The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1875-01-28

Amendments.
Il was lost. Resolution adopted.
PETITIONS AID MEMoRLALs.
Mr.. DeIany presented petition Of W.B.
Devices, asking relief. Referred to Com
mittee on Private Land Claims.
Mr.. Sadler presented q petition Of citi-
zens Of Coryell county, asking that roadsto
mills and other public places be kept open
along the line Of league surveys.
Mr. Harrison presented petition Of Peter
s. Williams. Referred.
The bill authorizing counties 70 sell
school lands was reported adversely, with q
minority report presented by Mr.. Stephens.
Mr.. Harris rose 70 explain the reasons why
the committee had reported against the Dill.
he was opposed to the sale Of these lands
in CONSEQUENCE Of q conviction that the
benefits 70 education intended by the state
would thereby be lost.
The SPEAKER announced the Committee on
MEXICAN Frontier Investigation as Messrs.
Moore. Iawhon. Henderson Of Kendall,
OiNeai and Smith Of Grimes, to which Mr..
Cards was afterwards added By special
resolution.
M. Reeves rose to censure the gentleman
from Galveston for attacking bills not before
the House. He said that no law had ever
been passed to permit counties to sell
school lands. Whenever q land measure
comes up before the House, he makes It q
point TO attack the sale Of the University
lands. While he did not rise 10 oppose The
report Of the committee, he wanted the
gentleman 70 speak to the measure.
Mr.. Delany objected to the passage Of
the bill he thought an attempt to press
Il immature. Such sales should be post
cd "a h II
tional convention. He did not think that
these lands, in an unqualified sense, be-
longed TO the counties. They were in
tended as q trust fund, extended on the
part Of the State for the purposes of educa-
ton The Constitution says that public
land heretofore given TO the counties for
educational purposes may be disposed of at
the discretion Of the State, at the same time
guaranteeing education. BE thought that
tho people thought constitutional conven-
ton has q right TO control this matter, and,
while such clause as is now in the Consti-
triton remains, It Is useless for the Legisla-
ture TO attempt to pass bill Of this char
ecter.
Mr.. Stephens thought the bill would
pass. BE differed with the gentleman from
Colorado about the constitutionality Of the
bill. he thought that the question of con-
tracts, as stated in the Federal Constitu-
ton, covered the rights Of the counties.
lie believed the counties could and would
hold these lands at all hazards. He re-
ferred TO their reserved rights, and said
that these lands were even patented to the
counties In their own name. They be-
longed TO the counties, and, II sold, would
create fund for education that would stop
taxation, and bring relief to the people.
The courts recognized the rights Of the
counties, giving cases referring to the
points in question. He said the only way
for the purposes Of this donation 10 be
realized was by the sale Of the lands.
Mr.. Storey said be agreed in part with
the last speaker. He believed there was
contract existing between the State and
counties, that the lands are not simply in
trust. Il was q contract, and one based
upon valuable consideration. Why should
the counties reserve their right througha
patent unless 1t was good in law7 The
counties paid the fees for location. Il was
an absolute conveyance, and the State has
no night to those lands. II the counties
own them, they certainly can say what shall
be taken for them. The State has nothing
to do with the price of these lands, and
cannot prescribe terms. This right be-
longs to the counties. If the friends of
the bill will present one authorizing the
several county courts to regulate the sale
and value Of these lands, he would sup
port it.
Mr.. Stephens said that such was virtually
one Of the provisions Of the bill.
Mr.. Storey hoped, however, under the
circumstances, that the bill would be post
poned. He thought q constitutional con-
vention would arrange the entire matter.
Mr. Delany rose to explain that be was
in no measure opposed TO the counties hav-
ing the lands. He went into the constitu-
tional theory as touching this question, In
which he argued from various standpoints
that the State had a vested night In these
lands, and that tho adoption of the Con-
stitution by the counties was recOg-
milton Of the rights of the State.
he claimed that the education Of the chill
dren was the consideration required by the
State. Surveyors fees have nothing to do
with establishing the night. He wanted to
know II the counties had educated the
children. Have they not, on the contrary,
called upon the State for part OF the tax
10 pay for such education7 The State never
proposed 70 establish an impartial rule in the
establishment of schools or in the extern
sion Of education, Take Fayette county as
an example L is magnifcently endowed,
While Lee county, lying just beside it, has
not an acre foI such fund. Is this right
he. however, was not arguing against the
holding Of these lands by the counties. He
doubted teeir rights. and consequently de-
sired 70 have, them settled in the constitu-
tlonal convention. The case called for a
suspension Of such proceedings on the part
Of the Legislature.
Mr.. Stephens said that the State had con-
veyed these lands TO the counties. If they
have not reconveyed them, then the right
remains IN the counties. He denounced the
idea OF popular win destroying thePower
Of vested rights, one Of the sacred priv
ileges Of society ia government. BE
wanted 70 know how the counties could
carry ont the contract with the lands as they
are. They must be realized upon TO enable
the counties 70 fulfill their contract with
the State. The adoption Of the Constitu-
ton By tho counties was By no means 3
recogaitiou that the State was to reserve
rights to these lands. lie wanted them sold
and hoped tho minority report would be
adopted.
Mr.. Goodwin referred to the Constitu-
ton, deducing thst Il these lands are sold,
the proceeds are to pass t. the common
school fund Of the State. Hence it would
DC the better part Of prudence to lot the APP
preaching constitutional convention settle
This matter. Tie wanted it postponed, de-
nFiuH tie counties TO retain their lands.
The Constitution rs it now Il would, in the
event Of sale, require the proceeds to pass
g the general school fund. He did not
believe such was the intention Of the
grant.
Mr. Lawhon said.that Mr.. stephens had
ea<ed him % sign the minority report, and
thai now be wished he had done 50. He
thought that the only way 10 derive bene.
1ls 20 the counties vas by sale Of the lands.
Certainly tho State did not desire the coun-
ties @ keep these lands As heirlonms. lie
would therefore vote for the minority r.
port, and thar IN doing 50 he desired a. 4
member Of the committee, TO make this
explapation.
Af. Harris spoke again upon the inius-
lice Of the bill lie said that lands would
b sold 70 the detrimert OF the public in
9clcst and that the good intended hv the