The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-09-13
THE FEupAL AGE IN TEXAS.

ity, and when they are LETT at the dis
| posal of individuals, who are the
strongest and the best able to protect
themselves and their possessions. The
Feudal System was an exemplification
of an era of anarchy. There was no
law, no protection of life and proper
ty, the will of the most powerful
making him the disposer of life, the
possessor of any property in reach.
1t was the semi-civilized, semi-bar-
barrie age of Europe, when nigh
struggled against right, when power
subdued right. AS the word signi-
fies, feudalism was the era of feuds;
it was the period in which statutes
and courts and judgments and DEGREES
were unknown, when swords were
law, when nations of people were di-
vided among thousands of masters
and lords, who disposed of lives and
property at will. The MeroVingian
king feebly grasped scepter, scarce
ly more than an infants rattle. But
what relation does the Feudal System,
long ago dead, hidden even behind
the Crusades, have to do with ques-
tions of this day, with matters now
claiming the attention of Texans.
Within the last few years Texas has
enjoyed period of prosperity, I'M
known in the annals of any prosperous
age. a superior business and indus
trial period has been established;
people and money have been allured
hither by the probabilities of the Lone
Star State; our population has swelled
to two millions, and the states
wealth to $515,O0OOO0. This wonder
full growth of population and wealth
has been the result, not alone of the
states possible resources, but of a
careful administration of law, of the
proper enforcement of rights, of pro-
lection to life and property. AS well
regulated governments in Europe
were succeeded by feudalism, and
feudalism by the Dark Ages, so seems
to drift partial social existence in
Texas. The weakness of kings in
Europe brought about the dismem-
bered condition of organized society
there, and so the weak administration
of law here threatens to bring about a
reign of anarchy in portions
of Texas. The state sells an in
dividual one hundred thousand
acres of land within its borders. The
purchaser is due the protection of law
for two reasons: He has paid the
state money for these lands; they are
his by an undeniable title, and he is
entitled to the fullest measure of bene-
fits derivable from his real estate
Everything attaching to these lands
is his-the minerals in the earth, the
soil, the timber growing thereon, the
grasses, all the natural and unnatural
products of the earth, and the water
that flows over it, and even the
winds of heaven are solely for his use
while ia contact with the land. He
may do as he pleases with all; at least
this is what is guaranteed him by the
laws of ages, and by the statutes of
this state. These lands and all per-
tanning to them, being his own, COM
mon and statute laws recognize his
right to fence them, to build upon
them, to cultivate, to Craze them, and
to use the waters thereon, as long as
they remain upon his own
land for his own uses, and
no right is given to any other person to
appropriate to himself any part of the
and or any portion of what they pro-
luce. This is the scope of ownership,
in fee simple or by lease, or
my other quality of ownership. The
rights are not. acquired,
lor is it contemplated that in this age
hey shall be enforced by individual
power. They come from the state,
md the states duty is to protect all
such rights, to guarantee the owner
very advantage he may propose to
secure from ownership; and the meas
Ire of full possession is recognized in
| right to enclose his lands. The illus
ration used-that if deriving right to
and by purchase direct from the state |
is not singularly applicable. All
ands are derivable from the state,
md, no matter how many titles have
rested in any number of individuals |
ince the state parted with it's title,
he principle of protection is
ust as strong as though but one |
conveyance had been made. Pos
session must be the full measure for
egal protection, and we are dealing
With the question at issue only in the |
citation of full possession. No indi-
Tidual has any right over land, not |
belonging to him by the various
recognized as giving legal |
One who attempts to in
erfere with the possessor's rights to |
eal estate commits a criminal act, |
md the power of the state should at |
nee be invoked to effectually re-
train him from such interference. If
he majesty of law be not upheld,
hen man is compelled to take defense
n his own hand. AS he would de- |
end his life against an assassin, so |
las he the right to defend his proper
y against the attacks of those who |
would despo1 it. There is no inter-
Mediate ground. The govern
nent must be administered |
10 as to command the |
respect of those, who, under enfee-
1led administrative, conditions, would |
pay no regard to law. When admin
ceases to command such re-
,pect, when it ceases to enforce law,
hen man resorts to Individual de-
tense, and anarchy ensues. This, then,
s the condition now presented in |
Texas. These fence cutters deny
,he owners of lands the right to |
enjoy their ownerships, and the
civil power of communities, appearing
20 be powerless, the commander-in-
chief of the military power of the |
state looks on with indifference, per-
hitting outrage upon outrage, with |
put even having his military artist
color him up with war paint. 1t is a
repetition of that European condition,
which produced of feudalism. Nom
of the law is leading to
feuds that must be most damaging to
Texas. This lawless spirit that de-
MES a man the right to face and con-
troll his own property, should have
4