National Republican., 1883-03-15
THREE THOUSAND SQUARE MILES.
The Big Texas Land Case Closed I'm the
Supreme Court Yesterday.

The Big Texas Land Case Closed I'm the
Supreme Court Yesterday.
Gen. William Preston, of kentucky, will
leave for his home in Lexington to-day. He
has been watching his case before the supreme
court, upon the turn of which hangs fortune
in land as great as q European principality.
J. Stoddard johnson, of kentucky, who has a
land bonanza of his own in Texas, has been
here with Gen. Preston, who is also favored
with two sons-in-law than whom there are
no better lawyers in Kentucky or anywhere
in the south-John Mason Brown and
George M. Davie, of the Louisville bar. These
lawyers have been here employed in the
case, and yesterday Davie closed for the
claimant. The style Of the case is civilian
@. Walsh commissioner of the general land
office of the state of Texas, appellant, vs.
William Preston, appellee" and it is "a suit
which involves the titleto nearly 5000 square
miles of land within the limits of what is
known as "Mercer's Colony" situated in the
state of Texas, between the present city of
Dallas and tho Indian territory, along tho
head waters of Red and Trinity rivers. Will
lam Preston, the appellee, who represents
the "Texas association" claims the
lands in controversy under contract
made in 1914 between tho republic of Texas
and one Charles Fenton Mercer and he seeks
to restrain the land commissioner from issu-
ing certificates for these lands as If they
were part of the public domain and thus
invading the vested rights and cloudng the
title of the Texas association. The land
commissioner, on the other hand, maintains
that he is acting in the line of his rightful
official powers, for the reason that the lands
have been reanneXed, by competent author
ity, to the public domain. and are therefore
under his exclusive jurisdiction and control.
He appeals from the decision of the court be-
low on the grounds
l. That the United States circuit court had
no jurisdiction of the case, because it is in eff
feet suit against the state of Texas
2. That the colonization contract of Janu-
ary 30, 1874, was void for unconstitutionality
and for fraud on the part of President Sam
Houston in making it.
3. That it is not proved that Mercer and his
associates induced 1855 families to settle in
said colony.
A. That the said colony contract was for
feited by reason Of failure of Mercer to per-
form the covenants hereunder.
5. That it was forfeited by subsequent
legislation or u constitutional ordinance of
Texas.
@. That IL was cancelled and annulled by a
Judgment rendered Oct. %, 1913, in certain
suit in Navarro county, Texas, styled "a. G.
Horton, acting governor, against @. Il. Mercer
and his unknown associates"
z. That the claim of the Texas associa-
tion is'harred by the statute of limitation and
theifApss of time.
William Preston, of the Texas association,
makes cross appeal in the same case from
the decision of the court below, on the ground
that it should have afforded further relief by
directing the land commissioner to issue cer-
tifcates and patents to the association for
l,376 square miles within the limits of the
colony, or its equivalent in value elsewhere,
and for further 1876 square miles upon pay
ment by the Texas association of $40 in money
and sum equal to the value in 1874 of $640
Of Texas scrip for every square mile.