, 

Mr. T. E. Allday 

Audito+ of Oil 

l!he University 

Austin, Texai 

of Texas" 

dear Mr. Allday: 

Re: Interpretation and 

Constltutloiiallty 

0f'Sectlon 4, Chapter 

6, A&s of 1921, and 

Section 14 of Chapter 

1, Acts of 1925, as 

amended by Chabter 

145, Acts of 1925, 

said Acts dealing with 

the payment of rentals 

ana royalties on 011 

and&as_ leases upon 

land appropriated to 

the Unlverslty of 

Texas. 

This opinion Is glven.ln reply to the written 

request contained In your letter of Aprll.29, 1939, and the 

additional request contained In your letter of June 15, 1939. 

In your letter of April 29, 1939, you prop'ound the following 

-questions: 

1. "Was It the Intention of the I&Islature,.when It passed Cahpter 6 of the',Acts 

of 1921, to repeal or nulllf~~.?lther or both 

of the $2 an acre considerations due to be 

paid by the'permlttees under subdivisions 1 

and 2 of Section 7 of Chapter 83 of the Acts 

of 1917, for, and on, the leases that were 

executed as a result of permits having. been 

Issued on the University lands?" 

2. "Is It your opinion that el&erSectlon 14 of Chapter 71, or Section 14 as'ainended 

ln Chapter 143 (both Chapters being Acts of 

1925), had the effect of repealing or nullifying the same considerations shown ln question 1, due.to be paid by the permittees under 

the same s~bdlvlslon, section, and Chapter 

mentioned in the preGediIIg paragraph, for, 

and on, the leases that were executed resulting 
- . 

Mr. T. E. Allday, page 2 (o-730) 

from permits Issued on the Unlversltx 

lands?" 

In your letter of June 15, 193gc,you propound 

the following additional questlofi'!.~- 

3. "In the event you hold :hat It was 

the Intention of the Legislature to repeal 

the $2 considerations, which considerations 

are mentioned ln Subdivisions 1 and 2,0f 

Section 7 of Qlapter 83 of the Acts qf 1917, 

with (hapter 6 of the Acts of 1921, or o.lth 

Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1925, or wi.$h both 

of these Acts, would such ACt or Acts, ln 

your opinion, be unconstitutional?" 

In your letter you divide the leases of University 

lands to which your inquiries are directed into two groups, 

.the first group comprising leases Issued under and by 

~vlrtue of the provisions of Chapter 83 of the Acts of 19X-7 

.and Chapter 6, Section 4, Acts~of 1921; the SeGOnd grouti. 

~comprls%ng leases thatwere Issued under Chapter 83.of the 

Acts of 1917 and Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1925 (Section 14) 

.as amended by Chapter 143, Acts of 1925. 

You state that the Commlssloner,p~ the General 

Land Oiflce has construed Section 4 of Chaptkr .6 of the 

Acts of 1921 as rqeallng and abolishing .the"r@qulrements 

,contalned lnicha@er‘ 83, Section 7, of the Acts of 1917, 

for the payment df $2.00 per acre at the t$me the lease 

Is Issued and $2.00 per aore annually thereafter during 

the life of the lease wlth'respect to leases falling In 

.the first group described In your letter.'. You further 

.state that the Commlssldner has construed.Sectlon 14 of Chapter 71 of the Acts,of 1925, as amended by Chapter 143, of the 

Acts of 1921, so as to repeal and abolish .the requirements 

of Chapter 83.with respect to the $2.00 pe3'_acre case payment and the $2.00 per acre annual payment: on.l.eases falling 

In the second group described ln your letter'.' 

A consdleratlon op the questlons~&u have asked 

necessarily requires a careful review of the relevant statutes. 

On March 16, 1917, Qlapter 83 of the Acts of 1917 

was approved. Such Act was a comprehenslxe amendment to the 

.1913 Act, and provided that all Unlirerslty, public school 

and other lands deslgnat~ed In the Act, should be open to the 

prospecting for and developing of~mlnerals,, including petroleum and natural gas "upon the terms and cgr)clltlons prdvlded 

In this Act." 
&. T. E. Allday, page 3 (o-730) 

Section 2 of Chapter 83 provided Gnat any person 

"desiring to obtain the right to pmaect for and develop 

the minerals. . .that may be in any of the. areas included 

herein may do so under the provisions of I&Is Act, to.gether 

with such rules and regulations as may be &dopted by the 

Commissioner of the General Land Office relative thereto. . ." 

Section 3 provided for the filing ielth the Courity 

Clerk of applications to obtain the rlght,.to prospect for 

and develop petroleum and natural gas in surveyed areas 

covered by the Act. 

Section 4 provided for the flllng with the'~'County 

Surveyor of applications to obtain the right to prospect for 

and develop petroleum and natural gas ln WJ$ of. the unsurveyed areas Included ln the Act. 

Sectloti 5 prescribed the duty of th%'~'Commlssloner 

of the Genekal Land Office upon receipt by him of an appll- 

,catlon after same had been filed with the$ounty Clerk or the 

Surveyor, and such section also provided that such a fll$stlon should be accompanied by field notes.and plat, s 

flllng fee and 10 cents per acre for each acre applled'for, 

also a sworn statement by the applicant shpwlng certain facts. 

Section 5 then provides as follows: 

"And If upon examination the ap&catlon 

or the application and field notes are' found 

correct and the area applied for Is wltti.the 

provisions of this Act the Commission shall 

Issue to the applicant or his assignee a'permlt 

conferring upon him an exclusive right to prospect for and develop petroleum and natural gas 

within the designated area for a term not to 

exceed two years." 

Section 6 prescribed the time ln.,Whlch the owner of 

a permit should begin In good faith the ac$ual work necessary 

.to the physical development of said area;ijSkev@ed for the 

filing of an affidavit stating that such work had been begun 

and the extent of.such work and the expenditures incurred 

therein and a statement of whether or ~not.petroleum or natura 

gas had been discovered In commercial quantl~les. The Sri@1 

sentence of Section 6 reads as follows: 

"The owner of a permit shall not 'take, carry 

dwaiy or sell any petroleum or natural gas before 

obtaining a lease therefor; provided, puch quantity 

as may be necessary for the continued development 
Iir. T. E. Allday, page 4 (o-730) 

of the area before ;dblM.nlng a lease may, be 

used without accounting therefor.” . 

Section 7 of Chapter 83 provides as followsz 

“If at any time within the 1lfe;of a permit 

one should develop petroleum'or natural gas In 

commercial quantities the owner or manager 

shall file ln the Qeneral Land Office a statement of such development within thirty days 

thereafter, and thereupon the owner of~@e permit shall,have the rlght to lease the.abea lneluded ln the permlt upon the’followlng conditions: 

'1. An application and a flrst,$a&nt of 

two dollars per acre for a lease of the-area 

ticluded ln the permit shall be made &o th 

Commissioner of th a 1LadO iTFce til:hln 

tKlrty days’ after ~he’%%M?r~ of .gatrol&m 

o,r naturaLgasZ.3.n c;ol;ilitirclal qr;iult-$@s, d .~C -. 

‘2. Upon the payment of two dolJ.ars per 

acre for each acre ln the permit a lease shall 

be Issued -for a term of ten years or .less, as 

may be' desired by the applicant, andalth the 

option of a renewal or renewals for ti iiciiial 

or shorter period, and' annually af$#&: 

- _-- 

thaj.expiration of th,e first Year after the date. or ~the. 

lease.the sum of two dollars per acre shall 

Id during the llf 

-.. . ..- -- 

e of the lease,;.and In' 

Ion thereto the owner of the lease &iiTl 

pay a sum of money equal to a royalty~of onemeter optput of all gas disposed of MS the 

premises. . 

‘3. The ro~lties shall be pa2't.o he 

State through the Gommlssloner of the.Qeneral 

Land Office. at Austin, monthly durlng.t@e.,,llfe 

of the lease. All payments shall bepc~uapanled 

by the sworn statement of the owner or m@qer 

or other authorized agent showing thq(amount 

pqduced since the last report and th,e market 

value of the output and a copy of all plpe.llne 

recelptxi> tankreceipts, guage of 

which petroleum may have been,run, 

checks and memoranda of.amount put out 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 5 (o-730) 

g'lpe lines or tanks or pools. The books and 

accounts, the receipts and dlscharges.of all 

pipe lines, tanks and pools and gas &lnes and 

.gas pipes and all other matters pertaining to 

the production, transportation and mafketlng 

.of th,e output shall be. open to the ex,am+atlon 

and lntipectlon at all times by the C+ssloner 

of the General Land Office or his rey(re+,entatlve or any other person authorized lw me 

Governor or Attorney General to repraaent the 

State. The value of any unpaid rp3lty and any 

sum due the State under this Act upon.any lease 

&all become as prior lien upon all production 

produced upon the leases areas and t&e lmpyovements situated thereon to secure the.papen$ 

of any royalty and any sum due the $t,ate,aris- 

-1ng under the operation of any portion qf this 

Act 

4. The permit or lease shall o&au 'the 

terms upon.whlch It Is issued lnclu 1 In&the 

authority of the Commissioner to require the 

.drllllng of wells necessary to offset wells 

drilled upon adjacent private land, and 'such 

other matters as the Commissioner may dee@~ 

lmportant to the rights of the appllcent,or 

the State." 

'follows: 

Section 16 of Chapter 83, in pant,;provldes as 

"The payment per acre required t6 be 

made before the Issuance of a permlt.shall 

be paid annually thereafter during tb life 

of the permit or lease. A separate urlt$F 

application shall be made for the area de-, 

sired ln a permit. No permit, lease&r.,, 

patent shall embrace the area ln two ,or more 

applications. No applications, permit, lease 

or patent shall embrace a divided area Whole 

tracts of surveyed land may be appllad.$or as 

a whole or In eighty acre tracts or multiples 

thereof without furnishing field noteg- therefor. 

A duplicate of every permit and lease++hall be 

kept In the General Land Office. The area In 

each permit shall be developed Independently of. 

other areas." 

Chapter 83 of the Acts of 1917, with the amendments 
&. T. E. Allday, page 6 (o-730) 

hereinafter noted, continued In force as the basic law 

governing the Issuance of permits and leases for 011 and 

gas In University lands until the effect1v.e date of Qlapter 

71 of the Acts of 1925, approved March 10,..1925. Prior to 

the enactment of Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1925, several 

amentients were made to Chapter 83, but, %n opr.opinion, 

only one of such amendements Is material ljo this opinion. 

Such amendment Is Chapter 6, of the Acts of 1.921, approved 

..February 3, 1921. 

By the express terms of Section .l of.Chapter 6 of 

the Acts of 1921, such amendment purported,tp apply~ only to:. 

"Permits to prospect for oil ani &heretofore Issued on University land, and P&r 

School land which Is unsold at the tlmre .thls 

Act goes Into effect, river beds, PI! ,channels 

and fresh water lakes'and Islands theein, and 

which have not expired. . .'I 

And also tici. 

"All permits to prospect for oli%d gas 

heretofore Issued on .sald lands and ape&s and 

all permits heretofore Issued after the.Mneral 

Act of 1917,went into effect.. . .whlah have 

ejcplred at the time this Act goes Into efcect, 

but on which the drilling of a Well Qr wekls 

has been begun ln good faith, or with ref'erence to which permits and the right of. $he 

owner of the same to the possession qf the 

area Included therein bona fide lltlgatlon 

has existed during the whole or a pant' of 

the term of the permit. . ." 

Section 1 of Chapter 6 provided that.ill of such 

.permlts as described above should be ex'tended "so that they 

shall remain In full force and effect for a period of five 

.years from.the date of the Issuance OF the. permit, condl- 

~tloned-only upon the performance of the terms of this Act." 

Section 4 of Chapter 6 provided ,&hat: 

"If 011 or gas should.be.productW'in Aying quantities-upon the area Included 'in any 

of the permits included In this Act, -@e owner 

of'the permit shall report th development to 

the Comfnlssloner of the Gene& Land Office 

within thirty days thereafter, and apply for a 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 7 (o-730) 

lease, accompanying the application With a 

correct log of the well or wells, and thereupon 

a lease shall be Issued without the payment of 

any additional sum of money and for 8 period 

not to exceed ten years, subject to cgnewa;l or 

renewals." . 

Tne question IS thus presented &'to ihether Section 

4 of Chapter 6, properly construed, repea&ed and abolished 

.the requirements specified In Section 7 oC.Chapter 83, 

.Acts of '1917, that a permittee, 

.lease, 

before be- entitled to a 

should pay to the State $2.00 per tire for-each acre 

lncludea within his lease. and that In addition $2.00 per 

acre should be paid tkeresfter annually dur 

3 

then life 

of the lease. Clearly, Section 4 of Chapt,er was not 

intended to affect in any manner permits Qsued, subsequent 

.to the effective date of Chapter 6, because Its operation 

Is expressly limited In Section 1 thereto.to "dermlts heretofore Issued". If Section 4 of Chapter 6 IS. construed so 

es to repeal and abolish the requlrements,of.the $2.00 

acre cash payment and the $2.00 per acre &nnual payment 

per 

required by Chapter 83, or either of such,&ments, such 

.constructlon and effect must, necessarlly,,be,limlted so 

as to apply only to leases resulting from.permlts 5ssued 

prior to the effective date lof=Chapter 6. Permits issued 

.subseq ent to said date would be wholly !.u@fected by the 

.Act un 1 er any constructlon thereof. We pwtpone any further discussion as to the proper construction to be given 

to Chapter 6 to a subsequent place In this opinion. 

No other amendments with which ue are now,concerned were made to Chapter 83 of the Acts of 1917 until the 

enactment of Chaptex 71, Acts of 1925, apwoved,March 10, 

1925. Chapter 71, Acts of 1925, was a coqrebenslve Act 

-dealing with the sale of 011 arid gas leases on unsold Unlverslty land and upon Unlversltiy land which MaQ been sold with 

.mlneral reservation prior to the effectlve,date pf Chapter 

71. The operation of Chapter 71 was expressly limited by 

the final clause of Section 1 of the Ac%.wkiich readk as follows: 

"Provided, 011 and gas permits ax&leases 

outstanding shall not be affected,by.thls Act 

except as provided ln Section 14 theceof." 

Section 14 of Chapter 71 provld&: 

"All oil and gas permits heretokore lssued upon lands Included herein and noir in' 

force shall be extended for a term of five 

years from date thereof andkknever production 
or. T. E. Allday, page 8 (O-730) 

Is secured In paying quantities and t&e payment of royalty begins, the owner shaJ& not 

pay any further annual money rental.;.Pfter 

production Is secured In paying quant#les 

the owner shall be entitled to a lease_ which 

shall run so long as the area covered.by his 

lease produces 211 or gas In paying puantitles, subject to the provisions of.thls Act.” 

Chapter 143, Acts of 1925, approved March 30, 1925, 

by the same Legislature which enacted Chapter 71, amended 

Section 14’of Chapter 71, so that Section.14 shall there- 

.after read as follows: 

“All oil and gas permits heretogore &d 

hereafter Issued upon lands IncludedJzereln 

and which have not expired shall be -tended 

for a term of five years from date t@reof 

conditioned only upon the payment of.the.annual 

rental, as provided by law, In advance 

and whenever production Is secured ln’.pay$ng 

quantities and the payment of royalty begins, 

the owner shall.not pay any further apnual 

rental money. After production Is secured in 

paying quantities, the owner shall be entitled 

to a lease which shall run so long a&the area 

covered by his lease produces oil or.gas In 

paying quantities subject to the prav.lsions 

of this Act.” 

;*y* r 

On the same day, March 30, 192~~~Cha$5er 140, Acts 

of ,LSLj, was approved by the Legislature. Chapter 140 reads 

as foil, .icC .~ 

“Sec. 1. That subdivision 2 of:: Section 

7 of Chapter 83 of the Acts of the Regu)ar 

Session of the Thirty-fifth Leglslature,approved March 16, 1917, be amended so.88 to 

hereafter read as follows: 

“Upon the payment of $2.00 (two.dollars) . 

per acre for each acre In the permit&lease 

shall be Issued for a term of ten (10) years, 

or less, as may be desired by the applicant, 

and with the option of a renewal or renewals 

for an equal or shorter period, and $mmedlately 

after the expirationof the first year after 

the date of the lease the sum of; two -($2.00) 

dollars per acre shall be paid during the life 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 9 1'. ~730) 

of the lease, and in addition there& the 

owner of the lease shall pay a sum of money 

equal to a royalty of one-eighth of the value 

of the gross production of petroleum. - The 

owner of a gas well shall pay a royalty of 

one-tenth of the value of the metre output of 

ally gas disposed of off the premises;; provided, 

however, that the provisions hereof as to the 

i 

payment of two ($2.00) doll.ars per acre during the lease period and the life of.sald lease 

shall not apply to leases of bays, marshes, 

reefs, salt-water lakes or other submerged 

lands containing as much as one hundreds. 100 

acres but not In excess of five hundred t 500 1 

acres upon which as many as five wells,have 

been drilled, and upon which an expetidlture 

of as much as one hundred thousand ($100,000.00), 

dollars has been made. The drllllng,of said wells 

and the expenditure bf>sald amount t<be established to the satisfaction of the Commiss~l'bner 

of the Land Office. 

"Sec. 2. The fact that leases ex1s.t upon. 

some of the bays, marshes, reefs, salt-water 

lakes and other submerged lands of the.eei 

herein Indicated upon which many wells have 

been drilled and large amounts of money 

expended, and the fact that another wrlodical 

payment of two ($2.00) dollars per acre will 

soon be due and the fact that the patient of 

said amount Is unfair and unjust to the owners 

of these leases, create an emergency,and an 

imperative public necessity, that the constltutlonal rule which requires bills ta be read 

on three consecutive daya,be suspended and 

same Is hereby suspended; and this Act ta,k& 

effect from and after lts~passage and It Is so 

enacted." 

Cha ter 140, Acts of 1925, (cop%.ed above) appears 

as Article 53 t.4 of the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas. 

By virtue of the enactment.of Section 14 of Chapter 

‘71, Acts of 1925, as amended by Chapter l&3, Acts of 1925, 

the question Is presented as to whether such Act, properly 

construed,. has the effect of repealing an~.abollshing, 

as to permits and leases previously Issued, the-requirements of Section 7, Chapter 83, of a $2.00 per acre cash 

payment at the time the,lease Is Issued and a $2.00 per- 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 10 (o-730) - 

acre annual payment thereafter during the'ilfe of the lease. 

If it were necessary In this opinion to make a con- 

:.structlon of Chapter 6, Section 4, Acts qf 1921, and Section 

14 of Chapter 71, Acts of 1925, we would,feel no hesitancy, 

In the l?.ght of the legislative history preceding and following the Acts In question, ln holding that such Acts, properly conshued, do not purport or Intend to release permlttees and lessees from making the $2.0qper acre cash payment and also the $2.00 per acre annual p $ment during the 

,llfe of the lease, asqequlred by Chapter, 3. 

_ . 

However,'.l!n view of your alter&iv& question as 

to the constltutlonallty of Section 4 of .Chaptir 6, and Section 14 of Chapter 71, it Is riot necessar;y' that we at this 

time make an independent construction of &uqh Act. For the 

purpose only of testing the constltutlonaJ.lty of such Act, 

we assiuae that the construction whlah has.beep given to said 

Ac.t b* former Commlssloners of the General d Offlos Is 

.the proper construatlon. You atate In your IT etter that 

former Conunlssloners of the Qsneral Land Office have oonstrued Section 4 of Chapter 6 of the Aots.of 1921, as repealing and abolishing the requirements oi. Cha 

.of 1917, with respect to the requirement of a 'i 

tar 83,er,~:$ 

2.00 per acre 

cash payment at the time the lease is Issued apd a $2.00 

,per acre annual payment thereafter durlng._the l$fe of the 

lease as to leases falling within group ape above described. 

You further stat8 that former Land Commls 

% 

oners have construed Section 14 of Chapter 71, Acts of 25,,.as amended 

by Chapter 143, Acts of 1925, as repealing and abolishing 

the prov?:."*~z of Chapter 83, insofar as aap'ter 83 requires 

the payment-of the stated $2.00 per aare F\eryments with respect to leases falling in group two above described. So 

construed, are.,the Acts referred to constL$ut$onal? 

Section 12 of Article 7, of the.Oo~stltutlon of 

Texas, provides as follows: 

"The land herein set apart to t 

2ti 

Unlverslty fund shall be sold under such r ula$,lons, 

at such times and on such terms as may ?e provided by law; and the Legislature shsJ1 provide 

for the prompt collection, at maturity, of all 

debts dtie on account of University lqds, heretofore sold, or that may-hereafter t&sold, and 

shall in neither event hatie the power to grant 

relief to the purchasers." 

Section 15 of Article 7 of the Constitution of 

Texas provides as follows: 
Hr. T. E. Allday, page 11 (o-730) 

"In addition to the lands heretofore 

granted to the University of Texas, there Is 

hereby set apart, and appropriated, Soti the 

endowment maintenance, and support of said 

University and Its branches, one mIllJon acres 

of the unappropriated public domain o.f the 

St&te, to be designated, and surveyed;as may 

be provided by law; and said lands shall be 

sold under the same regulations, and.the,proceeds invested In the same manner, as Is provided for the sale and Investment of .the permenent University Fund; and the Legislature 

shall not have power to grant any relief to 

the purchasers of, said lands." 

Section 53 of Article 3, of the Constitution, 

.provldes as fgllows: 

"The Legislature shall,have IJO power to 

grant, or to authorize any county qr municipal 

authority to grant, any extra compensation, 

fee or allowance to a public offloer,. agent, 

servant or contractor, after servlceJlas 

been rendered, or a contract has been entered 

Into, and performed In whole or ln part. . :I' 

Section 55 of Article 3, of the Cgnstltutlon, 

provides as follows: 

"The Legislature shall have no wwei' 

to release or extlngultih, or to authorize 

the releasing or extinguishing, In whole or In 

part, the indebtedness, llablllty or ,obllgatlon 

of anys;lncorporatlon or Individual, to this, 

State, or to any county or other municipal 

corporation therein." 

Section 51 of Article 3, of the Tonstltutlon, 

provides as follows: 

"The Legislature shall have no power to 

make any grant or authorize the maklng.of-any 

grant of public money to any lndlvldu~l, association of Individuals, municipal or.other 

corporations whatsoever. . ." 

Indulging all presumptions, as we must, In favor 

of the constitutionality of the Acts in question, can it 

reasonably be concluded that said Acts do riot violate any 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 12 (o-730) 

,of the constitutional provisions above quoted?"- Stated 

otherwise, the-question to be determined is whether or not 

Section 4 of Chapter 6, Acte of 1921, or Section 14 of Chapter 

71, Acts of 1925, construed as they have been construed by' 

the former commissioners of the General Land Office, constitute a grant of relief to purchasers of.Un$verslty lands, 

or a grant of public money or extra compensation to the 

.lessees of such land, or the release dr extinguishment, in 

whole or In part, of an~indebtedness, llablllty or obllgatlon owed by such lessees to the State of Xexas? 

Inorder to decide the foregolng.que&ons, It.18 

necessary that.we first consider and detegpine',the.nature 

and effect of the rights, estates and obl%gatlons which were 

created by the application for and the Issuance of permits 

under Chapter 83, Acts of 1917. We belleue'.the decisions 

of the Supreme Court oflTi$ae In State v.&oblson; 30 S. W. 

(26) 292, and Thelsen v. Robaeon, 8 S. W."(2d) 646, have 

clarified and settled such questions. 

State v. Roblson, supra, involved a comtructlon 

of Chapter 71, Acts of 1925, with respect .to tpe power of 

the Legislature to withdraw University lands from lease and 

under said Act after bids &ad been submltQd to the Land 

Commissioner by persons desiring to purchase leases, In 

accordance with said Act. The court held $hat ,Chapter 71 was 

In effect an offer by the Legislature to ae&l.oll and gas 

leases to the highest bidder In accordance with the provlslons of such Act, and that after the person desiring to 

purchase such lease had complied with the.provlsons of the 

Act and had accepted such offer, by submitting a high bid, 

a contract with the State thereupon resulted, which contract was beyond the power of the Leglslat+re to impair by 

subsequent legislation. 

following language: 

The court In so~l-@ldlng ,used the 

"In the case of Jumbo Cattle.-$0. .v. 

Bacon, 79 Tex. 5, 14 S. W. 840, &rr3, .$hls 

court, speaking through Mr. Justice Gaines, 

says: 'When there Is an offer made hy an 

act of the Legislature which is accepted by 

an individual, 'there Is a contract whlch.ls 

not within the power of the state to Smpalr. 

ASte? an acceptanoe, a repeal of thedaw cannot affect the contract; but, until an acceptance, a repeal of the act withdraws the offer, 

and no contract can be made." 

"This correct announcement of the law applies 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 13 (o-730) 

with full force to the case under cos$lderatlon In regard to the land included a schedule 

B. An act of the Legislature made the offer, 

and Interveners have accepted It as wovlded 

and conditioned In the Act. A contract between 

the state and the-hi 

v. bkrtinj66 Tex. &" 

est.,bldder was made. White 

3 0, 17 S; W.~'727; Jumbo 

Cattle Co. v. Bacon, 79 Tex.\5, 1.4 S..W. 840: 

Standifer v. Wilson, 

!pyn ~i3Klncannon, 5 2 

3 Te?F232,,'54 .S, W.~ 898; 

Tex. Clv. -A$$.. 633, II?9 

Nothing remained to be done to 

eSfe;?t the making of the contract. The.act 

apeclSlcally provides the means of producing 

the evidence of the Contract, I.e. lt.makes 

It the mandatory duty of the commlss%oner to 

examine the bid or bids, ascertain with whom 

the state has contracted under Its oSSer and 

the acceptance thereof, and accordingly to, 

execute the lease. The doing of the mlnlsterlal acts of opening the bids, ascertaining 

.who 1s the highest bidder, and lssulngthe 

lease according to the terms of the law, 1s' 

no part of the contract Itself. It ls only 

making effectual the contract alreadsmade. 

The acceptor of the state's offer canno more 

withdraw his money deposit and back out than can 

the, commissioner refuse to carry out the.contract as the. law requires of him. The contracts-here are not within the power&S the 

state to impair. The Repealing Act of 1929 

(Acts 1929, c2) cannot affect these contracts, 

but does withdraw the offer of further sales. 

We believe the same statement C&I be made with 

respect to the effect of Chapter 83, Acts 6S 19.l.7; that 

is, Chapter 83 was an-offer-by the State tr, persons desiring to prospect upon. and to secure lea*8 for 011 and 

gas on University lands, such offer beIng_.condltloned only 

upon compliance with the terms a1-85 provisions of Chapter 

83. Upon acceptance of such offer, by persons desiring to 

secure permits or leases upon University l'ands, ~a contract 

resulted which was beyond the power of the State to impair. 

The question then arises: "Was it beyond the 

power of the Legislature, after such contract was .made, to 

release, extinguish or forego a compliance by the permittee 

or lessee with the obligations undertaken by the lessee 

under the provisions of Section 7 of Chapter 831" We 

believe a determination of the nature of the contract so 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page i4 (o-730) 

entered Into between the State and Its permittees and 

lessees under Chapter 83' furnished the answer.to this 

question. The decision In Thelsen v. Robison,' supra, clearly 

defines and establishes the nature of such,contracts. 

. . 

In Thelsen v. 

Court of Texas construed 

Roblson, 8 S. W. (2) 646, the Supreme 

Chapter 83 of the.Acts of 1917 and 

also Chapter 71 6S the Acts of 1925, exclusive of Section 14 

of the latter Act. In that case the two 0ct.s were attacked 

as being unconstitutional on the grounds P at they conferred 

on a permittee or lessee no greater rlght.than a mere license, 

exercisable at the perm;ttee's or lessee's option; to prospect for oil and gas, whereas the Constltutlon.mandatorlly 

requires the Legislature to dispose of University lands by 

ii&@-E 

, and forbids the grant of'a merq,optlonal license. 

our after making an.e~austlve reviewof the history '. 

preceding the.Acts In question held that such.acts authorized a sale of University lands. The Count said: 

II undtr,tht thoroughly settled law of 

this state; the act8 of 1917 and of I.925 operate 

not to grant mere licenses to explore for mlnerals, but Instead they,authorlze conveyances by 

the state of minerals In place, and unce the Leglslature In passing the acts obeyed the,command of 

the constitution to sell the Un1versLt.y lands. 

'In order to arrive at a correct understanding of the rights of a permittee or Lessee, under 

the first Instrument Issued under these acts, we 

must consider his rights under the succeeding 

Instrument, since the right to the succeeding lnstrument, vests In him under the veryfirst .lnstrument as completely as the privilege of exploration, though, of course, subject to t&e conditions 

lmposed by the statutes. The right to.explore, 

to produce, and to appropriate relat.es:back to, 

and is derived from, the Initial perv&t or lease. 

"Thus viewing the rights of the permittee 

or lessee, we find that each act authorizes the 

sale, at stipulated prices, of a permit In the 

one case and of a lease In the other,.-,wh$oh lnvested the permittee or lessee and hiis: assigns, 

on performance of stated obligations, with the 

exclusive right to explore certain lands for oil 

and gas, for a fixed term of years, and, upon 

the discovery of 011 or gas In commercial or 

paying quantities, to produce and appropriate 
Mr. T. E. AIlday, Page 15 (O-730) 

. 

same, so long as ~profltable productlqn may continue. While the act of 1917 does not in terms 

provide that the right of production and of 

appropriation shall continue as long as 011 or 

gas Is produced In paying quantltles,.as does 

the 1925 act, yet the provision of ths,act of 

1917 for successlve.lease.renewals, at the option 

of the lessee or his assign, necessanlly has the 

same effect as an express provision &bat the lease 

shall remain In force as long as oil&r gas may be 

profitably produced." 

After referring to and quoting fsom the oplnlon 

In Stephens Co. v. Mid-Kansas Oil & Gas Co., 254 s. w. 290, 

the court stated: 

'In legal effect, the grants authorized by the 

acts are not essentially different Srpip the grant 

In the ordinary oil and gas lease, such as was before 

the court In the Stephens County Case. .The ordinary 

lease confers first an option to exp&ore for oil or 

gas, but, after discovery of 011 or aa ln paying 

quantities, It confers the right to produce and appropriate the 011 or gas. It 1s lmmattnlal that the 

right to appropriate the 011 or gas under the 1917 

and.1925 acts follows and does not pnecede the 

final leavecause, as already pointed out, the 

permittee or.lessee may compel the execution of the 

final lease on performing the obligations which the 

act imposes on him. Under the ordinary lease, the 

right to continue to produce and appropriate 011 or 

gas is contingent on-performance of similar obllgations. It Is unthinkable to treat tk&,ordlnary 

lease as conveying minerals in place and to refuse 

to give that effect to the grants aut&orl,zed by 

these acts." 

The Supreme Court of the United States In Group 

No. 1 Oil C:rf?oration v. Bass, 283 U. S. p9, 75 L. ed. -. 

1032, has occasion to pass upon the naturspf the.interest 

created by the Issuance of permits and leases..ur-+der Chapter 

83 of the 1917 Acts. The lessee In such case was claiming 

immunity from taxation with respect to income derived from 

the.sale of 011 and gas, produced under l-sea issued under 

Chapter 83. The claim of tax immunity was based upon the 

contention that the asserted tax was one upon an instrumentality of the State. 

visions of Chapter 83, 

The court~held that under the pro- 

"a completely executed sale, without 

restrictions" occurred. The following language was used by 
or. T. E. Allday, page 16 (o-730) 

the court: 

"But no case has extended such &unity 

to property, real or personal, or lncpme derived from its sale, where It has passed to the 

buyer by a completely executed act of..sale, wlthout restriction, and no Interest In It has been 

retained for the benefit of the Indians'; Whatever 

may be the appropriate limits of the &mnunity, as 

applied in this class of cases, those limits are 

clearly exceeded by that asserted hene." 

In State v. Ratcher, 281 S. W. 1;92, and in Sawyer 

v. Roblson, 268 S. W. 151, It was held by,the Supreme Court 

of Teds that the transactions authorlzed.by chapter 83 

of the Acts of 1917, constituted a sale o~Unlverslty~and. 

The above cited authorities, we believe, conclusively establish the following proposition: 

1. That Chapter 83 of the Acts:of 1917 constituted an offer by the state to persons desiring 

to purchase mineral rights ln the University 

lands, and that a contract binding uRon both 

the State and the premlttee resulted.when such 

8 

ersons complied with the provlsions.oS Chapter 

3 and secured a permit to prospect for oil 

and gas under the terms and conditions set forth 

in the Act. 

2. That the Issuance of a permit under 

Chapter 83, Acts of 1917, constitutedsale by 

the State to such permittee of University land 

within the meaning of Sections 12 and15, Artlcle 7 of the Constitution of Texas. 

3. The considerations and obll$atlons provided for in said contract and sale, agreed~and 

undertaken by the permittee to' be pati and performed, are prescribed definitely in Sections 

6 and 7 of Chapter 83, Acts of 1917. .Cne of. the 

obligations.as prescribed in Sectlon.6, is that 

the permittee shall perform certain avelopment 

work within a prescribed period. In.Section 7, 

it Is prescribed and required that an application 

for lease shall be made within 30 days after discovery of oil, accompanied by "a first payment 

of $2.00 per acre for a lease of the area included 

In the permit. t .", and that "annually after the 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 17 (o-730) 

expiration of the first year after the .date of the 

lease, the sum of $2.00 per acre shaW be paid 

during the life of the lease, and that In addition 

thereto the owner of the lease ahal pay a sum of 

money equal to a royalty of 1/8th of the value of 

gross production of petroleum. The owner of a gas 

well shall pay a royalty of l/lOth of-the value 

of the meter output of all gas disposed of off the 

premises." 

If subsequent acts of the IeglsIature are construed to release and extinguish the'obllgatlon and llablllty 

of permittees, whose permits were Issued wlor to the amendatory acts, to pay the $2.00 per acre cash price upon the 

issuance of a lease and the $2.00 per acrewual payment 

required during the life of the lease, or dither of them, 

do such acts violate any of the constltutlonal provisions 

quoted above? We have concluded that suoh acts, when so 

..construed, do.clearly violate such constl&utlonal~provlslons unless the State receives an adequate..oonslderatlon 

In return for the purported release of such obligation 

and llablllty. 

In our opinion, the plain effect of Section 4, or 

Chapter 6, Acts of 1921, and of Section 111, Cha,pter 71, Acts 

of 1925, when so construed, la to attempt&o release and 

discharge permittees from the obligation to make the 42.00 

per acre aash and annual payments which such permittees 

agreed and bound themselves to make at the,tlme of their 

applications for permit under Chapter 83, Acts of 1917. The 

permittee's obligations as well as his r#Qts were fixed and 

secured upon the granting to him of a pe&$ as prescribed 

by Chapter 83. We hold that the Leglslatlrre, as held ln 

State.v. Robison, supra, was prohibited from thereafter 

Impairing the permittee's rightil and Srom,lnzreasing the 

permIttee% obligations to the State beyord,the provisions 

of Chapter 83, and this because of constitutional provisions which prohibit the impairment of previously existing 

contract rights. We as firmly believe, and we here hold, that 

the Legislature, by reason of the constltutlonal provislor\g 

hereinabove quoted, Is likewise prohlblte&.from releasing 

or extinguishing any of the permittee's obligations or llabllltles as prescribed by Chapter 83, unless an adequate consideration is received by the State ln payment for such 

discharge. We further hold that the. Legislature Is without 

.power to grant relief to such permittees or lessees. 

We have searched ln vain Chapter 6 and Chapter 71 

for any provision or condition which can reasonably be deemed 
Mr. T. E. AIlday, page 1.8 (o-730) 

a consideration required to be paid by the,permittee in 

return for a release of the $2.00 payments...ln question. The 

plain result of such statutes, In our opinion, If construed 

as aforesaid, Is to grant to the permittee. the Identical 

property, Interests and rights which are provided for In 

Chapter 83 of the Acts of 1917, without requiring from him 

in return therefor any promise, payment ox other conslderatlon moving to the State. In support of this conclusion, 

we refer to the following cases: Delta County v. Blackburn, 

100 Tex. 51, 93 S. W. 419; Judklns v. Robison, 109 Tex. p. 

6, 160 S. W. 955; Greene v. Roblson, 117 Tex. 515, 8 s. W. 

(26) 655; Empire Gas & Fe1 Co. v. State, J,21 Tex, 138, 47 

s. W. (26) 265. 

In Delta County v. Blackburn, 93.S. W. 419, the 

Supreme Court of Texas decided that an order entered by the 

Commissioners Court of Delta County attempting to reduce 

the rate of Interest upon notes given In payment for the 

balance of the purchase price owing upon a sale of county 

school land from 7 per cent , as provided In the notes, to 

3 per cent, violated Section 55 of Artlole 3 .oS the Constitution, In that such order was an attempt, to release 

and extinguish the llablllty and obllgatlqp::of the purchaser 

of such land. In so holding the court said: 

"But while tht Commissioners Court may be 

conceded, for present,purposes, to possess such 

an authority as was there exercised, as Incidental 

to Its control as vendor over the title to the land, 

It does not follow that It has all of the power 

which an Individual would have to chs.nge.at will 

the rights arising out of a contract already made 

In selling. It cannot lawfully lnve&.the proceeds. 

of sales otherwise than as the law directs; nor can It 

release or extinguish llabllltles or obligations 

which have accrue'd to the county or State further 

than may be essential to the proper exercise of 

the power of sale or disposition glvenjto It."- 

With regard to the Commlssloners~&!ourtls attempt 

.to reduce the lnterest called for-in the pu;rchaser's notes, 

the Supreme Court said: 

"They simply attempted to releaw him from 

his alternative bbligatlon to pay the.whole debt 

at one or to continue to pay Interest at the 

rate of seven per cent, which, under the Const'ltutlon, they had not the power to do. It Is Idle 

to say that they exerted the power given them 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 19 (o-730) 

to sell or dispose of'the land. 

and neither party Intended that 

_. . _ . . 

It haa been sold 

the sale should - ._ -. be disturbed. Such an extension or aat power 1s 

not at all essential to Its full and S+ee exercise, 

but would. make It lmplnge upon the other positive 

conetltutlonal provisions which restact the authority of the counties In dealing with such subjects 

and would open the door for many eva.qoiB thereof. . .I' 

"Differently vlcwed, as the comm$ssloners 

viewed It, their attempt, instead of wttlng at 

naught the contract of sale, reasserting the 

title of the county and reselling the.land, was - 

to keep the sale In force, and, by releasing-the 

vendee from a part of his unquestionable obllgatlon to the county, to Induce him to perform th'e 

remainder ln a somewhat different wagcI ,yhich lnfringed the other provision of the Cws$ltutlon 

forbidding the release. or extlngulshu&?rjt .QS 

llabllltles and obligations to the acult)ty." 

In Judklns v. Roblson, 160 S. W.,955, the Supreme 

Court had under consideration the constltuttidnallty of the 

repurchase Act of Zgl;, Article 5423, R. C.. S. of 1911. 

The court laid down the following rules foz.determlnln& 

the constltutlonallty oS.euch an Act: 

"The test to be applied to it, thtyefore, 

Is whether Its necessary operation Is to enable 

the previous owner to reacquire the Land at a 

less price than he was obligated to mx under 

his former purchase. Is its terms wex~ to. that 

effect or such were Its necessary opexatlon, we 

think it should be held Invalid, though It purported 

to deal with the previous owner as a alpnger ‘. 

to the title, as such an act would bu.$$rove an 

easy method.to alrcumvent the constitutional 

provision." 

In Greene v. Rnbison, 8.~. W. (&;‘.655, at page 

658, the Supreme Court said: 

"We cannot agree with responden&.the land 

commissioner and his attorney that tti Legislature 

has authority to relinquish to the owner OS the 

soil, without payment of consideration therefor, 

minerals reserved to the state prior to the sale 

of the land and withheld In his purchase thereof, 

or that the cases of Cox v. Roblson, 105 Tex. 426, 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 20 (9-730) 

150 S. W. 1149, and Greene v. Robisop..:' 09 Tex. 

367, 210 S. W. 498, can be so construe.: $#, 

In Empire Gas & ~Buel Co. v. Stati,'@ S. W. (2d) 

265, the Supreme Court was 'called upon to,determlne whether 

or not Chapter 23 of the Acts of 1931 was.constltutlonal. 

Said act attempted to relieve the purchaser of school land 

sold with mineral reservation from the pawent of any amount 

over and above a l/16 royalty and 10 centg_per acre rental, 

notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme &qurt in the case 

~of Qreene v. Roblson, 8 S. W. (26) 655, had that Chapter 

81 of the Acts of 1919 limited such purchaser's right to 

one-half of the royalty and onerh+f of.t& Fental as com- 

.pensatlon for damages to the s&face, the.remalnlng one-half 

of the royalty and rentals to be paid to the State. In 

striking down such act as In violation of Section 51, 

Article 3, Section 53, Article 3, and section 4 of Article 

:a~$~~~Constltution, the Supreme Court wed the following 

whloh language we .balleve to be decisive of the 

questionJat hand: 

'"As construed by the Supreme Court,,thls. law 

+$horlzes the 011 and gas to be sol&,~.retalnlng 

to the state as a minimum l/l6 of all-gas and 

minerals as roylaty and 10 cents per acre per annum 

and one-half of all amounts received hy the.owner 

over and above the foregoing amounts.. The law 

fixed the rights of the state, as well as the rights 

of the purchaser. Since the lnceptla of this act, 

all purchasers of lands from the stat,e,..under the 

provisions thereof, agreed to pay the state, over and 

above l/16 royalty and 10 cents per acce, one-half 

of all other sums received for the gag'and.011. Besides, 

the provisions of the act made the pu.chaser of 

land the agent of the state to secure %w;;;;sybat 

and fixed his compensation definitely,. 

does the Legislature undertake to do under.cerCaln 

provisions of Senate Bill 310? It expbessly undertakes 

to relieve the purchaser from the pawent of any sum 

over and above the l/16 royalty and the,.10 cents per 

acre. This Is a plain violation of action 51, Article 3, of the.Constltutlon quoted abo.ve. The Pelinqulshment Act constituted the buyer Ue agent of 

the State In making mineral leases and fixed his 

compensation and under the provisions of that act 

he was to receive for his services one-half of all 

sums over and above the royalty and 10 cents per 

acre rental. The provls?ons of Senate Bill.310 undertake 

. 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 21 (o-730) 

to take from the state all of the bonps 

and give It to the agent whose right&were 

fixed In the Relinquishment Act enact&d ln 

1919 * This Is in clear violation of45ectlon 

53, article 3, of the Constitution above quoted, 

"Again, the Legislature ln Sena$i$lll 310 

undertakes to grant relief to purchasers of oil 

and gas sold by the state under the pxo~lslons 

of the Relinquishment Act, and this I@ plainly 

contrary to the provisions of Section 4, Article 

7 of the Constitution of this state..; 

.a. 

"As shown by this record, the s-ices of 

Tlppett as an agent for the state had-been 

rendered, his compensation fixed, anb.t~e..Empire ', 

Gas eC -1 Company and Tippett owe the #ate 

one-halt' of all sums received above Ue,roylaty 

arid 10 cents per acre rental. These,slghts and 

obligations of the parties were definitely fixed 

by law. For the Legislature to undentake to change 

the oondltlons fired by law by releaalng or extlnZulshlng the debt owing by Tlppett @ the 

Empire Gas.& Fuel Company to the stat&by relieving them or either of them of thar. obllgations, or any part thereof, to the sta& or granting them or either of them any relief as purchasers 

of the mineral rights, In so' far as Se@e Bill 310 

undertakes to do this, it Is clearly.Eepugnant to 

the provisions of the Constitution, qd Is therefore 

void." 

The above quoted language of the'isupreme Court Is 

directly applicable to-the question we are, now .conslderlng. 

As the Acts of 1918 ftxed the obllgations,pf purchasers 

from the State with respect to the payment&S royalty and 

rentals, so did Chapter 83 of the Acts ofLJ.917 fix such 

obligations with Respect to permits and leases Issued to 

purchasers under chapter 83. What does t&&eglslature 

undertake to do by enactment of Chapter 6.&.the Acts of 

1921 and Chapter 71 of the Acts of 1925, I& such acts are 

construed as they have been mormer Land Commissioners? 

It undertakes to relieve purchasers under Chapter 83 

from the payment of the $2.00 per acre ca& payment at the 

time of the issuance of the lease and the‘-$2'.00cper acre 

annual payments during the life of the le'lse. The obllgations as well as the rights of the permittee and the 

State were definitely fixed by Cha ter 83. The attempted 

release and extinguishment of the f 2.00 per acre obligations 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 2i (o-730) 

owed to the State, and the attempted grantpf such lease 

.by the State to the permittee without the,aayment of the 

amounts prescribed by Chapter‘83, In our *ion, constltutes a plain vlolatlon.of Section 51, Artjcle 3, Section 

53, Article 3, and S ctlon 12 and 15 of Ar$l&Le 7 of the 

State Constitution. Accord 

"$ 

ly, It Is ouc'oplnlon, and 

you are advised that Section of Chapter & Act:zcf 1921, 

and Section 14, Chapter 71, of the Acts of.'1925, and 

,Chapter 143, Acts 1925, Insofar as said Acts m&y be construed to repeal and abolish the requirements of the $2.00 

per acre cash payment upon the Issuance ol,the lease and 

the $2.00 per acre annual payment thereaf-r during the life 

of the lease, are invalid and unconstltutlongl. ! 

If said Acts are construed otherkie than as releasing and abolishing the requlrments fo&$he two $2.00 

per acre payments, lt,&f course, follows .th$t the requlrements made by Section 7; Chapter 83, of t 

for such payments have remained and are w, ~tzf 2% 

and effect, unaffected and unrepealed by &y.'subsequent 

~.leglslatlon. In such event, said smounts,.lf. they have 

not heretofore been paid, are now exlstln&and unpaid 

obligations due to the State by all lessees whose permits 

and leases were Issued under Chapter 83. .We believe this 

statement, when considered In the light of.&he remainder 

.of this opinion, constitutes a sufficient .&swer to all 

of the questions propounded ln your letter+. 

In conclusion, we will state that.we have given 

careful consideration to the case of Rhoads.Drlll1n.g Co. 

vs. Allred, 70 S. W. (26) 576, as well as&o the other 

decisions cited In that opinion. We bell.*e-'thathe 

facts and holding In Rhoads Drilling Company v,-Allred, and 

the other cases therein cited, are clearly-,dlstingulshable 

from the facts and conclusions expressed'ti this opinion. In 

?he?hoads case the decision as to the cona$l$utlonallty 

of the statute there attacked was expressl&based upon a 

Pinding that an adequate consideration pa&by the lessee 

there Involved supported and rendered vallQ.the reduction 

In the royalty obligation granted to t&e Leigee. The 

consideration for the reduction of such romJ.ty obligation 

IS set forth on pages 584, 585, and 586 of.tfie opinion. 

This distinction 1s clearly poded out in the 

opinion of the Rhoads Drilling Co. case on.pag'$ 583 where 

the Court says: 

"The act would be within the constitutional 

pro~lbltlon~lf It undertook to authorize the' 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 23 (o-730) 

gratuitous releasing In whole or in par&~ of an 

existing,r.,lndebtedness, liability, or obligation 

to the State. Delta County v. Blackburn, 100 

Tex. 51, 93 S. W. 419, 420; Judklns v.,Robison, 

109 Tex. 6, 160 S. W. 955; Greene v. ,Roblson, 

117 Tex. 516, 8 S. W. (26) 655; Empire-Gas & 

Fuel Co, v. State, 121 Tex. 138, 47 S. W. (2d) 

265." 

In the Statutes now under consideration, we find 

nothing which we can construe as a consideration required to 

be paid by the permittees or lessees in return for the 

attempted release and extinguishment of the. permittee's and 

lessee's obligation to pay the $2.00 per s.cre case and annual 

payments required by Chapter 83. 

any consideration actually paid to 

Nor are wellnformed of 

the State,,for such attempted release. In brief, the State has not received any 

consideration for the attempted release an& ext-$ngulshment, 

nor do the statutes condition such release and extingulshment upon a receipt by the State of a conalderatlon. 

In opposing the conclusion of ttxls opinion, It 

will possibly be contended by lessees who are affected by 

this opinion, that they for several years have held their 

leases In reliance upon the construction which has heretofore 

been given by commissioners to the Acts in.,questlon. .In 

reply to any such possible contentton, we tiu now state 

some of,the factual history in connection With oil and gas 

leases covering tens of thousands of acres-of University 

land which leases were issued by virtue of.Chapter 83. 

We are informed that such lessees In many instances have 

for many years retained their leases by the drilling of 

a single well on an isolated section of a lease, and 

in many Instances the particular section upon which a well 

was drilled is situated In a county far removed from the 

location of other sections of land coverebgy such lease. 

Furthermore, these leases have been secured.and held 

without the payment by the lessees of the algina $2.00 

per acre cash at the time of the issuance &the lease as 

provided in Chapter 83 and without the payme@ of a single 

$2.00 per acre annual payment. The mere swtement of the 

actual conditions which exist with regard to University 

lands upon which permits and leases have been issued under 

Chapter 83 serves, we believe, as an effe 

a contention that the position we take in Ye. t is answe~r opinion to is 

lacking in equity. 

This opinion has been extended to some length 

because of the importance of the questions involved. We 
Mr. T. E. Allday, page 24 (o-730) 

t,;::ct that a full ar.;rcti has-been given to your questions. 

Yours very truly 

. ., 

ATTORNEYGXNERALOF TMAS 

By /s/ RoBert E. Kepke 

Robert E. Kepke 

Assistant 

REK:BT:br 

APPROVED AUG 31, 1939 

/a/ Gerald C. Harm 

ATTORIiEYGEI?ERAL OFTMAS