisla­ ture, RegSIar Session (1933), P. 1832. — ^ The Texas Almanac, 1952-53 {Dallas: A. H. Belo Corporation, 1953;, P. 335. Hereafter cited as The Texas Almanac and year. ng

. y fl *" • ^ '*•«, I - 93 was a hard fought cc»itest. The only other major contest inas in 1946. The incumbent was opposed in the Primary elections of 1936, 1940, 1944, 19*^6, and 1950, and faced Republican opposition in 19^6, 19'*8, and 1950. An impressive array of eight candidates competed for the distinction of being the first representative from the 19th Congressional District. They were businessman Fred Haile of Spur, in Dickens County; District Judge Clark Miaiican of the 99th District Co\irt of Lubbock; District Judge H

^ J^ Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, May 6, 1934. ^ Ibid. ^ ^le Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 24, 1934 ^ Ibid., July 18, 1934. 7 Ibid. 95 stamping out profits of stay-at-homes during wartime. He also urged the restoration of international trade and favored an interstate law prohibiting the shipment of "vile litera­ ture and movies into the state. "^ In closing, Mahoi told his listeners, "I do not pose as a geniiis or a conquering hero."^ Mahcm's advertisements stressed that "he /y&Bj a clean, hard-working campaigner and he ^ould/ make the 19th Congressional District a clean, capable, hard-working Conga?essman. He ^ould/ represent ALL of the people. A vote for George Mahon ^ould/ be a vote for your kind of man."^^ Judge Clark Mullican put forth a statement on his candidacy in May. It was a short, four sentence statement: "To keep faith with my fellow man. To ever be mindful of my trust. To remain loyal to those I represent. To always do the very best I can." The Lubbock Jurist spoke to a crowd of two thousand 12 to 2,200 people. He complimented all of his opponents as

^ ^^ lAibbock Moming Avalanche, July 18, 1934. ^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., July 27, 1934. ^^ Ibid., May 13, 1934. ^^ Ibid., July 20, 1934. _ 96 "good men. "^3 Mullican's platform included national old age pension legislation, exchange of foreigi debts for foreign goods, exchange between nations of surplus commodi­ ties and payment of the soldier bonus. He also proposed a protective tariff for the farmers. Mullican mentioned that he was the first candidate to anno\mce for the post and also mentioned his Judicial experience.-^^ Mullican started advertising in June with a small advertisement that simply stated that Judge Clark Mullican of the 99th District Court was a candidate for Congress in the Democratic Primaries.''^5 tj^^Q advertisement appeared at least once and often twice in almost every paper from late June until election day. Judge Homer Pharr's Lubbock speech to a crowd of ^ l6 1,600 was a sarcastic one. He was critical of his oppo­ nents and said sca;^ of them were very hesitant about making any statements. He was very critical of "the Senator from Littlefleld, "^7 senator Arthur P. Duggan. Pharr charged that Duggan opposed a child labor eunendment to the United

^^ J5i£ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 20, 1934. ^^ Ibid. ^5 Ibid., June 26, 1934. ^^ Ibid., July 25, 1934. ^7 Ibid. 71 States Constitution when it was referred to the Texas State Senate for action. Pharr also made frequent references to xxewspaper propaganda, and said he could not obtain newspaper stories and interviews. The bespectacled Judge advocated government and public inspection of Congressional income tax returns, universal military training, further restriction of immigrants, a United States Department of Education, lower postal rates, and repeal of "unjust taxes. "-^^ Senator Dug^n's campaigning in Lubbock was through the media of newspaper advertisements. One listed his plat­ form and his qualifications.^ Another claimed he was "the i20 man of proven ability, "^ and urged the voters to "vote for our own good and the good of the district by electing a truly qualified man."..2^1 The resixlts of the July Primary were as follows:

•^^ The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, JxUy 25, 1934. ^^ Ibid., July 19, 1934. ^^ Ibid., July 27, 1934. 2^ Ibid. 98

CANDIDATE LUBBOCK2 2 DISTRIC#3 MULLICAN 3,951 10,933 PHARR 1,529 4,9»^7 MAHON 1,170 20,370 DUGGAN 735 9:^3 HAILE 210 3,381 WHITE 134 2,483 JOHNSON 70 1,824 THOMPSON 49 374 Mahon, while receiving only 14.91^ of the Lubbock vote, polled 37.52^ of the vote over the district. Mullican's 50.34^ in Lubbock dropped to 20.l4jl^ over the district. Mahon led in sixteen counties, Duggan in three counties, Miillican and Haile in two counties, and Pharr and Johnson in one county each.24 Judge Mullican's friends rallied to his support and organized a MiiLlican-For-Congress Club with headquarters in Lubbock. At the or^nizational meeting of the group, charges of inexperience and incapability were h\irled at Mahon, and Mullican stated that "it will take hard work to overcome the great lead. T*at bunch in Mitchell County is very well organized. "25 The Judge was appreciative of his

op Primary Election Returns, Lubbock Democratic Partyeturns, Lubbock, tubboc, k fgsasDemocrati, 1934c . PartHereaftey and ryear cite. d as Primary ^^ J5£ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 3, 1934. ^^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., August 2, 1934. 99 vote and said he had conducted his campal^i on a high level. He also claimed that "the other side has nothing to offer, no platform; nothing to stand on. "26 George Dupree, Lubbock lawyer and one of the Mtzlli- can supporters at the meeting, expressed the hope that Duggan and Pharr would support Mullican.27 However, neither Duggan nor Pharr would align them­ selves with either of the two runoff opponents. Duggan said he could not tell his supporters for whom to vote in the inmoff because they were all capable of making up their own minds.'^'28^ The Mullican-For-Congress Club was very active on Mullican's behalf. The Slaton group made a tour of the district with a twenty-five piece band and claimed that Mullican was gaining votes everywhere.29 Mahon visited in Lubbock twice during the runoff. The first visit was primarily for the pirrpose of mapping campaign plans with his friends and supporters although he did issue a statement of appreciation for his votes in

2^ The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 2, 1934. 27 Ibid. ^^ Ibid. ^^ ,52s. Lubbock Evening Journal, August I6, 1934. 100 the July 28 election.3^ The Colorado City lawyer's main address in Lubbock was a few days prior to the runoff vote. Mahon urged a united constituency, re^rdless of the victor in the race and stated that if elected, he would represent the entire 31 district.-' Mahon reviewed his platform and stated, "I have not assumed to be the miracle man In this race. "32 Mahon's runoff advertisements gave the total votes for himself and Mullican in the first election and named the counties in which Mahon had been the leader.33 Mulli­ can's advertisements were the same as in the first primary. The Judge spent most of his time stumping the dis­ trict, particularly the southern part. Mahon carried twenty-three coumtles in the runoff election to two co\m- ties for Mullican, and won by 34,974 votes to 18,699 oh votes.-' Lubbock voters gave Mullican 4,380 votes to Mahon's 3,043.35 while Mahon's Lubbock percentage was 4l, he 3?eceived 65.16^ of the district's votes.

'^^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, August 4, 1934. 31 Ibid., August 22, 1934. ^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., August 24, 1934. ^ Ibid., August 29, 1934. Pyl^nary Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1934. 101 Judge Mullican issued a very gracious statement thanking those who voted for him and congratulating Mahon.3^ Mahon*s statement was as follows:

I feel under everlasting obligation to the people of the 19th Congressional District for the vote given me Saturday, i find myself incapable of fully expressing my appreciation. In the great task that is before us, I solicit the support and good will of all our people throughout the dis­ trict. 37

The statement was characteristic of Mahou's attitude throu^out his years of service. He was assi^ied to the Appropriations Coimaittee of the House of Representatives and the Sub-Committee on Defense Appropriations.

The Election of 1936

Mr. Mahon remained in Washington since Congress was still in aeBBion in July, 1936, and did not campaigi. He was opposed by a retired Lubbock Minister, E. B. Speck, who used the Townsend Pension Plan as his platform. Mr. Speck campaigned over the district but Mahon won easily. He de­ feated Speck in Lubbock by i^ceiving 5,877 votes to 2,350 votes for his opponent.3° Mahon carried every county in

3^ Tlie Lubbock A valanche-J oumal, August 26, 1934. 37 Ibid. PylMBJ^ Returns, Lubbock Democratic Kirty, 1936. 102 the district, outpolling Speck 40,093 votes to 14,557 votes.39 Mahon's Lubbock percentage was 71.44; his dis­ trict percentage was 73-36. The Lubbock paper mentioned that "the vote attests to growing popularity of the young Colorado J^XtjJ barrister. "^^ Mahon, in 1936, was chosen to campai©! for the Democratic national ticket in the East. A Lubbock editorial entitled "Mr. Mahon Moves Up," commented that Mahon's selection as a Roosevelt speaker showed how capable the Congressman was and was also a compliment to the 19th Congressional District.^^

The Election of 1940

Mahon was unopposed In 1938. C. L. Harris, state 3?epresentative fr

To The People Of The 19th Congressional District:

39 Returns fu3?nished by the Legislative Reference Division of the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas. 40 The Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 27, 1936. 41 Ibid., August 18, 1936. 103 I am deeply grateful for the loyalty and sup­ port which the people of our district have given me thiwxfiSwut my service in Congress. I have worked hard in Washington and taried to grow in influence in order that I might be of greater service to our district and nation and in the hope that I might Jxistify to the best of my ability the faith you have shown in me. I will deeply appreciate your again remember­ ing me on election day. The sessions of Congress and my work on the Appropriations Committee In connecticMi with oxir national defense have made it impossible for me to be in our district for the primary campaign, but I know you have under­ stood the situaticoi. . My thanks and best wishes to you a 11.^2

Harris, in his announcement for the office, said he favored a change in the farm program to benefit the tenant farmer and condemned the present state fasnsi program. He had been a state rep3?esentative since 1936.^3 A wire story on the state's congressional races a few days before the primary commented on the race in the 19th District and mentioned that Ramsey claimed the support of the pension group and that the only activity in the campaign had been handshaking by Harris and Ramsey.*^ Mahon again won eve3?y county in the district in crushing his opponents in the first primary. He received

*" Ihe Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 25, 1940. Ibid., February 20, 19*^0. ^^ Ibid., July 22, 19»^0. 104 7,595 votes in Lubbock, Harris 1,507 votes and Ramsey 4 91 votes. 5 Mahon polled 50,026 votes over the district to 9,784 for Harris, and 6,352 for Ramsey.^^ Mahon's percent­ age of 79.18 in Lubbock was slightly higher than his dis­ trict percentage of 75.61.

The Election of 19^4

Mahon was unopposed in 19*^2. c. L. Karris, a de­ feated candidate of 19^0, entered the race again in 1944. Congress adjourned early and Mahon came back to the district on July 1. He was hopef\a of victory in the war by possibly late 19^4. The Congressman planned to see as many of his constituents as possible but did not plan an extensive campaign.^7 Mahon's re-election advertisement stressed his work on the Appropriations Committee and stated that he had "fought waste, bungling and unneceasary regulations. "^° I^rrls waged an aggressive campaign. His advertise­ ments urged that a vote for Harris was a "vote against useless bureaucratic meddling, "^9 and stated Harris was

^^°^3^ Retxuma, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1940. ^^ ,S}e Texas Almanac, 19*H-42, p. 4o6. 47 The Lubbock Evening Journal, July 1, 19*^4. ^^ Ibid., July 19, 19^4. ^^ Ibid., July 21, 1944. 105 for free enterprise and constitutional government. Bring our present Congressman hcane add let him try to make a living under the laws he helped pass. A frequent change of officials makes for a strong democracyi "5^ Mahon defeated Harris in every county to win 32,876 votes to 16,828 votes.51 m Lubbock Mahon's 4,670 votes topped Harris* 2,938 votes.52 Mahon polled 61.38^ of the votes in Lubbock and 66.14^ of the votes over the district.

The Election of 19^6

Congressman Mahon's greatest election test since 1934 came in 191*6 when "Hop" Balsey, former state repre­ sentative from Lubbock and a Texas Tech graduate, entered the race. Mahon, in January, had talked with some Littlefleld farmers about their dissatisfaction with the government crop insurance program. Mahon told the group he would get a cross-section of opinion as to how the district's farmers felt about the ins\irance program, related some of the history of the program and expressed his opinion that the program should afford sOTie degree of protection a^inst

^^ ^ii Lubbock Evening Journal, July 21, 1944. 51 jBhe Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 26, X^^K. PJg'lP^yy Returns, Lubbock Dsmocratio party. X9^ io6 drouth. 53 Mahon was the commencement speaker at the June grad­ uation exercises of Texas Technological College. He ^ve an address on the moral and spiritual values of life to the graduating seniors.54 Congressman Mahon opened his campaign for re-elec­ tion early in July, 19^6^at Colorado City and campaigned over the district during that month. He spoke In Lubbock a week before the election to a crowd of 1,200 to fifteen hundred people and invited the voters to return their "hired hand"55 to Washington. Mahon said that the United States "must not reverse its policy of international coop­ eration. We must not withdraw into a shell as we did after the First World War. "5° He spoke of the defeat of isola­ tionist Senator B\n?ton K. Wheeler of Montana a short time before as a good sign; an awareness of the people to their responsibilities. Mahon also reviewed his work in Congress and stated that his voting record was open to the public.57

^^ ^n^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, January 3, 19^6. ^ Ibid., June 4, 19*^6. ^^ j5?£ Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, July 21, XS^S. 56 Ibid. 57 Ibid. 107 Congressman Mahon made several radio talks in Lub­ bock and had several newspaper advertisements. One adver­ tisement stressed Mahcm's seniority in Congress and his work on the Appropriations Coamittee for veterans and their dependents and said he was the type of man needed in wash- inton. The advertisement was paid for by veterans of World War 11.5*^ Another advertisement urged a vote for a "sound, experienced representative in Washington, George Mahon. "59 Challenger Halsey's Lubbock rally came two days be­ fore election day. He spoke to a crowd of almost three thousand but was first preceded by his cowboy band. Halsey wanted the federal government to pay every person o'ver sixty-five years of age a pension of twenty dollars a month regardless of whether or not the state matched it. He was also for free enterprise, increasing teachers pay twenty per cent with federal funds, and wanted no income taxes for persons making less than thirty-five dollars per week. Halsey also condemned labor lacketears."-^

^ j5]£ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, JxOy 13, 1946. ^^ Ibid., July 25, 19^6. ^ Ibid., July 26, 19^6. ^^ Ibid. — 108 Halsey's advertisements stressed his experience in state government, his military service and urged voters to "Send A New Man To Washington."^ Halsey also nade several radio broadcasts and stimiped the district. Ihe Lubbock Chapter of the Negro Voters League endorsed Halsey.^3 Mahon breezed to victory, winning twenty-three of the twenty-five counties, and rolling up a vote of 44,508 to Halsey's 26,888 votes.^ Mahon won in Lubbock County with a vote of 7,844 to Halsey's 4,654 votes.^5 »pbe victor's Lubbock percentage of 62.77 was almost identical with his district percentage of 62.34. M. D. Temple of Lubbock announced as a Republican candidate for Mahon's Job for the purpose of starting a two-party system and to create interest. Temple felt that the "New Deal ^d/ turned into a raw deal. "^^ Temple visited all the counties m the district. He received 275 votes in Lubbock in the November election while

^^^ Lubbock Moming A\alanche, July 26, 1946. ^^ Ibid., July 27, 1946. ^ ^le TexBiB Almanac, 19^7-48, p. 402. ^'y^jg^ry Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1946. 66 The Lubbock A valanche -J ouma 1, August 25, 1946. 109 Mahon polled 2,768.^7 Mahcm's 15,821 votes in the district far outdistanced Temple's 905 votes.^ Mahon had 90.96j^ of the Lubbock votes and 9*^.595^ of the district votes.

The Election of 19*^8

Mahon was unopposed in the Democ3?atic Primary, but T«aple ag^in opposed him iii November. The Colorado City and Lubbock Congressman defeated his GOP opponent 58,585 votes to 2,724 votes.^^ m Lubbock Mahon had 13,700 votes to Temple's 1,146 votes."^ Mahon's peaxjentage in Lubbock of 92.56 was slightly under his 95.5^ for the district.

The Election of 1950

In 1^0, Anton Mike Ripps of Big Spring, a retired railroad engineer, announced against Mahon. Ripps advocated a tariff of one dollar a barx^l on imported oil, a sharp reduction in govexn:iment spending, and strong national de- fense. He was opposed to socialized medicine.7' 1 As far

67 Election Returns, Office of County Clerk, Lub­ bock, Texas7^9^t3. Hereafter cited as Election Returns, IuggocF7?omitynerk's Office and year. 68 The CongressiOTal Directory, 8lst Congress, Ist session (WasKIngton, 1949), p. 250. ^^ IbAd. 70 ' Election Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, i2!i§- ^ .52£ Lubbook MiMpning Avalanche, May 8, 1950. 110 as is known, Mr. Ripps did not wage an active campaign. Mahon did not campaign. Mahon's margin of victory was a large one. He de­ feated Ripps in Lubbock by 8,680 votes to 83I votes, ^mer- ing a percentage of 91.26.72 over the district Mahon bested Ripps With 54,979 votes to 6,681 votes.73 Mahon's percent­ age was 89.16 for the district. M. D. Temple tried again in November to unseat Mahon. The second ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee topped his challenger with 17,828 votes to 1,162 74 votes. In Lubbock Coxmty, Mahon received 2,784 votes and Temple 410 votes.75 Mahon's district percentage of 93.88 was slightly higher than his 87.16^ in Lubbock.

1952-1956

Congressman Mahon was unopposed in 1952, 1954, and 1956. In 1952 when many state officeholders bolted the Democratic party in favor of Eisenhower, Mr. Mahon did not do so because:

"^^ ^iiP^yy Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, 1950. 7"^ 3*1£ ^^» Almanac, 1952-53, P. 491. 7^ Ibid., p. 449. Election Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, 1950. Ill

L^^^^ Bee how I or any other office holder in ni^^4.?^®i^^^ ^ candidate for office on the Democratic ticket/ could do otherwise. ... I nave long been in disagreement with many of the party leaders on certain issues such as Texas tidelands, ccmpulsory FEPC, and repeal of the Taft-Hartley law. i still decry, as I consistent­ ly have decried, waste and corruption in the government.76

In 1956 Mahon was Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Defense Appropriations, a position he had held for several years while the Democrats controlled Congress and he was next in line to become Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Mahon trailed only about two dozen repre­ sentatives In terms of service in the House. Mr. Mahon's policy from 1934-1956 was to renain on the Job in Washington until Congress adjourned. He was able to follow that policy every year with the exception of the 1946 contest. Mr. Mahon's views on his service were best illustrated when he wrote: "l have always felt that a public official gets along better politically and otherwise if he stays on the Job and works hard to serve the public interest. "77 After the adjournment of Congress in the period studied, Mr. Mahon always made a to\xr of the district, reporting on what

"^^ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, September 10, 1952. ^ Letter to the writer, June 27, 1958. 112 was done by the Congress and speaking to civic, school and church groups, in 1956 the Congressman was held in high esteem by colleagues of both parties and by his constituents. 113

CHAPTER V THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Campaigning in Presidential elections was limited primarily to newspaper advertisements in 1936 and XS^O. In 19^4, The Texas Regulars waged an active campaign in Lubbock Coimty as did the States' Rights Party in 19*^8. The Republican Barty waged an aggressive campaign in 1952 and a^in in 1956; both campaigns resulting in Lubbock County voting Republican. Except for those two elections in the period 1934-1956, Lubbock County overwhelmingly supported the nominees of the Democratic Party. The Republicans, Texas Regulars, States' Righters and other groups always advertised illustrations showing voters how to split the ticket and vote for a Presidential candidate other than the Democratic nominee while still voting the Democratic ticket otherwise.

The Elections of 1936 and 19^0

At the end of Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term he had almost xiniversal Texas support for a second term. A group of states' righters who called thetti»<*lves Jeffersonian Democrats had one advertisement in the Lubbock paper con­ demning Roosevelt and the New Deal.

The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 14, 1936. 113 114 In 19^0, the ant 1-third term Democrats were more active in Lubbock than were the Republicans. One Willkie advertisement paid for by the former group was extremely critical of every phase of President Roosevelt's program, especially his agricultural program.^ Another condemned Roosevelt's "one man government. "3 Roosevelt received 8,113 votes in Lubbock County to 4 1,283 votes for Willkie. The President polled 840,131 Texas votes while Willkie gamered 199,152 votes.5

The Election of 19*^4

An or^nization of staunch states* righters in 19^4 called the Texas Regulars attempted to end Texas support of Roosevelt and the New Deal. A slate of Regulars appeared on the November ballot as uninstructed electors, jL.£., if they wez*e successful in the election, they would be able to award the Texas electoral votes to any candidate. Hie Regulars waged an aggressive and bitter fight throughout the state and in Lubbock County a^lnst the state

2 ©le Lubbock Evening Journal, October 30, 19'^0. 3 Ibid., October 31, 19*^0. ^ Electicm Returns, Office of ttie County Clerk, Lubbock, Texas, XS^TT. Hereafter clTed as Eiectlcgrie^ums, Lubbock County Clerk's Office and year. 5 The Texas Almanac, 19^1-42 (Dallas: A. H. Belo Corporation7nL9^2), p. 400. Herearter cited as The Texas Almanac and year. 115 Democratic Barty. Senator W. Lee O'Danlel campaigned for the Regulars and appeared in Lubbock on behalf of the ultra- conservative group. O'Danlel also made nimierous radio broadcasts, in Lubbock he spoke to a crowd of 1,200 people and attacked the "communistic and racketeering elements who controlled the Democratic Party."" He a^in condemned professional politicians and spoke of the degeneration of the Democratic Party. O'Danlel claimed the New Deal had discarded the Constitution. The Junior Senator tram Texas spoke of Southern traditions and brought racism and anti- labor sentiment into his speech. He \irged voters to support the Texas Regulars.7 In addition to O'Danlel, several local citizens were active in the Texas Regular movement. George Dupree spoke 8 over a local radio station on constitutional government. Dupree and James 0. Cade, another Lubbock attorney, flayed the New Deal and one man rule at a Lubbock rally.^ The Regulars flooded the newspapers with advertise­ ments. One advertised radio addsTess was to explain:

^ "^^ Lubbock Evening Journal, October 26, 19*^0. 7 Ibid. ^ Ibid. 9 Ibid., November 3, 19*^4. 116 WHY and how socialists, coianunlsts, and Negroes have acquired the name of the 'Democratic Barty,' and abolished racial segregation, and WHY the regular Southern Democrats have been forced to adopt the name of 'Texas Regulars* in the November general election in order to pre­ serve the principles of true democracy.10

Another advertisement urged independents, "fighting mad" Democrats, etnti-New Dealers and Republicans to unite and stop the New Deal in Texas by voting the Texas Regulars ticket and "Let's Keep The White In Old Glory. "^^ A similar advertisement charged the New Deal with being oommxinistic, condemned federal encroaftttBent of social equality, centrali­ zation, federal domination of the Texas free school system and meddling in Southern agricultiire. The CIO was condemned

In an advertisement showing voters how to split the ticket the Texas Regular movement was described as a "great crusade" to stop the New Deal. -* Cartoons depicted Sydney Hillman, labor leader. Communist Earl Browder, and President 14 Roosevelt as close friends.

-^^ The Lubbock Evening Journal, October 26, X9^\. ^^ Sii Lubbock A valanche-Journal, October 22, 1944. ^^ J5»!. Lubbock Evening Journal, October 23, 1944. ^3 ^le Lubbock A valanche-Journal, October 29, 19^4. 1^ Ibid. 117 Another quarter of a page advertisement reprinted an article by Ray Diidley, editor of the Oil Weekly, entitled: "So Help Me God, " which condemned the "ccmmimistlc New Deal, " and cast personal reflections upon Hillman, Browder, labor leader Phillip M\array, and even Roosevelt.•*-5 Another advertisement on the day before the election showed voters how to split the ticket and "Beat Roosevelt.' Kick Out Communism.' Clean Up The Democratic Barty.'"^° Car­ toons in the advertisement showed Democrats "(the regular kind)". Republicans and Independents kicking Franklin D. Roosevelt, Hillman and Browder and Roosevelt's dog, Fdlla, "(Yes, Falla, too.')"^*^ The local Donocratic or^nization urged the voters not to be misled by the Texas Regulars who definitely were not Democrats. A newspaper advertisement called the Regu­ lars "bolters, lobbyists, isolationists, agents and paid attorney," and characterized Senator O'Danlel as their henchman and mouthpiece. "-^^ Prices of cotton and hogs in 1944, and wages in 19''l'4, were compared with the same items

^^ Si® Lubbock Evening Journal, October 31, 19*^4. 1^ Ibid., November 6, 1944. ^"^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid., October 25, 19^4. 118 in 1932. Voters were urged: "Let's Keep The Red, White ^M ^lue In Old Glory.'"^^ Another advertisement urged voters to vote the straight Democratic ticket. "Don't Lose Another Peace. Vote the Democratic ticket Straight. "^^ The lone Republican advertisement urged voters to vote for Thomas E. Dewey and constitutional government. 21 Roosevelt was victorious in two polls in Lubbock. Hifi^ school students gave him 159 votes, Dewey fifty-six votes and six students expressed no opinion. 22 A Texas Tech straw vote g^ve Roosevelt 78^ of the 122 votes as "little interest was shown in the Texas Regulars." 3 Lubbock voters did not Join in the great crusade of the Texas Regulars. Instead they £^ve Roosevelt 7,654 votes to the Regulars 2,021 votes and 1,169 votes for Dewey. 24 T3^ Democratic ticket won easily in Texas, polling 821,605 votes to 191,425 votes for the Republican candidate 25 and 135,439 votes for the Texas Regulars.

^^ jttie Lubbock Evening Journal, October 25, 19*^4. ^^ ^Q Lubbock A valanche-Journal, November 5, 19*^4. 21 Ibid. 22 j^ Lubbock Evening Journal, October 29, 19^4. 23 Ibid., November, 19'^4. 2^ Election Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, 1944. ^5 Ttie Texas Almanac, 19^^5-46, p. 533. 119 Roosevelt's percentage in Lubbock County of 70.51 was almost equal to his 71.44^^ of the state totals.

The Election of 191^8

The revolt within the ranks of the Democratic Barty in 1948 was not confined to Texas. Henry Wallace formed the Progressive Party and a Southern Dlxiecret or States' Rights Barty was formed by rebellious southerners. Both J. Strom Thurmond, Governor of South Carolina, and Governor Fielding Wright of Mississippi, nominees for President and Vice President respectively of the States' Rights Barty, appeared in Lubbock. Thurmond spoke in early 26 September to a crowd of about 1,500. He condemned Presi­ dent Truman's Civil Rights program and his Fair Employment Practices Commission. Ihurmond was introduced by both C. L. Harris and John Lee Smith of Lubbock who condemned state 27 Democratic leaders in their introductions. ' A little over a month later Governor Fielding Wright of Mississippi spoke in Lubbock. The advertisement herald­ ing his visit mentioned that:

^^ SE L\a)bock Moming Avalanche, September 10, 19*^8. ^7 Ibid. 120

He headed the Mississippi dele^tion at the Phlla- aeiphla Convention and bc^dly denounced the com­ bination of big city bosses, negro groups and left wingers in their vlcloixs and disloyal attacks on the Democrats of the South.28

C. L. Harris, twice defeated candidate for Congress, also introduced Wright. The Mississippi chief executive preached the gospel of states* rights and the South, and condemned almost everything and everybody north of the Mason-Dixon line.29 An A valanche-Journal poll prior to the election ^ve Truman 371 votes, Thurmond 359 votes, Dewey 347 votes and Wallace nineteen votes.3^ The Co\mty's Democratic votes numered 11,114 in the election to 2,837 Republican ballots and 1,202 votes for 31 the States' Rights ticket. In the same order over the state the votes for the Democrats totaled 750,000, 282,240 votes went to the Republicans and 106,909 votes to the Dixiecrats.32

^^ Lubbock Evening Journsa, October 20, 1948. 29 ^^ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 23, 1948. ^^ Lubbock A valanche-Journal, October 31, 1948. El<^Qtion Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, 32 Ihe Texas Almanac, 19^-50, p.475. 121

The Election of 1952

Political activity in Lubbock started early in 1952 when Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, "Mr. Republican," visited the city in March. Taft spoke at a noon liincheon of civic clubs and the following day he spoke at Texas Tech. At the luncheon Taft issiaed a three point program which consisted of putting the Hoover Commissl(»i report Into full effect, reduction of federal personnel and 3?e-examination of the nation's mobilization pr6si?am.33 At Texas Tech Taft told an audience of three thou­ sand that the Republican Party offered "hope and leader­ ship. "3 He decried the lack of Interest of the American people in politics and stressed the Importance of more ed­ ucation and research in the itirm program. He also declared that the farm program should not be a partisan affair. 35 At a press conference Taft condemned Truman's poli­ cies of government, indicated his support of the United Nations, and expressed his opposition to universal military training "at this time."^ The Sunday A valanche-Journal later commented

^^ 3ii Lubbock Evening Journal, March 12, 1952. ^^ SS Lubbock Moming Avalanche, March 13, 1952. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 122 fSavorably on the 1952 nominees of both major parties. Of the GOP nominees, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Senator Richard M. Nixon, it was observed:

Th\is, to the average citizen whose Interest Is in his country, rather than in either party, the Eisenhower-Nixon choice will be helpful. At the very least, it is enough of a threat to preclude some Democratic excesses which could have been continued in the face of a weaker opposition team. 37

In commenting on the ncmiinees of the Democratic Party, Adlai E. Stevenson and Senator John Sparkman, an editorial stated:

But indications are that, if the Democratic Barty cannot win with Governor Stevenson, it could not win with anyone, y^n or lose, the Democratic National Convention enters the cam­ paign with the strcKigest man amilable, and supported by a vice-presidential running mate who should help to insure party unity in the South. 38

The issue of the tidelands, oil lands lying off the Texas coast, was a question of interest to Texans in 1952. Eisenhower supported the Texas claim; Stevenson did not. The Amarillo State Democratic Convention put the names of

^'^ 5S£ Lubbock A valanche-Joimial, J\ay 13, 1952. 3^ Ibid., July 27, 1952. 123 AdlAi Stevenson and John Sparkman on the ballot in Texas as the nominees of the Democratic Party, but the Shivers • forces vowed to work for the election of Eisenhower and Nixon.39 On the same date. United States Senator nominee Price Daniel announced he would neither support nor vote for Stevenson. In October, Governor Allen Shivers announced he would vote hi for Eisenhower. As a resxilt of the Shivers-Daniel bolt, numerous Texas Democrats For Eisenhower Clubs sprang up over the state. Dr. D. M. Wiggins, former President of Texas Tech, spoke at the opening of the Eisenhower headquarters in Lubbock. Over two hundred people were present and heard Wiggins call for a return to constitutional government.^"^ On October l4, GOP candidate Dwight D. Elsenhower spoke to ten thousand Lubbock and South Plains citizens at the miuiicipal airport. 3 The crowd sang "Happy Birthday" to the General before he was introduced by Lubbock Mayor

39 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, September 10,1952.

»Q Ibid. ^^ Ibid., October 3, 1952. 42 Ibid., September 13, 1952. ^3 Ibid., October 15, 1952. 124 Murrell Tripp. ^ ma speech of nineteen minutes, Elsen­ hower addressed his remarks first to the Texas Tech students and other young voters present. He also denied the rumor that he would cut the pay of the military if he won the election. Elsenhower repeated his stand on the tidelands, talked of the farm program and spoke for integrity in government. The crowd was very enthusiastic. 5 A week later Congressman George Mahon and Speaker Sam Raybum appealed for Democratic votes to a crowd of 1,100.^" Mahon spoke for about fifteen minutes before introducing Raybum, who gave the major address. "Mr. Democrat" warned that Texas and Southern Congressmen would lose Important ccxmnittee posts if the Republicans ^ined control of the Congress. Raybum's fifty minute speech, part of which was broadcast, included a fiery blast at Richard Nixon and a re­ minder of the last time the Republicans were in power. Governor Shivers and Attorney General Price Daniel were accused of doing more toward losing the Texas tidelands than anything else. Raybum remarked in his address, "I am a Democrat without prefixes, without suffixes, and without

H47 apologies."^'

^* j^ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 15, 1952. ^5 Ibid. ^^ Ibid., October 21, 1952. ^'^ Ibid. 125 Governor Shivers, speaking to a dinner group of 550 in Lubbock, called Stevenson's campaign "the big scare." The Governor condemned American foreign policy, attacked centralization, and talked of the Texas fight for the tide- lands. The Americans for Democratic Action was criticized as a group "so liberal and so pinko that they couldn't stay in either party. "^^ Shivers urged his listeners to "get out the vote—vote for the man Texas and America needs and wants. Ike Eisenhower /~sicJ7. "5^ !nie Eisenhower newspaper advertisements, paid for primarily by the Texas Democx^ts for Eisenhower or^nlzation, far outn\;aabered those for Stevenson. One advertisement paraphrased the Democratic slogan of "You Never Had It So Good," picturing two United States soldiers in a foxhole with the slogan of "They Never Bad It So Good. "51 Included in the advertisement was an attack on American foreign policy.52 Another advertisement reprinted a Danocratlc hand­ bill of 1932 urging the election of Roosevelt and Garner because they would reduce expenditures. The national debt

48 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 24, 1952. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid. Ihe Lubbock Evening Journal, October 26, 1952. ^ Ibid. 126 of 1932 was compared with the debt In 1952. A vote for Elsenhower, ^ truly great American," was urged because he would clean up "the mess in Washington. "^^ A similar adver­ tisement had a cartoon depicting the high cost of living and asked, "Do you call this prosperity? "5^ The slo^n of "Vote Texan—Vote Ike" was popularized in nimierous advertisements. It appeared with one advertise­ ment announcing a television address by former Governors W. P. Hobby, Coke Stevenson, and Dan Moody in support of Eisenhower.55 on the local level. Dr. Clifford B. Jones, President Emeritus of Texas Tech, spoke for Elsenhower in a radio broadcast.^

53 jflie Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 28, 1952. ^ Ibid., November 3, 1952. 55 Ibid., October 30, 1952. ^^ TS± Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, November 1, 1952. 57 Ibid. 127 III.58 The Stevenson advertisements stressed party loyalty. The main advertisement was a full page of questions and answers pertaining to the tidelands issue prepared by two former Attorney Generals of Texas, William McCraw and Grover Sellers. The statements were critical of Daniel and Shivers for their parts in the controversy and also of their bolt of the party.59 Another advertisement was a reprint of a statement by Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia indicating his reasons for support of the Stevenson-Sparkman ticket. The advertisement mentioned that Russell was the presidential choice of the Texas delegation at the Democratic National convention.60 Lubbock Joined with other South Plains counties in giving Eisenhower a margin of victory. The GOP candidate outpolled Adlai Stevenson 16,137 votes to 11,650 votes in the county.^ Eisenhower also captured the Texas electoral votes by polling 1,102,878 votes to 969,228 votes for Stevenson. Eisenhower's percentage of 57.97 in Lubbock

53 The Liabbock Avalanche Journal, November 1, 1952. 5^ The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 30, 1952. ^ Ibid., October 27, 1952. ^1 Election Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, ^^^^ —— —— 62 rpije Texas Almanac, 1954-55, P. 448. 128 was somewhat higSber than his state percentage of 53.13.

The Election of 1956

The Presidential election of 1956 was almost an identical rematch of the 1952 race in every respect. Eisenhower and Stevenson opposed each other a^ln; Shivers campaigned for Elsenhower ag^in. Governor nominee Price Daniel recanted his 1952 bolt and supported Stevenson.^ There was a Republican headquarters in Lubbock along with a Texas Democrats for Elsenhower headquarters and a Donocratlc headquarters. The latter two appealed for flnan- clAl and physical assistance through the papers. 6k

Mrs. Oveta CVLXP Hobby, first Secretary of the Depart­ ment of Health, Education and Welfa3:*e, campaigned in Lubbock for Eisenhower. She called Stevenson's health program 65 "dreamy and vague—almost impossible to administer," and Eisenhower's program was "fine and dynamic." Mrs. Hobby was especially critical of Mr. Stevenson's proposals to 67 stop H-Bomb testa and to end the draft.

^^ ^QJ® Lubbock Moming Avalanche, September 19, 1956. 64 Ibid., October I8, 1956. ^ jfihe Lubbock Evening Journal, October 23, 1956. ^ Ibid. ^7 Ibid. 129 Governor Shivers also asked for the re-election of Eisenhower. He scathingly denounced Stevenson for his H- Bomb statements and said of the former Illinois Governor, "I think Adlai Stevenson is politically Irresponsible, in­ consistent and unstable."^ -me Governor's luncheon crowd of 250 also heard him praise Elsenhower for his stand on the tidelands and criticize Sam Raybum and Lyndon Johnson. ^ Shivers claimed that Elsenhower had done away with the Truman philosophy of "government by crony and runaway infla­ tion. "70 He also felt that "under Elsenhower we have en- Joyed prosperity without war. He is a greater leader of peace /^Ehan Stevenscm/. "^ Congressman Mahon led the Democratic campaign in Lubbock. He spoke to almost four hundred people at a ten dollar a plate fund raising dinner. 7*2 In his speech the Congressman scored the GOP farm program and the prosperity claim of the Republicans. He was critical of portions of the Republican defense policies and said one had to look

^ ^ttie Lubbock Evening Journal, October 23, 1956. ^^ Ibid. 7Q Ibid. "^^ Ibid. 72 .^e Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 30, 1956. 130 at the entire party when he spoke of voting for Elsenhower.73 The Texas Democrats for Eisenhower group ran several small advertisements m the newspapers of critical state­ ments of Democratic leaders made at one time or another by other Democratic leaders.7^ Voters were shown how to split the ticket and vote for "Texas-Bom Ike. "^5 pormer Governor Coke Stevenson supported Eisenhower a^in via a statewide radio broadcast.7 on the day preceding the election, a newspaper advertisement gave seven reasons why Texans should support Eisenhower. They were: the Korean war was ended, the country had powerful defenses, peace and pros­ perity, integrity in government, the trend toward socialism was stopped, wasteful spending had been cut, and Itexas had 77 ownership of the tidelands. The Democrats printed numerous small advertisements in the paper urging the voters to vote the straight Demo­ cratic ticket.' One large advertisement had the name of the Texas Democratic Congressmen and Senators listed in one column and the names of GOP National Committeeman Jack Porter and Governor Shivers listed in another, with the

^^ ^Q^ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 30, 1956. ^^^ Liibbock Evening Journal, October 17, 1956. ^^ The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 31, 1956. 7^ Ibid., November 1, 1956. 77 Ibid., November 6, 1956. Ibid., November 5, 1956. 131 question: "Who Will Speak For Texas At The White House?"79 Voters were urged to vote the straight Democratic ticket. Free rides were offered to the polls on election day.^^ In a straw vote at Texas Tech, Elsenhower received 925 votes, Stevenson 537 votes and eight votes went to other persons. **• A panel discussion on "Who's For The Farmer? Demo- crats Or Republicans?" 82 was conducted on a local radio station. Mesdames James Titus and H. J. Harvis represented the Democratic Barty and Mesdames A. W. Young and Homer Roper gave the GOP side of the question. Warllck Carr was moderator. 3 ^1^^ Plainsman did not think Eisenhower would be vlc- torious in either Lubbock County or the state. 84 However, a 8\irvey coi»lucted by a seminar class in Government at Texas Tech predicted an Eisenhower victory in the county with 53.52J< of the votes.^5

^^ Sat Lubbock Morning Avalanche, November 5, 1956. ^^ Ibid., November 6, 1956. ^^ Ibid., October 18, 1956. 82 Ibid., October 23, 1956. ^^ Ibid. 15?. Lubbock Evening Journal, October 26, 1956. ^ Ibid., November 6, 1956. 132 On October 29, 1956, Israel Invaded Egypt in a dis­ pute over the Suez Canal; Britain and Fiance were soon to 86 follow. The threat of war in the Middle East came barely a week before the Presidential election in the United States. Lubbock was the only South Plains County to vote for Eisenhower. The President received 13,970 votes in Lubbock County to 12,540 votes for Stevenson, a winning percentage of 52.57 for Eisenhower.^7 Eisenhower again won Texas by polling 1,080 votes to 859,958 votes for Stevenson.^ The Eisenhower state percentage was 55.27. There is no doubt that Stevenson's H-Bomb and draft statements hikrt his chances, especially in view of the intez*national situation:

Of most importance In the end, however, was no doubt the unpopularity of Stevenson's stand favor­ ing the termination of the draft and the banning of H-Bomb tests, coupled with the Middle East crisis. . . . and the idea that President Eisen­ hower was far better equipped to handle an inter­ national crisis than Adlai Stevenson no doubt was uppermost in the minds of many Texas voters as the election approached.89

'^^^ Lubbock Evening Journal, October 29, 1956. ^7 Election Returns, Lubbock County Clerk's Office, 1956. ^^ Wje ^xas Almanac, 1958-59, P. 455. 89 ^ 0. Douglas Weeks s Texas One-Barty Politics In 1956 (Austin: The Institute of PublicTTfairs, the Unlversi'ty of Texas, 1957), p. 46. CHAPTER VI THE EDITORIAL POLICY OP THE LUBBOCK AVALANCHE JOURNAL

In the period from 1934 to 1956, the editorial policy of ^le Lubbock A valanche-Journal was directed toward the support of various candidates for state and national offices. Each year the A valanche-J oumal indicated its preferences for office in an editorial shortly before the election. On certain occasions the newspaper waged an active editorial campaign for its candidates. The Editor of The Lubbock A valanche-Journal, Mr. Charles A. Guy, wrote his own column, the Plainsman, during the period studied. Mr. Guy often Indicated support or non- support for candidates in his personal column. The election results of the eight counties bordering Lubbock were compared with the Lubbock County returns in races to see if A valanche - Journal support or non-support made any appreciable differ­ ence.

The Gubernatorial Elections

Clint Snail, in 1934, James V. Allred, in 1936, Ernest Thompson, in 19*fO, Coke Stevenson, in 1944, Beauford Jester, in 1946, Allen Shivers, in 1950, 1952, and 1954; and Price Daniel, in 1956, all received the approval of the 133 134 A valanche-Journal for the Govemor's chair. Very active campaigns were waged for Small, Jester, and Shivers.

The Election of 1934

Senator Clint Small, of Amarillo, received the sup­ port of the A valanche-J oumal in 1934. Editorials for Small appeared in June and July of that year, several of which were front page editorials. Most of the editorials stressed what the Senator had done for West Texas and Texas Tech and asked support for Small In his race for the govem- ship. Small was described In one editorial as "A Common Sense Candidate."! The writer commended Small for "his sensible program for Industry," and said Small wanted to "encourage industry to move into Texas and Improve the state from within; not necessarily soak industry for all the taxes. . . . /fM that this was/ an intelligent Indus- trial plank." Another editorial, entitled "Appeal To Reason," 8tz*essed Small's "conservative program," and said "a vote for Clint Small is a vote for safe, sane and conservative 3 government—and for West Texas. ""^ The editorial also

^ ,Sii Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July l8,1934. ^ Ibid. 3 Ibid., July 27, 1934. 133 discussed the fact that West Texas had been the political stepchild for years in Texas and claimed Small's election would change that. One editorial mentioned Small's third place finish in the 1930 gubernatorial race and said that he was a sectional candidate in 1930 but was not one in 1934. "Let's show East Texas that Small is for all and all are for Small. "5 It further emphasized that "a vote for Clint Small next Saturday J^onXd/ be a vote for the best man— a vote for the best man for West Texas, for East Texas, for North, South, and Central Texas." An editorial in the same vein ccanplimented Small's record in the state Senate and stated he was the logical candidate for West Texans. The editorial contended that '^ vote for Himter or McDonald or Allred J^B/ a vote for Hunter or McDonald or Allred and nothing more. But a vote for Small ^as/ also a vote for West Texas. "7 On the moming of the election a full length front pa©B editorial appealed to voters for support. It stressed that SnBll would gain the runoff if west Texans voted for

^ .^ Lubbock Morning Avalanche, July 27, 1934. 5 Ibid., July 24, 1934. ^ Ibid. 7 Ibid., July 26, 1934. 136 him in proportion to what he had done for them. The edi­ torial stated: Clint Small, West Texas' own candidate for Govemor, will go into the runoff if West Texans stay with him In ratio to what he has done for them in Service in the Senate and in other high positions. Clint Small, our friend and our champtlon, is not running on Promises of what he Will do for us; he has Already Done For Us more than any of his opponents can Do or TTITl'To for us, even If they should be'TTecTed.

Senator Small has done His Part By Us--Now Let's Do Our Part By Him.'8

The results of the July Primaa^y in the nine county area were as follows: COUNTY ALLRED HUNTER McDONALD SMALL OTHERS

CROSBY 896 501 365 651 407 FLOYD 992 308 265 750 182 GARZA 235 311 336 113 HALE 1,264 687 413 1,583 317 HOCKLEY 781 426 421 341 133 LAMB 925 688 620 1,245 293 LYNN 1,206 688 738 495 253 TERRY 583 711 466 324 116 Totals 7,210 4,244 77599 37725—TTBrr LUBBOCK 2,312 1,362 1,307 2,264 724 Totals 9,522 57OTS" TTm 77^5—?7538- STAOE 297,656 241,339 206,007 124,206 124,803^

8 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 28, 1934. ^ The Texas Almanac, 1936(Dalla3:A. H. Belo Corpora, tion, 1936), pp. 474-476. Hea?eafter cited as The Texas Almanac and year. 137 Small led in only two of the nine counties. Hale and Lamb. He was second in four coxintles. Allred led In six counties; Hunter in one county.

Wie Election of 1 ^36

Govemor James V. Allred was end rsed by the A va­ lanche-Joiimal in 1936. In an editorial entitled "It's Allred—Or Else.'" it was argued that Allred had paid atten­ tion to the needs of West Texas. "He ^Rad/ done a lot for us, much more than 'Big Pish—(or ^as/ it 'Poor Pish?') Fischer, Roy ('Crown Prince') Sanderford, Tom ('Poor Sport') Hunter or Pierce ('Unknown') Brooks." Ihe Avalanche- Journal urged voters to elect Allred in the first primary. 12 The Govemor won every county in the nine county area in his successful bid for re-election. -*

The Election of 19*^0

Althou^ the A valanche-Journal did not directly en­ dorse Ernest Th<»npson for Govemor in 19^0, an editorial on "The Quandary of Ernest Thompson," remarked that the paper believed Wiompson could fill the places of Govemor,

^^ Ha^ Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 22, 1936. 1^ Ibid. ^^ Ibid. 13 The Texas Almanac, 1937, PP. 75-77. 138 Congressman or Railroad Commissioner adequately.^^ At that time Thompson was undecided as to which of the offices he woiad seek. The Plainsman later commended Thompson for returning his Railroad Commissioner salary checks to the state while he was campaigning for Govemor.^5 In the July Primary, Govemor W. Lee O'Danlel led in every county of the nine county area.^^

The Election oif 1942

^® A valanche-Journal made no formal endorsement for Govemor in 1942.

The Election of 1944

The A valanche-Journal praised the economical record of Govemor Coke Stevenson and endorsed him for a second term.

The Election of 1946

As early as October, 19*^4, the Plainsman indicated

^^ I!E Lubbock Evening Journal, April 26, 1940. ^5 Ibid., June 10, 19*^0. ^^ ^nie Texas Alnanac, 19»H-42, pp. 385-387. 17 The^ Lubbock Evening Joixrnal, June 11, 19*^4. 139 opposition to Dr. Homer P. Rainey, President of the Univer­ sity of Texas. In his column, Mr. Guy asked, "who /was/ paying for an the material of Dr. Homer P. Rainey which ^as/ being sent out over the state?"^^ In the strenuous and bitter campaign of 19*^6, Mr. Guy remarked in his column that he did not know who would lead in the Lubbock area but the Sellers and Jester vote would go to which ever of the two were In the runoff.^^ He further contended:

Rainey'8 support in this area stems largely from three sources: the few youngsters who are avidly Interested in 'liberalism,' pseudo and otherwise; persons who want a 'change from the old order, ' no matter what it is, and some college professors and teachers.20

The first editorial comment on the race was in March, 1946. An editorial on "Religion and Politics" said Rainey would probably use religion in his race for Govemor and called the Austin educator "the darling of Texas left- wingers. "ii2^ 1 Several editorials were written on the race in July and August. One on "The Governor's Race," said the contest

^^ .3ii Lubbock Evening Journal, October 26, 1944. ^^ Ibid., July 15, 1946. 20 Ibid. 21 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, March 3, 1946. 140 was a clash of ideologies, with an apparent runoff between Rainey and Jester. The editorial expected Rainey to lead in the first primary but to be easily defeated in August. Rainey and Jester were compared by the writer as follows:

Dr. Rainey has become prominent through his un­ usual ability to promote confusion and chaos. Mr. Jester, over a lifetime In Texas, has risen to his position as a leader whose very effort has been aimed at up-bulldlng. Instead of tearing down. Whereas Dr. Rainey had to be summarily discharged from the most important post he ever attained, Mr. Jester has climbed stral^t upwaa?d and onward, first from a position of purely local respect and popularity in Corsicana, to his present statewide prominence and acceptance. We do not think Rainey is a Communist, but a lot of his support comes from people who seek complete socialization of Texas and the nation. ... An appreciable part of Dr. Homer P. Rainey's support stems from the left-wingers and the malcontents of this state, every one of whom will cast a ballot for him on July 27. Thus, others who vote for Doctor Rainey will, however Innocently, lend aid to the forces in direct opposition to the very principles of government which have made this country the strongest and best in the world.22

A similar editorial characterized Jester as a builder; Rainey as a "fomenter of strife," and said that whereas Jester was well known and i^espected, Rainey succeeded only in creating "confusion and chaos." 3 in recommending

^^ SiS. Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 17, 19^6. ^^ !^ Lubbock Evening Journal, July l8, 1946. 141 definite choices to the voters, the Avalanche-J 3 imal chose Jester because "he /pttere^ Texas a program of continued progress; fair play to all groiips and because his record in private and public life j^aarkei/ him as a cooper at or and r^)- builder, not as a creator of confusion or tearing down."^^ In the nine county area the July Primary votes were as follows:

COUNTY JESTER RAINEY SADLER SELLERS SMITH OTHERS CROSBY 1,160 5H 163 367 P34 97 FLOYD 1,?98 444 542 ?45 ^4? 114 GAR2A 411 ?P6 117 148 39? 96 HALE r>,280 1,082 ?71 388 ?62 90 HOCKLEY 1,4?5 9?6 ?86 605 398 158 LAMB ?,081 1,172 50P 517 398 177 LYNN 1,410 674 ?91 381 P96 157 TERRY 1.153 797 313 406 P34 173 Totals 111^18 578f5 ?7?55 W7 ^7755 I^JST LUBBOCK 5.583 3.923 537 1.071 1.009 ?93 Totals ISlSfll ?t753—j:m 7jT?5—Tj755 T7!^ STATE 443,804 ?91,?8? 103,1?0 162,431 102,941 39,077^5

Jester led in every county; Rainey was second in ei^t counties and Sadler and Smith were both second in one county. Defeated candidate Jerry Sadler supported Rainey in the runoff as did former Govemor James V. Allred and State

^^ ^^Q Lubbock Moming Avalanche. July 23, 1946. ^5 The Texas Almanac. 1947-48. pp. 405-408. 142 Superintendent of Instmctlon, Dr. L. A. Woods. A "Birds of A Feather" editorial criticized Dr. Woods for having a political machine of his own at the expense of the "rural teachers and school children of this state. "^^ Allred and Sadler were criticized at length also. "Two of the most washed up politicians in Texas ^ere/ former Governor Allred, the errand boy in Texas for the left wing of the New Deal; and Jerry Sadler, who ^?5ad7 heen overwhelmingly turned down by the voters in each of his last two campaigns for high public office. "^7 r^Q editorial further stated that Rainey was almost admitting defeat by accepting the support of Dr. Woods and "these 'has-beens' who were long ago thumbed out H28 of the public arena."^ OJ^ Moming Avalanche editorial appeared with a car­ toon of Jester standing on Texas with the key to the capital in one hand a document labeled "fundamental democracy" in 29 the other. The caption for the cartoon and editorial was "Give Him Your 'OK' To Open The Door.'"^^ Ihe editorial said

26 ^e Lubbock Evening Journal, August l8, 19^6. 27 Ibid. 2Q Ibid. ^^ Wie Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 22, 1946. 3<^ Ibid. 143 Jester was capable, Rainey was not; Jester had a good record; Rainey did not, and Jester was a builder; Rainey was not.31 Another editorial claimed there was only one question to be answered in the race:

Do we want a Govemor who will give sound and tB,ir administration to our state; who will have, as he always has had, the cooperation of the people with whom he comes into contact; who seeks to build up Texas and its institutions, or do we want a Govemor who is widest known for his delight in fomenting argument and leading strife.32

A front page editorial on the day of the election listed the July Primary votes of Rainey and Jester in their home counties of Travis and Navarro, respectively, and also Grayson Coxmty whea^e Rainey once lived. The antl-Ralney vote in these counties was emphasized a great deal. The editorial also mentioned that Jester led in 212 coxinties in the first primary while Rainey led in only seventeen and claimed that the figures Indicated who the people preferred.33 Jester defeated Rainey over two to one in the nine county area and led by a wide margin in every county.-•^' 4

31 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 22, 1946. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 3^ The Texas Almanac, 19^7-48, pp. 417-419. 144

The Election of 1948

The A valanche-J oumal honeymoon with Jester was short-lived. A Constitutional Building Amendment for state colleges which Jester supported cost him the support of the Lubbock paper.35 In April, 19^8 an editorial appeared criticizing the Jester Pardon and Parole policies: "Gover­ nor Jester has fallen sadly short of carrying on his high office in many different categories and not the least of these /was/ his habit of granting pardons and paroles. "3 The July Primary results in the nine county area were as follows:

COUNTY JESTER EVANS MARCH OTHERS CROSBY 884 547 607 197 FLOYD 1,697 551 333 346 GARZA 672 474 155 170 HALE 2,914 1,212 633 383 HOCKLEY 1,407 1,334 428 454 LAMB 1,758 922 490 532 LYNN 992 817 796 239 TERRY 666 815 555 127 Totals 10,990 57572 J7W1 ^,448 LUBBOCK 1,863 8,261 1,713 593 Totals 12,853 VTTTS^ STTTO 3,041 STATE 642,025 279,602 187,658 95,971^"^

35 See Chapter II, p. 36 ^ ^le Lubbock Moming Avalanche, April 20, 1948. 37 The Texas Almanac, 1949-50, pp. 465-467. 145 Although Jester carried seven of the nine counties, he did not have a clear majority except in Hale and Ployd counties. The tremendous vote for Evans in Lubbock pushed him out In front in the area totals. The Plainsman was of the opinion that the area "pro­ test vote" a^lnst Jester was evidence that any "known" candidate could have defeated the Governor."^

The Elections of 1952 and 1954

In 1952, the A valanche-Journal commented in a Sunday editorial on the candidacy of Ralph Yarborou^. The edi­ torial stated that it was proper that Shivers have an opponent and that Yarborough's entry would create Interest in the race.

Judge Yarborough's announcement is likely to arouse additional Interest, and to attract more voters to the polls because he is expected to attract the support of the Tru-Deai or^nlzation which operates in Texas under the label of "loyal Democrats." His entry promises a direct test be­ tween the Texas Democrats who approve all that is signified by Tru«.Dealism and those who do not.39

T*ie A valanche-Journal supported Allen Shivers for Govemor because "his record /Indicates/ his principles of

3® jRie Lubbock Evening Journal, July 27, 1948. 39 The Lubbock A valanche-Journal, May 4, 1952. 146 government /t?ex;e7 shared by a majority of South Plainsmen. "^^ Shivers led in all eight of the counties bordering Lubbock as well as in Lubbock County and won easily in the area. The 1954 Yarborough-Shivers rematch was considered by the A valanche-Journal to be a clash of Ideologies, "of completely divergent philosophies of government," and there was only one issue in the race:

Shall the Democratic i^rty in Texas continue to exert conservative Influence on the National Demo­ cratic Party's present control; or shall that con­ servative influence be stifled and the party organ­ ization In this State be delivered to the Northern and Eastern wings? Judge Yarborough would have Texas Democrats "loyal^ to all National Party dictates, even when those dictates are ag0.1nst the best interests of Texas and Texans. The choice between the two is as plain as the stands of the two men. Those who wish to keep political freedom in Texas, and thus avoid dictation from afar, will vote to re-elect Mr. Shivers, whose record as Govemor, incidentally, is one of the best of our times.42

Along the same line of reasoning, an editorial, "Vote For !Itexas," said the only issue in the race was what

41 The Texas Almanac, 1954-55^ PP. 450-452. ^2 ©le Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 21, 1954. 147 would happen to the State Democratic organization.^3 jx^ comparing the two candidates the editorial stated:

The one fights to keep the Texas Democratic Party free. The other fights to deliver it In chains to the Northern and Eastern bosses whose ideals and ideas of government often are alien to the desires and best interests of Texans. A vote for Govemor Shivers Saturday will be a vote for political freedom in Texas Democracy, and a vote a^inst enslavement of Texas Democracy by National Party bosses.44

Shivers' pledges to keep Texas free of state sales and income taxes were the basis of another supporting editorial.^5 The results of the July Primary in the nine county area were as follows s

^^ The Lubbock Evening Journal, July 21, 1954. ^^ Ibid. ^^ SB. Lubbock Moming Avalanche, July 23, 1954. 148

COUNTY SHIVERS YARBOROUGH OTHERS CROSBY 800 1,440 98 FLOYD 1,431 1,395 83 GARZA 737 754 62 HALE 2,4l8 1,525 71 HOCKLEY 1,992 1,937 ife LAMB 2,144 2,008 105 LYNN 1,091 1,130 99 TERRY 1,376 1,287 59^ Totals 11,989 11,47,476 752^^ LUBBOCK 7,302 6,348 393 Totals 19,291 17,824 1,155 46 STATE 668,913 645,991 35,845

Shivers led in six of the nine counties although the vote was very close. The votes which went to J. J. Holmes or Cyclone Davis, the other two contenders, were enough to make the difference In four of the counties. One of the runoff editorials stressed that It had been a long time since voters had a choice in an election where such clear cut Issues were present. Yarborough em- bi«iced the Northern and Eastern wings of the Democratic Party and was the labor candidate and Shivers was for Texas and opposed thought control in the party. The Issue was "paternalism in government versus freedom in government; of domination of Texas government by outsiders versus the right

46 The Texas Almanac, 1956-57# PP- 524-526. 149 of Texans to decide for themselves. "^7 A front page editorial a few days later claimed that Shivers' opponents had given him a soiind argument by talking about his appointees. The readers were asked if they did not think that State Highway Commissioner Marshall Formby of Plainview and the members of the Texas Tech Board of Di3?ectors had not been good appointments. "Texas needs—in the future as in the past—a continuation of fair, honest, intelligent and progressive service to all the people and the re-election of Govemor Shivers /would/ guarantee exactly that."^^ In the evening paper before the election another front page editorial pointed out that Shivers was a "proven product," and urged voters to keep that experience in 49 office. ^ The resiilts of the August runoff in the nine county area were as follows:

^'^ The Lubbock A valanche-J oumal, August 22, 1954. ^^ !2B. Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 26, 1954. 150

COUNTY SHIVERS YARBOROUGH CROSBY 840 l,5l8 H-OYD 1,671 1,341 GARZA 619 085 HALE 2,920 1,584 HOCKLEY 2,097 1,904 LAMB 2,260 1,830 LYNN 1,011 993 TERRY 1,432 1,272 Totals 12,850 11,12? LUBBOCK 9,133 6,788 Totals 21,983 17,915 STATE 775,088 683,1325^

Shivers won seven of the nine counties. He led in Lynn County in the August Primary whereas Yarborough had been the leader in that county in the July Primary.

The Election of 1956

The A valanche-J oumal did not endorse a candidate prior to the fia?st primary in 1956. The vote in the nine county area was as follows:

5^ The Texas Almanac, 1956-57^ PP. 531-533. 151

COUNTY DANIEL HALEY 0'DANIEL YARBOROUGH OTHERS CROSBY 738 159 682 1,096 87 FLOYD 1,480 366 637 622 47 GARZA 436 130 475 287 37 HALE 2,663 405 1,183 1,228 150 HOCKLEY 1,926 298 1,292 1,420 I78 LAMB 1,608 467 911 1,388 144 LYNN 1,023 194 727 579 46 TERRY 1,373 253 879 ^9 l40 TotaisTTT?*?—5727? 577H5 T7nT5 727~ LUBBOCK 9,445 1,131 3*309 5,371 698 TtotaisTUTFg?—37373 10,095 I3788I3 1,427 STATE 628,914 88,772 347,757 463,416 47,8695^

Daniel won seven co\inties; O'Danlel and Yarborough each won one county. ©le A valanche-Journal endorsed Daniel in the runoff at the same time Jill V/ilson was endorsed for Attorney General.52 The editorial said that Price Daniel was an un­ usually able man and since he led Yarborough by such a wide laargln in the July vote, the runoff primary would simply be going through the motions. It further added that Daniel promised more than any candidate in many years in the way of qualifications.^^ The results of the runoff primary in the nine county area were as follows:

51 nie Texas Almanac, 1956-57* PP. 531-533. 52 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 23, 1956. 53 Ibid. 152

COUNTY DANIEL YARBOROUGH

^A»P 9^ 925 GARZA 598 79^ HALE 2,325 2,358 «?^Y l,p7 2:353 LAMB 1,217 2,159 LYNN 864 i;248 ^RRY 1,311 1I871 Totals —97867 13,945 LUBBOCK 7,918 8,585 Totals 17; 585 22:530 STATE 698,001 694,83o5^ Yarborough upset all predictions in the area and over the state. He carried nine of the ten countle-, los­ ing only Floyd County. It was the first time that Yarborough led in several of the co\mtles.

The Senatorial Elections

The Lubbock A valanche - Jouma 1 always ^ve editorial support to Senator Tom Connally of Texas. The Senator received the approval of the newspaper in his races of 1934, 1940, and 1946. At no time did the newspaper en­ dorse Senator Morris Sheppea?d. The A valanche-Journal ^ve direct editorial support in the races of 1942 and 1948. The paper gave indirect support in the 1941 special

54 The Texas Almanac, 1958-59, PP. 468-469. 153 election.

The Special Election of 1941

In the special senatorial election of 1941, the Avalanche-Journal gave indirect support to Attorney General Gerald Mann. One editorial commended Mann for returning his salary to the state during his campaign for the Senate and remarked that other officeholders should do the same.-^-^ Another editorial praised the Attorney General for making his Income tax returns available to the public.56 The Plainsman, in 1940, praised Mann lavishly as the best Attoimey General the state had ever had.57 The retuTiis for the nine county area In the special election wex*e as follows:

^^ SE Lubbock Evening Journal, May 4, 1941. 5^ Ibid., June 17, 1941. 57 Ibid., April 12, 1940. 154

CCXJNTY 0'DANIEL JOHNSON MANN DIES CROSBY 387 143 329 103 FLOYD 567 136 382 109 GARZA 242 115 147 131 HALE 777 408 700 157 HOCKLEY 580 286 344 146 LAMB 874 396 480 100 TERRY 471 313 341 101 Totals 473^ ?7ro7^8^ 3;:254 95^- LUBBOCK 783 825 1,153 428 Totals 57rr8 ?793I Tpm 1,414 STATE 175,590 174,279 140,807 80,6535^

O'Danlel led in seven counties; Mann in two counties. The Attorney General was second in all the counties which O'Danlel carried; Johnson was second In Lubbock. Some ob­ servers have wondered what the results might have been if *^® A valanche-Journal had given active support to Lyndon Johnson in the 1941 race. If Johnson had received the almost fifteen hundred votes difference between his total vote and Mann's in the nine county area, he would have de­ feated O'Danlel.

The Election of 1942

In 1942, former Governors Allred and Moody contested

58 The Texas Almanac, 1943-44, pp. 259-261. 155 Senator W. Lee O'Danlel for the regular six year senate term. The Avalanche-Journal did not indicate a choice of Moody or Allred in the first primary but was definitely against O'Danlel. The Plainsman urged voters to hear all three candidates in their Lubbock campaigns, and maintained if the voters would Just hear O'Danlel and compare his statements with those of the other candidates, that would be enough to re­ tire the Senator to private life. Mr. Guy added that:

We believe that if the qualified voters of Texas will turn out to hear O'Danlel; if they will study the man and his illogical statements; if they will weigh his ideas and actions together with the fact that he's been a total bust in the Senate to date, that they'll tab him as another pre-Pearl Harbor mistake.59

COUNTY ALLRED MOODY 0'DANIEL RYAN CROSBY 641 249 1,408 29 FLOYD 730 331 1,707 30 GARZA 372 170 937 22 HALE 1,270 584 1,946" 46 HOCKLEY 1,025 457 1,985 42 LAMB 1,051 415 2,428 55 LYNN 877 364 1,524 26 TERRY 850 280 1,347 21 Totals b,m ?7850 13^^82 STT LUBBOCK 3.157 1,745 _2,852 Totals 9,963 2rr5^ r^7T34 STATE 317,301 178,471 475,541 12,213^^

^^ J*®. Lubbock Evening Journal, July 1, 1942. 60 Ihe Texas Almanac, 1943-44, pp. 25O-253. 156 O'Danlel led in every county except Lubbock and had a clear majority over his three opponents in the totals. All- red led in Lubbock and was second in the other counties; Moody was a poor third in every county. During August, the A valanche-Journal endorsed James iv. Allred for Senator. In an editorial, "Allred Has Served Well," the reco3?d of the former Govemor was reviewed and voters were urged to send him to the United States Senate. !nie Plainsman also endorsed Allred in his coliimn with the claim that there was only one issue In the race:

Texans will send to the upper house an able man pledged to aid the President in the prosecution of the war; or Texans will send there a man whose record has been in opposition not only to the war program, but to the Roosevelt administration as a whole. Kiat's the choice Texans have; It should be for Allred. 62

The results of the runoff primary In the nine county area were as follows:

61 The Lubbock Evening Journal, August 16, 1942 62 Ibid., August 21, 1942. 157

COUNTY ALLRED 0'DANIEL CROSBY 851 1,396 FLOYD 934 1,710 GARZA 504 591 HALE 1,858 1,963 HOCKLEY 1,281 1,842 LAMB 1,360 2,325 LYNN 1,203 1,463 TERRY 887 1,166 Totals 8,878 12,776 LUBBOCK 4,455 2,761 Totals 13,333 15,537 STATE 433,203 451,354^^

O'Danlel again led in every county except Lubbock County. Allred's margin in that county helped cut the O'Danlel lead in all others. Allred had gained almost five thousand votes on O'Danlel since the first primary.

The Election of 1948

The A valanche-Journal editorial policy in the sena­ torial race of 1948 was directed toward the election of jl^ndon B. Johnson. The first A valanche-Joiamal editorial laid down the theme of support for Johnson all through the campaign. He was characterized as a "doer" and a man young enou^ to build up seniority over a period of time in

^^ ^TOie Texas Almanac, 1943-44, pp. 254-255. - . 158 Washington. The editorial claimed Texans needed a man who would do more than "sit on the lid" in Washington and whereas Stevenson had been an acceptable Govemor, Johnson was by far the better choice for the Senate.^5 Another editorial praised Johnson as "The People's Man," and condemned the attacks on him as a New Dealer and supporter of the Taft-Hartley law. "He does his own thinking; takes no orders from anyone," the editorial stated.^7 The results of the first primary were as follows:

COUNTY STEVENSON PEDDY JOHNSON OTHERS CROSBY ^6 282 1,211 85 FLOYD 1,368 352 1,004 155 GARZA 734 217 384 125 HALE 2,654 842 1,453 276 HOCKLEY 1,310 280 1,689 266 LAMB 1,531 345 1,462 286 LYNN 1,173 370 1,069 181 TERRY 781 214 1,091 99 Totals 10,237 27505 77^ 1,473 LUBBOCK 4,193 1,375 6,285 454 Totals 14,430 W7^ 15,648 l,iJBf7 STATE 477,077 237,195 405,615 82,502^^

SB Lubbock Moming Avalanche, May 30, 1948. ^^ IMd. ^ Ibid., July 21, 1948. ^7 Ibid. ^ The Texas Almanac, 1949-50, pp. 462-464. 159 While Johnson led in only four of the counties, his margin in Lubbock was sufficient to give him the lead for the area. Editorials in the runoff hammered at Stevenson's fence straddling. West Texas, domestic issues, and service to the people. One blasted Stevenson's labor support and his silence or fence straddling on the Taft-Hartley law.°^ A front page editorial lamented the fact that ivest Texas was the "whipping boy" of Texas politics.^^ The edi­ torial called on West Texans to help West Texas by casting their votes for Johnson. The editorial stated:

Let's stand together, vote together; begin fight­ ing together by helping elect Lyndon Johnson to the United States Senate because he is the best man for that post. And let's show "Calculating Coke," and the rest of the down-state politicians that the days when they can kick West Texas around are gone forever. 71

Another editorial claimed west Texas needed dams and reservoirs and Johnson could do mx>re In starting a West Texas water project than Stevenson. Johnson had congres­ sional experience, energy, and youth and was looking ahead to the future. 72

The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 3, 1948. 70 The^ Lubbock Evening Journal, August 25, 1948. '^^ Ibid. ^ Tty- Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 26, 1948 l60 Johnson was characterized as a hard worker in another front page editorial and the best qualified nan in the race.

A vote for Lyndon Johnson tomorrow means a vote for progress; a vote for the future; a vote for strong Texas representation in the U. S. Senate; a vote for a man who will take care of Texas' home needs as Senior Senator Tcan Connally continiies his fine career as this state's contribution to wholly national and international affairs. Vote for Lyndon Johnson in the best interest of all .'73

On the same date another front page editorial talked of Johnson's record during the war and implied Stevenson had taken things easy back home. The editorial asked that if all else was equal, Johnson had earned the right to be Senator and deserved the post.*7 4 The results of the Aiigust primary were as follows:

COUNTY STEVENSON JOHNSON CROSBY 843 1,509 PLOYD 1,518 GARZA 690 HALE 2,052 1,550 HOCKLEY 1,371 i,9r2 UMB 807 900 LYNN 726 966 TERRY 1,114 Totals 8,747470 9,i/ro LUBBOCK 3,218 6,445 Totals 11,965 16,423 STATE 494,104 494,191*^5

73 Ihe Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 27, 1948. 74 jrtie Lubbock Evening Journal, August 27, 1948. 75 The Texas Almanac, 1949-50, pp. 473-475. l6l Johnson won six of the nine coiinties in the runoff and his large Lubbock County vote boosted his lead consider­ ably.

The Elections of 1952 and 1954

In 1952, veteran Senator Tom Connally declined to seek re-election. Price Daniel was endorsed in a front page editorial as "a fighter for all of Texas," and "a loyal friend."' The editorial combined support of Daniel with praise of Connally:

While Senator Connally will be missed, his de­ cision not to seek re-election attests character­ istic wisdom. By avoiding a strenuous campaign, the possibilities are that his advice will be available much longer to the nation from the relative seclusion of private life. As he approaches the end of his active service, most Texans may find reassurance in the fact that such a successor of Price Daniel's caliber is available.77

In formally listing its choices for office the A valanche-Journal listed Daniel "because he is by far the ablest aspirant and because of his often demonstrated 78 interest in and friendship for this section of the state."'

SB Lubbock Moming Avalanche, April 17, 1952. ^ Ibid. 78 The Lubbock A valanche-Journal, July 20, 1952. — 162 Daniel was an easy victor over the state and in the Lubbock area. 75

Lyndon Johnson was endorsed for re-election in 1954 because:

... If ever a man made good in a big way in his first term as a United States Senator—and there­ fore entitled to overwhelming re-election—that man is Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. He is one of the ablest, hardest working and most effective public officials m Texas history.80

Johnson won handily.

The Congressional Elections

Only in 1934 and 1950 did the A valanche-Journal en­ dorse a congressional candidate. In the 1934-1956 perlcxi, however, were n\amerous editorials praising George Mahon.

The Election of 1934

In the Congressional election of 1934, The Lubbock A valanche-Journal did not endorse a candidate in the first prima37y» However, shortly after the first primary, the paper indirectly indicated its approval of Judge Clark

^^ SB Texas Almanac, 1954-55, PP. 450-452. ^^ SB Liibbock Moming Avalanche, April 8, 1954. ^ The Texas Almanac, 1956-57, PP. 524-526. . 163 Mullican of Lubbock over George Mahon of Colorado City. An editorial, "The Choice Is Up To Us," said the Congressional race was of more importance to the people of the area than the govemor's race (the A valanche-Journal's gubernatorial candidate, Clint Small, was eliminated in the July Primary). The editorial further stated:

Whether we wish to cast our lot with an untried lad or whether we wish our business to be taken care of by an experienced, tried veteran is up to us and we are the sole Judges. We can send a boy to do a man's Job—or we can send a man to fill the bill.82

About ten days later an editorial appeared accusing mhon's supporters of spreading an iknti-Lubbock" doctrine in the southern part of the district.^ It was mentioned that the Avalanche-Journal preferred Mullican over Mahon as the better qualified man and that Mahon had always received 'fair treatment from the paper. Lubbock needed the South Plains and the South Plains needed Lubbock. In speaking of Mahon, the editorial stated that "We think that he will put a stop to the singing of a 'hymn of hate' by whatever workers he may have doing it. H84

^ The Lubbook Moralng Avalanche, August 3, 1934. 83 Ibid., August 12, 1934. 84 Ibid. 164 In a section of the editorial page called "With Our Contemporaries," the Avalanche-Journal reprinted a state­ ment from E. I. Hill's Lynn County News dealing with the congressional race:

Some of the politicians up at Lubbock have been trying to belittle the ability of George Mahon since the first primary. They seem to think that no good thing can come out of Nazareth. Unless a man lives in Lubbock he must have some kind of in­ feriority complex, according to those wise ones.85

Mr. Mahon was the victor in the runoff and since 1934 he has always been supported by the A valanche-Journal, but only in 1950 did the newspaper endorse him prior to a primary election. In that year an editorial urged voters to make Mahon's margin of victory a "whopper." The writer felt that "Mr. Mahon /was/ the sort of Congressman— both personally and politically—of whom any district could be proud."7

The Presidential Elections

Only in 1952 and 1956 did the Avalanche-Journal directly endorse presidential candidates. However, from 1944 to 1956, several editorials and Plainsman columns

^^ SB Lubbock Moming Avalanche, August 14, 1934. ^^ Ibid., July 20, 1950. ^7 Ibid. 165 were critical of the New Deal and Fair Deal. In 1940, the Plainsman predicted a Franklin Roosevelt victory but was 88 very critical of Henry Wallace and his campaigning.

The Election of 1944

The Plainsman, written in Chicago, Illinois, at the National Democratic Convention in 1944, pointed out how things had changed since 1932. Mr. Guy pointed out that Roosevelt was "indispensable" in 1944 to the political bosses and felt that people were afraid to oppose Roosevelt 89 because he was all powerful. In an editorial shortly before the election, a Roose- velt victory was predicted but the hope expressed that Dewey would poll enou^ votes to 'bober" the New Deal and Congress and bring about a return to "constitutional 90 government."

The Election of 1948

The editorials of the A valanche-J oumal as early as 1946, carried a hint of opposition to Truman and the Truman program. One such editorial on a Truman speech to the

88 The Lubbock Evening Journal, October 2, 1940. ^^ Ibid., July 19, 1944. 90 Ibid., November 1, 1944. 166 nation said the Presidential speech was "disappointing. "^ After the nomination of Thomas E. Dewey by the GOP in 1948, the Plainsman commented that if Dewey were the November winner, "he ^ould/ restore the faith of the Amerl- can people in their government and its purposes."^ The writer contended that America had "strayed a long way" since 1932.^ An editorial preceding the visit of the States» Rights Party's Vice Presidential nominee, Govemor Fielding Wright of Mississippi stated:

The campaign of Governors Ihiirmond and Wright is not a campaign for further personal political power or laurels, it is a campaign for the principle of returning to the South the political rights which were the South's. . . . Ahe campaign l£7 a political crusade to make the Democratic Party what it once was: the political citadel of those committed to the philos­ ophies of Jefferson and Jackson. 94

The Election of 1952

Prior to the election of 1952, the Avalanche-Joumal had fxirther Indicated its disapproval toward the Truman

Thg Lubbock Avalanche-Joumal, January 6, 1946. 92 SB Lubbock Evening Journal, July 5, 1948. ^ Ibid. 94 SB Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 21, 1948. 167 administration, m one editorial commenting on the Supreme Court decisions admitting Negroes to Texas University and awarding the tidelands to the federal government, the writer claimed most people had asked for the pushing around by con­ sistently supporting the Democratic Barty. The editorial stated:

. . . Texans who have voted for the New Deal and Pair Deals right on down the line asked for what they got from the United States Supreme Court—and for the other pushlngs-around they've gotten and will con­ tinue to get. 95

Subsequent editorials condemned the conduct of the Korean war, and Truman's attitude toward the tidelands. Truman was urged in one editorial to clean up his adminis­ tration and give the people the facts about the Korean 96 war. When Truman suffered defeat in a Presidential Pri­ mary, the Moming Avalanche commented at length on the "repudiation" of the President.^ One editorial said the Truman veto of the tidelands bill was expected but the fight would not end until the tidelands were restored to the state. 9^8

95 The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 8, 1950. ^ Ibid., July 18, 1950. 97 Ibid., March 13, 1952. Ibid., May 31, 1952. 168 The Plainsman, in reply to a letter, stated in his column that he had voted for Willkie m 1940, Dewey in 1944, Thurmond in 1948, and would vote for Eisenhower in 1952. He did not belong to any party and maintained he would vote as he pleased. ^^ A full page editorial on the front page two days be­ fore the presidential election in 1952 ^ve the Avalanche- Journal's reasons for supporting Dwight D. Elsenhower."^^^ The editorial claimed the issue was Trunanlsm versus Ameri­ canism and a frequent changing of the party in power strengthened the two-party system.

The paiTamount issue to be decided by the voters on Tuesday is whether the nation is to be led fur­ ther down the road to ccMBplete federal domination of everything and everybody—with all the corrup­ tion and injustice which go with that form of goveiroaent; or whether the U.S.A. shall switch to the freedom road leading to where the individual, not the state, is what counts; to where the elected official is the servant, rather than the master, of the people. Of primary—and paramount—importance is the one great issue the opposing candidates represent: on the one hand a continuation of Trumanlsm and Achesonism and all they stand for: on the other, a retum to p\ire, unadulterated, free Americanism --and honesty in government.

^^ SB Lubbock Evening Journal, October 29, 1952 too ^"^ The Lubbock Avalanche, November 2, 1952. l69 On that basis, alone, and without malice towards governor Stevenson as an individual, uc orayerfully nope for the election of Dwight Eisenhower next Tuesday and we urge all those who would put America first to Join together toward that end.101

Ihe results of the voting in the nine county area in the presidential election were as follows:

COUNTY SOEVENSON EISENHOWER CROSBY 1,550 1,053 PLOYD 1,463 2,066 GARZA 797 742 HALE 3,351 4,858 HOCKLEY 2,962 2,651 LAMB 2,748 2,913 LYNN 1,762 1,351 TERRY 2,105 1,823 Totals 16,738 17,457 LUBBOCK 11,650 16,137 Totals 28,388 33,i?55 STATE 969,228 1,102,878^^

Eisenhower carried only four of the nine counties but his large margins in Hale and Lubbock counties gp.ve him a lead of over five thousand votes in the area.

The Election of 1956 In 1956, the Avalanche-Joumal again endorsed

^^^ The Lubbock Avalanche-Joumal, November 2, 1952. ^^ The Texas Alnanac, 1954-55, PP. 461-463. 170 Elsenhower but at the same time urged the election of a Democratic Congress. Elsenhower was described as "one of those rare individuals whose love of country and acceptance of responsibility to All. the people in it constantly /^ran- scends^ political partisanship. "^^^ Belief in a check and balance system of government was the iDasls for the desire of continuation of a Democratic Congress. The writer said Eisenhower and the Democx^ts had worked well together and 104 urged the voters to keep them both. Olie results of the presidential balloting in the nine county area were as follows: COUNTY STEVENSON EISENHOWER ANDREWS CROSBY 1,804 704 6 FLOYD 1,767 1,44§ 9 GARZA 787 628 1 HALE 3,848 3,804 11 HOCKLEY 3,175 2,001 10 LAMB 3,325 1,840 12 LYNN 1,800 861 6 TERRY 2,050 1,473 Totals 18,55i> 1^7755 5Sr LUBBOCK 12,540 13,970 66 Itotais 31,095 5B77?6 IST STAIE 859,958 1,080,619 14,491^^

^^^ SB Lubbock Avalanche-Joumal, November 4, 1956. 10^ Ibid. 1^5 ^he Texas Alneinac, 1958-59, PP. 470-472. 171 Eisenhower carried only Lubbock County in the nine county area. His margin of victory in that county was con­ siderably smaller than it was in 1952. The vote in Hale County was very close; the other counties ^ve large mrgins to Stevenson.

Party Bolts

The attitude of the Avalanche-Joumal toward party bolters was one of opposition until 1952. Ihe newspaper was always opposed to the Democratic Party pledge. In 1952, the Avalanche-Joumal supported bolters for the first time although the Dlxiecrats were given indirect support in 1948. Al Smith's 1936 bolt of the Democratic Party in oppo­ sition to Franklin Roosevelt was condemned in an editorial entitled, "Now It's Smlthpublleans.'" After he lost a bitterly contested primary battle and court fight to Lyndon Johnson for nomination to the United States Senate in 1948, Coke Stevenson bolted the Democratic Party and supported and campaigned for Jack Porter, Johnson's GOP opponent in the general election. An editorial castl^- ted Stevenson for his bolt and termed him a "sorry specta- cle. M107 The Avalanche-Joumal repeated its opposition to

1^^ The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 4, 1956. 1^7 Ibid., October l4, 1948. 172 the party pledge but argued that those who "personally /Seined/ in money, power, and prestige, from connection with a political movement /owed/ to that movement their continued aupport so long as they /sought/ to profit through their connection with the movement. ""^^ When Truman's re-election in 1948 surprised all ob­ servers, the Avalanche-Joumal commented on some of the effects of the victory regp.rdlng the Stevenson efforts to bar the seating of Johnson In the Senate. it stated that:

. . • with the amazing Republican collapse which dimibfounded even Howard McGrath, the Democratic National chairman, also collapsed the opposition to Mr. Johnson's seating by the now thoroughly discredited Coke Stevenson, his chief aides Dan Moody and Clint Small and Big Oil in Houston.109

A 1952 bolt of the Democratic Party by Allen Shivers and Price Daniel received Avalanche-Joumal support. The editorial staff said the bolt was good, that it would strengthen the chances of a two-party system in Texas; It would show the Democrats that Texas was not "in the bag. "^^ Another editorial commented on the \musual situation of Democratic Govemor Shivers stumping the state for

108 rp^e Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October l4, 1948. ^^9 ibid,^ October 4, 1952. ^^^ Ibid., October 25, 1952. 173 Republican nominee Elsenhower.^H While the writer did not think that Elsenhower would be victorious in Texas, he was elated that for the first time a large number of Texans were not blindly following the party. The idea was a^ln advanced that the party bolt would result in a strong two- 112 party system for Texas.

^^^ The Lubbock Moming Avalanche, October 25, 1952 112 Ibid. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Even though the study of Lubbock County and Texas Politics, 1934-1956, was one of microscopic slze,^there are several observations which can be made regarding Lub­ bock County voting and state voting in general. (Very seldom have the issues in campairpis differed in Lubbock from the statewide Issues. Almost all the can­ didates seeking major state offices campaigned in Lubbock in the period studied. The number of candidates seeking the major offices, especially that of Govemor, decreased over the years. No longer do four or five qualified major contenders seek the office. The Office of Attorney General has replaced the office of Railroad Commissioner as a step­ ping stone to the governorship. ^Campaigns have changed considerably since Allred, O'Danlel, Connally and others spoke to crowds of four or five thousand people in Lubbock. Radio and television have been responsible for some of that change; voters seem to lack the Interest they once had in elections. The can­ didates themselves are not as colorful as their predeces­ sors and the personal hand shaking campaign is almost a thing of the past. Definite issues seemed to be presented to the voters in the gubernatorial contests until about 1946. 174 - 175 Pergusonism, prohibition, pensions, taxes and economy in government were Just a few of those pre-1946 Issues. After those issues passed from the scene, no new Issues followed. The charges of being the candidate of labor, the candidate of the left-wingers, and the candidate of the radicals first made their entry into state politics in the gubernatorial race of 1946, when the charges were made against Dr. Rainey, However, W. Lee O'Danlel, in his 1942 Senate race, made repeated charges that he was against Commimlstlc labor racketeers. The campaigns of Beaixford Jester, Allen Shivers, and Price Daniel for Govemor, and that of the latter for Sena­ tor, all followed the same pattern. The campaigns of these men were primarily centered on states' rights and state sovereignty, the doctrine of constitutional government and condemnation of the Supreme Court of the United States, the New Deal, and the Fair Deal. The Jester campaigns did not emphasize these as much as did the Shivers and Daniel cam­ paigns. Opponents of the three men were designated as candidates of Walter Reuther, the CIO, George Parr of Duval County, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as well as left-wingers. Jester, Shivers and Daniel all had well financed campaigns. It seems as though most of the money in state politics was behind the three men. Labor has been the 176 "whipping boy" of Texas politics and no candidate designa­ ted as the labor choice has ever been successful. It is difficult to determine what effect the editor­ ial campaigns of The Lubbock Avalanche-Joumal had on var- iouB elections. The paper supported winners in all the gubernatorial elections with the exception of 1934 when Aliased won his first term and the O'Danlel victories of 1938 and 1940. The active campalgi waged for Allen Shivers in 1954 could easily have aided the Governor in the heated runoff with Ralph Yarborough. However, in 1956, Avalanche- Joumal support of Price Daniel had little or no effect on the voters. In almost a complete reversal of the first pri­ mary, Yarborough won Lubbock County and seven of the ei^t bordering cotxnties in the runoff. Although Allred was unsuccessful in his 1942 Senate race it is quite possible that Avalanche-Joumal aupport helped him win in Lubbock County and gained votes for him in the surrounding O'Danlel counties. Again In the 1948 senatorial race, newspaper support probably ^ined Lyndon Johnson votes over Coke Stevenson. After unsuccessfully opposing George Mahon In 1934, t^ A valanche-Journal became a constant supporter of the Congressman. In the caily presidential elections where it took a definite stand, 1952 and 1956, the paper supported the win­ ning candidate. The active campaign for Eisenhower in 1952 177 including editorial support of the newspaper resulted in his lead over the area. However, in 1956, only Lubbock voters cast a majority of the votes for Eisenhower. Conclusions Factionalism seems to have become more articulate and highly or^nized since 1944. State politics and the local portion of those politics were divided into liberal- conservative fractions from 1934-1956. At first these fac­ tions were called New Deal and anti-New Deal 07oups although the anti-New Dealers were not very strong until 1946. Ihe present liberal-conservative terms developed from the ear­ lier terms. Prom 1934-1956 there were liberal national administrations but conservative state administrations with the exception of Allred's two terms. Factionalism was the underlying issue in the gubematorlal races of 1946, 1954, and 1956. The wanting factions aligned themselves usually in support of only one candidate in a race. Ohat probably accounts for the decaTease in the number of candidates for the major offices. Another resultsof the development of factionalism was the apparent change In candidates. Per­ sonalities became less Important from 1944-1956. The one-party system in Texas benefitted the con­ servative group because Republicans In the state consistent­ ly supported Democratic conservative candidates for state offices and usually waged active campaigns of their own only for the presidency. Disgruntled or bolting Democrats often led the presidential campaigns for the Republican 178. candidates. \The Lubbock electorate can neither be classified as liberal nor conservative although with the exceptions of Tom Connally and Morris Shepperd and Ralph Yarborough, in August, 1956, the County usually gave a greater percentage of its votes to conservative candidates than they received over the state. Percentages of liberal candidates were usually lower in Lubbock County. ^Ocnnally and Shepperd always received a majority of the Lubbock votes in their respective campaigns. lorndai Johnson, a moderate conservative, always received a majority lof Lubbock votes also. James V. Allred, a liberal, ted a plurality in two Lubbook County campaigns and clear majori­ ties in three caoqpaigns. Allen Shivers, a conservative, never failed to &Lrner a majority of the Lubbock votes when he was seeking office. In all of his campaigns, {Shivers received a greater percentage of Lubbock County votes than he did state votes. V. Lee O'Danlel was able to obtain a plixrality of votes in Lubbock County in his eampaigns for Govemor, but not for Senator. Beauford Jester received a majority of the Lubbock votes in only one election. Ralph Yarborough ^ined Lubbock votes with each campai^i for office and obtained a majority of those votes in the 1936 runoff for Governor. The growth patterns of Lubbock Co\mty and the frequent rearrangement of voting 179 precincts made it impossible to study the elections on a pmcinct-by-precinct basis. If there is an underlying liberal drive In state politics, it is held in check by the one-party system which almost inevitably operates to weaken the political strength of those disposed by temperament and interest to follow a progressive line. James V. Allred, Dr. Homer P. Rainey and Ralph Yarborough were the only liberal leaders who polled a considerable number of votes in various elections. Of the three, however, only Allred was successful in guber­ natorial races and he was defeated in a bid for the United States Senate. Senators Connally and Shepperd were national liberals and we3?e not involved with state politics. The editorial policy of the Avalanche-Joumal was not consistent in the 1934-1956 period. The paper supported conservative candidates)with the exceptions of Allred, Connally and I^rndon Johnson, the latter for his 1948 and 1954 senatorial elections, but any candidate oould never be sure of newspaper support from one race to another. Clint Small was supported for Govemor in 1934 by the A valanche-Journal and Coke Stevenson for the same office in 1944. Lyndon Johnson received the newspaper's

^ V. 0. Key, Jr. Southern Politics In State And Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, iy^9), p. oyu. 180 approval over Stevenson in the 1948 senatorial election and was the winner. Stevenson, assisted by Small and others, fought the Johnson victory in the courts unsuccessfully. When Stevenson bolted to Johnson's GO? November opponent, A^lanc3ie-Journal editorials were very critical of him and Small. James V. Allred»s support of Dr. Homer P. Rainey in the 1946 gubernatorial campaign resxated In Allred's con­ demnation by the A valanche -Journal for his actions. This was only four years after the paper had praised Allred and urged his election to the United States Senate. ^® Avalanche-Journal and its editor's personal column, the Plainsman supported states' rights and consti­ tutional government frcaa 1934 to 1956. Editorials usually appealed to emotions rather than reason. Dr. Rainey was subjected to some extremely vicious editorials in his 1946 race. Coke Stevenson in 1948 and Yarborough in 1^ had similar editorials written against them, but none could compare with the attacks on Rainey. The newspaper and its editor were always opposed to labor bosses and outside domination or interference with Texas affairs. Editorial campaigns were most successful when they tied in issues or candidates with West Texas or West Texans. Lubbock County in the twenty-two year period usually voted with the major­ ity of the state on the races studied. I8l In following Avalanche-Joumal campaigns—past and present—it should be remembered that "the modem dally paper is a great commercial Institution directed toward the making of profits." Although the newspaper press acknow­ ledges responsibility for the handling of public Issues and the influencing of public opinion, the newspapers are usually bitterly resentful of critics who declare the responsibili­ ties and accountability of the press and note its current shortcomings.^ It may be wondered If there are any real Issues In Texas politics and if it will be possible for a qualified candidate of moderate means to ever have a chance of victory without the support of the monled interests which have supported the Jester, Shivers and Daniel campaigns. Will a winning candidate have to resort to the same type of smear and hate campaigns as were waged in the state from 1946 to 1956?

^ William Alblg, Modern Public Opinion (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. 375^: 3 Ibid., p. 502. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Albig, William. Modem Public Opinion. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, X'95^. Ewing, Cortez E. M. Congressional Elections, l896-1944. Norman: University or Okiancmja Press, 19471 . Primary Elections in The South. Norman: Uni- versity or Oidanoma Press, X'S53» Key, V. 0., Jr. Southern Politics In State And Nation. New York: Alfred A. Kinopf, 194'57 McKay, Seth Shepard. W. Lee O'Danlel And Texas Politics, 1938-1942. Lubbocl: "Tixas Tech ?ress, 19441 . Texas Politics, 1906-1944. Lubbock: Texas Tech Press, T^ST Texas And The Fair Deal, 1945-1952. San Antonio: TKe~Kaylor company, 195^. Packard, Vance. The Hidden Persuaders. New York: David McKay Company, X95T» fhe Texas Almanac. Dallas: A. H. Belo Corporation, 1936- TSPSTT Truman, David B. The Governmental Process. New York: Al­ fred A. Knopf,"T955I^ Weeks, 0. Douglas. Texas One-Party Politics In 1956. Austin: Institute of Public Affairs, thelJni vers ity of Texas, 1957.

l82 183

Articles And Periodicals

McKay, Seth Shepard. ''The RaineiMester Campaign For The- ^ovemorttxipy' Wsst Texas Hletorical Aseoeiatlon Year- ba^. Tolume grrocloger, 1954), pp.^Cw. ^ —^^ 'The Texas Senatorial Campaign of 1948, • West t-g'feyyigy- Aeeoeiatlon Yearbook. Volume xULlll

Prothpo, James W.j Campbell, Ernest Q., and Origg, Charles M. ^Two Party Voting In The South,' The American Politic *"" Solence Review. Volume LII (Mai^ 1958), pp. 151-

Riethaayer, L» 0. ""Amendments To The Texas Conetitution, ' ^ n^i^M^i^^u" ^?gffl Scienoe Ou^erly. Volume XXII, HO. 2 ^September, 1941}, pp. ibl-i'/i. Strong, Donald S. '^he Poll Taxs The Case of Texas,' The Wlcan^Pplltioal Scien^ Review. Volume XXXVIII,"fo.

The Lubbock Avalanohe-nToumal. 1934-1956. The Lubbock Evening Journal. 1934-1956. The Lubbook Moming Avalanche. 1934-1956.

Crovemment Documents

MarbetKTffer. Harold J.

The Senate Journal. Texas State Senate, 43rd Legislating, ftegolar Session (Austin, 1933), p. 185?. U^ S-^Og^««i|?al Directory. Slat Congress, let Session

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Votes Oast In Presidential And Congressional Elections. 1928- 184

Unpublished Material

Election Returns, Lubbook County Clerk's Office, Lubbock, Texas, 1934-1956. driffin, Eleanor Syfces. Texas And The General Election Of 1952.' Unpublished Master's Thesis, Texas Teohnological College, Lubbook, 1955. Key, Horvell. ''The Texas Senatorial Election of 194?*' UinpubliiAied Master's Thesis, Texas Tedhnologioal College, Lubbook, 1943. Landrm, Cyrus A. ''The Texas Gubernatorial Campaign of 194o*" Thipublished Master's Thesis, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, 1948. Partin. James W.. Jr. 'The Texas Senatorial Election Of 1941 •' 0!npuolished Master's Thesis, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, 1941* Primary Eleotion Returns, 19th Congressional Distrlot, Legislative Reference Division of the Texas State Library, Austin, Texas, 1936. Primary ISlection Returns, Lubbock Democratic Party, Lubbook, Texas, 1934-1956. Sims, Archie. ''The Texas Gubernatorial Campaign Of 1940. ' unpublished Master's Thesis, Texas Tedhnologioal College, Lubbook, 1953«

Legal References

Smith v. Allwright 321 U.S. 649. 88 L. Ed. 987, 1944.

Letters

Mahon, Oongressaan George H« Letter, June 27, 1958. APPENDIX TABLE 1 GUBERNATORIAL ELECTIONS, 1934-1956 Lubbook County State Year Primary Candidate Votes Percentage Votes Pereentsge 1934 July Allred 2,312 ?9.01 ?97,656 ?9.94 Small 2,264 ?8.41 1?4,?06 1?.5 Hunter 1,36? 17.09 ?41,339 24. ?8 McDonald 1,307 16.40 ?06.007 ?0.7? Others 724 9.09 124,803 12.56 1934 August Allred 4,454 59.66 499.343 52.1 Hunter 3,01? 40.34 459,106 47.9 1936 July Mired 5,116 61.03 533,219 5r.53 Hunter 1,631 19.46 ?39,460 ?2.74 Fischer 1,019 12.16 145,877 13.85 Others 617 7.35 114,561 10,88 1938 O'Danlel 3,405 41.71 573,166 51.41 Thoiqpson ?,71? 33.?? 231,630 ?0.78 McCraw 1,169 14.3? 152,278 13.65 Hunter 695 8.51 117,634 10.55 Oilers 18? 2.24 40,277 3.61 1940 O'Danlel 4,330 44.15 645,646 54.29 Thompson ?,969 ?9.?5 ?56,923 21.60 Hines 1,972 ?0.11 119,121 10.02 Ferguson 353 3.60 100,578 8.46 Sadler 253 ?.58 61,396 5.16 Others 30 .31 5,626 .47 1942 July Stevenson 6,667 85.4 651,218 68.5 Collins 991 12.7 272,469 28,6 Others 151 1.9 27,529 2.9 1944 July Stevenson 7,346 89.66 696,586 84.54 Others 847 10.34 127,574 15.46 1946 July Jester 5,583 44.97 443,804 38.15 Rainey 3,9?3 31.6 291,282 25.04 162,431 Sellers 1,071 8.6? 13.96 Smith 1,009 8,1? 10?,941 103,1?0 8.85 Sadler 537 4.33 8.87 Others 293 3.36 39,077 5.13 185 186

Table 1—Continued

•-.-* 15^4 /. M.» ^ Lubbook County State Year Primary Candidate Votes Percentage Votes Percentage 1946 August Jester 6,441 6?. 41 701,018 66.34 Rainey 3,879 37.59 355,564 33.66 1948 July Evans 8,261 66.46 ?79,60? ?3.? Jester 1,863 14.99 64?.0?5 53.?7 March 1,713 13.78 187,658 15.57 Others 593 4.77 95,971 8.96 1950 July Shivers 7,908 80.97 829,730 76.36 March 1,510 15.46 195,997 18.04 Others 349 3.57 60,483 5.6 1952 July Shivers 11,?16 69.18 833,861 61.48 Yarborough 4,687 28.91 488,345 36. Traylor 309 1.91 34,186 ?.5? 1954 July Shivers 7,30? 5?. 668,913 49.5? Yarborou^ 6,348 45.? 645,991 47.8? Others 393 2.8 35,845 ?.66 1954 August Shivers 9,133 57.36 775,088 53.15 Yarborough 6,788 4?. 64 683,13? 46.85 1956 July Daniel 9,445 47.33 6?8,914 39.89 Yarborough 5,371 ?6.9? 463,416 ?9.39 O'Danlel 3,309 16.58 347,757 ??.05 Haley 1,131 5.67 88,77? 5.63 Senterfitt 600 3.01 37,774 ?.4 Holmes 98 .49 10,165 .64 1956 August Yarborou^ 8,585 5?.0? 694,830 49.89 Daniel 7,918 47.98 698,001 50.11 187 TABLE 2 SENATORIAL ELECTIONS, 1934-1954 Lubbook County State Year Priaary Candidate Votes Percentage Votes Peroentage 1934 July Connally 5,261 68.? 567,139 58.74 Bailey 2,322 30.1 355,963 36.87 Fisher 133 1.7 41,4?1 4.39 1936 July Shepperd 5,956 75.49 616,?93 64.56 Others 1,934 24.51 338,308 35.44 1940 July Connally 8,506 89.81 923,219 84.83 Others 965 10.19 165,087 15.17 1941 Special Mann 1,153 35.98 140,807 ?4.45 ElectionJohnson 825 25.74 174,?79 30.?6 O'Danlel 783 24.30 175,590 30.49 Dies 428 13.35 14.01 80,653 Others 16 .63 .79 4,550 1942 July Allred 3,157 40.45 317,301 3?.? O'Danlel ?,852 36.55 475,541 48.3 18.? Moody 1,745 ??.36 178,471 Ryan .64 1.3 50 12,?13 1942 August Allred 4,455 6?.7 433,?03 49. O'Danlel 2,761 37.3 451,354 51. 1946 July Connally 9,831 82.33 823,818 75.39 Others ?,109 17.67 ?68,781 24.61 1948 July Johnson 6,?85 51.06 405,615 33.73 Stevenson 4,193 34.07 477,077 39.68 Peddy 1,375 11.17 ?37,195 19.73 Others 454 3.7 8?,50? 6.86 1948 August Johnson 6,445 66.7 494,191 50.005 Stevenson 3,?18 33.3 494,104 49.995 1952 July Daniel 1?,04? 75.87 940,770 7?.56 Beckworth ?,363 14.89 285,84? ??.04 Napier 1,467 9.24 70,13? 5.4 1954 July Johnson 9,874 73.09 883,?64 71.38 Dou^erty 3,636 ?6.91 354,188 ?8.6? 188

TABLE 3 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1936-1956 y - _^ Lubbock County State rear Party Votes Percentage Votes Peroentage 1936 Deaooratio 6,4?5 90.74 734,485 87.45 Republican 622 8.78 103,711 12.34 Others 34 .48 2,1?3 .?1 1940 Democratic 8,113 86.19 840,131 80.69 Republican 1,283 13.63 199,152 19.13 Others 17 ,18 1,865 .18 1944 Democratic 7,654 70.51 821,605 71.44 Texas Regular 2,021 18.66 135,439 11.78 Republican 1,169 10.77 191,425 16.64 Others 11 ,1 1,611 .14 1948 Democratic 11,114 73.08 750,700 65.44 Republican 2,837 18.66 ?8?,?40 ?4.6 States' Rigjhts 1,20? 7.9 106,909 9.3? Others 54 .36 .64 1952 Republican 16,137 57.97 1,102,878 53.13 Democratic 11,650 41.85 969,??8 46.69 Others 58 .18 3,840 .18 1956 Republican 13,970 5?.57 1,080,619 55.?7 Democratic 1?,540 47.19 859,958 43.98 Constitution