The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1883-01-18

Mr.. Armistead, of Marion county, |
said he didn't want the land exposed |
to market at fifty cents. Millions of
acres had been purchased at this price |
that were worth So now. But the
object was not to repeal the law, but
simply to withdraw the land from
sale temporarily. Some say five mill
ion acres had been sold. We wanted
this reservation saved. The bill was
so plain that any wayfaring man
could understand it. If not plain, il
was easy enough to make it plain
now.
Mr.. Hill, of Polk-I am in favor of
the passage of the bill, and shall vote
against any dilatory motion. 1 intro
duced bill in the last legislature to
take this land out of market, and to
prevent the bill divesting vested
rights / accepted an amendment,
The senate passed it with the amend
ment left out, and millions of the
fifty-cent land has been gobbled up
by land sharks. l hope the house will
vote down any dilatory motion.
Mr.. Upton thought one or two
amendments would make the bill
right.
Mr.. Labatt, of Galyeston-The bill
has two counties wrong, and my OBJ
ject is to have the bill printed for to-
morrow.
Mr.. Moursund thought delay was
idle and calculated to defeat the bill.
There was nothing new in it, and as
explained by the gentleman, Mr.. Hill.
the measure had been before defeated
by delay.
Mr.. Labatt-I am us strong an adj
Vocate of the bill as anybody.
Mr.. Moursund-I am only speaking
of results, and not the motives of any
gentleman.
Mr.. Cochran, of Dallas-I am in IA
vor of the bill. but didn't want too
much haste. 1t was important to
many citizens whom we might have
to grant the right to sue the state.
Mr.. Scott, of Kerr, argued as to any
retroactive operation, which was the
only objection raised to the bill; the
state could not go back on its con-
tract, but the question was will we or
not allow the land to continue to be
sold at this price. We wanted only
temporary action in the matter.
Mr.. Nash, of Dallas, said that but
for the action of the last legislature
the sale of this land would have been
stopped, and we would have saved
from spectators land that should now
| belong to the state. The bill did not
repeal the law, but only suspended
action. 1t was too short to be misun-
derstood.
Mr.. Wurzbach-The object is SIM
ply to get the bill before the house,
and then amended If necessary.
Mr.. Foster, of Limestone, said he
failed to see what part Of the law
could be repealed that was not I'M
| favorable to the state. The bill re-
quireG nothing but what was beneh-
fetal to Texas, either directly or by
implication.
Mr.. Mckinney, of Walker, thought
the amendment of Mr.. Foster, of
| GraysOn, limiting the operation
of the bill to ninety days.
Mr.. Frymier, author of the original
bill for which the committee reported
substitute, as test of the sense of
the house, moved to lay the motion to
lay the motion to print on the table,
which motion prevailed.
| MIR. Foster of GraysOn renewed his
ninety-days' amendment.
Mr.. Foster, of Limestone, offered a
substitute covering the omission of
two counties in the original bill. He
was opposed to the amendment of
Mr.. Foster, of GraYsOn, and to the
original law in toto. He didn't see
why millions of acres of land should
have been offered at fifty cents to pay
a debt not yet due. 1t was ridiculous.
| After further consideration of mi
nor proposed amendments, Mr.. Fry
mier's bill was adopted as amended to
read as follows:
| A bill to withdraw the public lands
| of the state of Texas from sale.
| SECTION 1.-Be it enacted by the
legislature of the state of Texas, That
all the public lands heretofore author
lied to be sold under the act entitled
"an act to provide for the sale of the
unapproprlated public lands of the
state of Texas, and the investment of
the proceeds of such SALE" approved
| July IA, 1879, be and the same is here
by withdrawn from sale; provided,
that nothing contained in this act
shall be construed to return the land
reserved by an act entitled, IAN act to
provide for the sale of a portion of
the unappropriated public lands of
the state of Texas, and the invest
ment of the proceeds of such SALE"
approved July IA, 1879, and the act
amendatOry of such act, approved
March IL, 1881, to the mass of the
public domain; but the same shall be
construed to be reserved for sale I'M
der such regulations as the legislature
may hereafter provide,
| Sec. 2.-Whereas, Said lands are
daily being sold for less than their
actual value, entailing great loss on
the state; and public, imperative ne
cessity exists that this bill take effect
Immediately; therefore, be it enacted
| that this bill take effect from and
after its passage.
Mr.. Foster, of Grayson, now re-
newed the motion of Mr.. Labatt to
print. Mr.. Walsh, he thought, had
been equal to the immediate emer-
gencies OF checking the land grab
bers. but the bill had better be printed.
Mr.. Lakewood, of Delta-There
can be no misconception of the bill,
especially by lawyers.
| Foster moved to print and make
| special order. Lost.
The vote on the bill as it finally
passed was yeas, "a; noes, l.
| A printed communication from Col.
Spaight, commissioner of insurance,
ETC., was presented in answer to the
resolution adopted by the house Satnr-
day, calling for information as to in
surance. The reading was dispensed
with.
Mr.. Thompson, of BeXar, chairman
of the committee on engrossed bills,
reported the appropriation bill (house
No. A. duly engrossed.
Resolution Substitute for Mr.. La
batt's) was adopted to have $50 copies
of bills published for use of house.
The speaker announced that w.
Lambert has been assigned clerk to
judiciary committee No. l; II. A. Kidd
/ to judiciary committee No. 2, and E.
H. Bennett clerk to committee on
revenue and taxation.
The house adjourned till 10 a. IN.
| Tuesday.
Some people have fashion of con-
| fuSinp excellent remedies with the