Influences on the path of legislation in North Carolina
White describes some of the influences of the path of legislation in the North Carolina legislature. He avers that speeches on the floor of the legislature can have an impact, describes the effect of a coordinated effort by hunters and fisherman, and recalls his own successful push to prevent the levy of a cigarette tax.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Thomas Jackson White Jr., March 14, 1986. Interview C-0029-2. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
I'm trying to think of what else we can explore. From what
you've been telling me, my impression of the way that the
General Assembly works is that most things are fairly informal. My guess
would be that any kind of speeches that are given on the floor are
really not that important. That it's the conversations and
the relationships you have with other members that are more decisive. Is
that a fair picture of how things work?
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
That is not an accurate picture, no. Of course, what you speak of is
involved but there are not a great many bills, as they procede on their
courses change course by reason of eloquent or other speeches on the
floor. I say not a great many, yet sometimes, there are. I have known
bills the passage of which appeared to be a foregone conclusion be
completely turned around by a speech not so much of eloquence as
practical application of the result of that bill,
and things of that sort. That doesn't happen everyday.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
Can you think of an example of that happening? I mean, do you recall a
specific case?
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
Yes. In 1947, I think it was, there was an appropriation bill to
appropriate $1 million from the general fund for the purchase
of objects of art and, at that time, I would say perhaps the majority of
members of the General Assembly were as bad off in their knowledge of
art as I am. Certainly, in many counties of this state, there were no
art societies, no art councils, no art this, no art that. That was not
the kind of an object for which to be appropriating money that the
average appropriation committee was interested in. The appropriations
committee was primarily interested in the fiscal well being of the state
and its institutions. Art had no special appeal to the committee. One
man got up on the floor of the house and made a speech in favor of that
bill and changed just about every vote that was against it. That was a
great event in the history of North Carolina and its now having such a
wealth of good art. That was a great speech. I didn't hear
it, I wasn't there. But that is accepted as common knowledge
in art and legislative circles. That's one example that I
recall. Another example didn't involve a speech but it
involved some doing.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
What was that?
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
That was when the hunters and fishermen of North Carolina who had
organized themselves into an association of wildlife clubs.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
You had something to do with that process.
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
Yes. We had all these clubs all over the state and we were trying to get
a bill passed to take the management of the state's game
resources out of the hands of the Department of Conservation and
Development.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
We talked about that in, I think, the first interview. You mounted quite
an effective lobbying action in that case. Broad-based, I
understand.
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
We organized these clubs all over the state and I was chairman of the
legislative committee and I conducted the hearing in favor of that bill
in the hall of the house. I had never been a member; I had just been
beaten running for the house. The way we organized that thing was we
wanted the members of the house to know every county, we
didn't skip any of them. Every county had people interested
in and in favor of that bill being passed. We chose people, of course,
who would make a speech. We have a hundred counties in this state and
the legislature isn't going stand hitched for very long at a
time. So I told each one of these people who were going to speak saying,
"If you speak more than one minute, I'm going to
embarrass you and I'm going to ask you to sit
down."
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
So you had it really tightly organized.
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
That's right. The estimate was that we wouldn't get
any votes, then the estimate got up to where we'd get a few
votes, and it actually wound up we got all but about three
or four.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
It's known as doing your political homework.
[Laughter]
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
To do that it took a lot of doing. We had a lot of good help. We had help
from all over the state. Those boys were on fire.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
So sometimes a speech, sometimes a good representation at a hearing will
make a real difference.
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
It will make a good difference and it makes a good difference in
committees oftentimes. But usually, to change the course of anything of
that sort, the speaker, number one, must have the respect of the people
to whom he's speaking. Number two, he's got to
have his facts straight. And if there are things wrong with the bill
that he is presenting—maybe "wrong" is not
the right word. If there are parts of the bill to which there is a
general objection, he must be prepared to explain why it's
that way and go farther and explain why it should not be that way. These
are some of the principles that you follow.
- PAMELA DEAN:
-
He can't just go in there and present a biased argument.
He's got to give the full….
- THOMAS JACKSON WHITE, JR.:
-
Well, the last time that I said anything to a committee on a tobacco
bill, it was the bill to tax cigarettes, when they called on me, I said,
"Mr. Chairman, all I want to do is to make a statement and
announce a position." It was the cigarette tax bill and I
pointed out how the tobacco industry felt about it; the kind of
investment it had here in North Carolina; finally got around to what its
value was to North Carolina, to how it contributed to the welfare of
many other North Carolina industries and
businesses; and wound up with the conclusion that North Carolina cannot
afford to increase the tax on cigarettes. North Carolina manufactures 67
percent of all cigarettes manufactured in this country, and we grow a
high percentage of all the cigarette tobacco that's grown in
this country.