The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-04-20
SPEECH OF HON. 3. N. HEN
DERSON.


set apart to the unorganiZed cOun-
ties for common school purposes,
out of the reservation, and to set
apart four million acres to be
equally divided between the univer-
sity and public free schools, and the
substitute therefor, to set apart only
one million acres out of the reseIva-
ton, to be equally divided between
the common schools and the uni
versity, being before the senate,
Senator Henderson arose and said
Mr.. PRESIDENT-While | dislike
to trespass Oh the valuable time of
the senate, yet the Importance of
the question, and the interest l feel
in il, constrains me to present
briefly my views upon the subject.
Especially is this so since
the representation calculated to
give false view as to my position
on a cognate branch of the subject,
was stated by the honorable senator
from Gregg, on Saturday last. Mr..
President, the bill, with the amend
ments thereto, which we favor, pro-
vid6s:
That there shall be set apart, out
of the reservation of seven million
acres Preserved to pay the public
debt) TOUR million acres of land, two
of which shall be set apart to the
public free schools, and two millions
to the university for its endowment
and support. The amendments also
provide for the prior recognition
and setting apart OF the 800 leagues
granted by the last legislature to the
unorganiZed counties for common
school purposes, and we say that the
measure is practicable, feasible and
just. Practicable because, from the
best information we can get after
allowing all vested claims under any
law of this state, there will be six
million acres of said reservation left;
and right, because this disposition
will interfere with the legal or moral
right of no person or corporation.
The opponents of the measure are
those who favor the substitute which
seeks to set apart only one million
for the schools and university. They
say they are friends of the uliver-
sity, put there are certain vested
rights of individuals or corporations,
taken out under the act of 1881, al
lowing persons to go into the reseI-
walton and purchase the lands at fifty
cents an acre and that these COM
tracts are vested rights and can be
enforced, and should be respected
and that they will share the reserva-
ton. Now the act of 1881, under
which, this claim is set up,
or that clause of it, reads as
follows: THAT any person, firm or
corporation desiring to purchase
any of the unappropriated lands
heretofore set apart, may do so by
causing the land which such person
desires to purchase to be surveyed
by the authorized surveyor, etc."
The question is, what is a vested
right under a fair construction of
the law? The opposers OF the origi-
nal bill and amendments say the
right has vested as soon as an APP
plIcation is made to the surN eyor
before he has struck lick of work,
and before the citizen has parted
with a dollar OF his money and
they tell US that applications, which
they term ''files have covered the
reservation like a cloud of Egyp-
ton locusts, and that million acres
will exhaust the balance, probably.
On the other hand. we MAINTAIN that
the right does not vest with the
application, and does not vest until
the actual survey of the land, when
the citizen in fact parts with his
money. We say that an obligation
must be reciprocal, that although
thousand mere applications may be
made to the state, yet the state
would not be in condition
to enforce a single one of them,
and that being so, neither
can tie individual enforce them.
And that is the fair construction of
the clause quoted, only author
izing the land 10 be severed
from the reservation, by an actual
survey. We are informed, Mr..
President, that vast number of
such applications, floating applica-
tions, have been and are being
spread out over that reservation for
the mere purpose of controlling and
using that land, and keeping others
off of il. If such be the case, our
senate bill on that subject will cut
that matter short, for it only recOg-
niZes valid surveys on the ground,
and these we understand are few in
number. So that there will certain
ly be left after recognizing the valid
claims of this character against the
state, ample territory to satisfy the
demands of this bill.
But passing over this. the oppo-
nents of the original bill and the
advocates of the substitute, tell us
of certificates, which they say are
valid prior claims to the objects
of this bill. They tell us of GER.
tain Confederate land certificates,
and of certain railroad certificates,
which the state is under legal and
moral right to redeem, and to recog-
nize as prior to the claims of the
university fund.
Now, as to that question, we join
issue with the honorable senator's.
AS to the Confederate donation
bill, it is known that L opposed it at
the last session, in Its original shape,
as it provided for the promiscuous
donation Of 1880 acres of land to
crippled Confederates. regardless of
their means or financial circumstan-
-ces. But, as amended, providing
solely for the necessitous, notWith-
standing l feared il might open the
flood-gates to a great dea of fraud,
| yet voted for it, believing that il
would reach and benefit some good,
true and necessitOus Confederate
soldiers. 1t passed, and became a
law. Some of those certificates
doubtless yet remain IN the hands
of Confederate soldiers, but the
great bulk of them went at once
into the hands of spectators at
nominal figures. They were pure
and simple donations. resting on no
consideration deemed violable In
law. They were issued when this
reservation had already been set
apart to the payment of the public
debt, and are no claims upon it, and
l apprehend, if there is solitary
true and tried Confederate soldier
yet holding one of those certificates,
he would not have the state of
Texas prefer it over the claims
of the university. Not so with the
Spectator, however they are not
gifted with that sort of modesty.
Bnt the opposition senators tell US
that there are vast number of
claims of railroads, who have GER
tificates for miles of roads COM
pleted, and that their rights
should be regarded. Exactly so,
but we propose to regard them
just as the law regards them, unless
they are of higher moral obligation
upon the people of Texas than the