The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-09-25
Property in Land.


The people of Texas have lost sight
of the fact that title to land, in fee
simple, in all cases carries with it
full right to all that pertains to the
land. The common law fixes such
title as a right, not only to the land,
but to all that lies under it and all
that is on and above it. The hidden
things of the earth belong to the
owner of the soil, the water that
lies upon it or flows over it belongs
to the owner; the air even that floats
above it is his, to do with it as science
or economy may direct. The trees
that grow upon land belong to the
owner of the soil, the grass that
grows upon it is his. No one has
right to take anything belonging to
the land from its owner. Hence the
maxim: "Cujus est solum, ejus est
altum." There are exceptions,
however, in what are known
as "royal Mines" when the state
reserves to itself the minerals in the
earth. So far there are. no "royal
mines" in Texas, the state having
parted with its title to lands without
any reservation; therefore title to
land in Texas conveys the right to
everything upon the surface of the
earth, below it and above it. The
advocates of free grass therefore are
confronting the very basis of all law
governing land titles; they put them
selves in antagonism to ever rule Of
law, ancient and modern; they attack
the very bottom Of real estate titles.
There is no free land, and therefore
there is no free grass when the state
has parted with its title to all lands.
But little public domain remains; it is
not worth considering. but the state
discs hold in trust vast quantity of
land, set apart for education, which,
the free grass element contends should
be held, until actual settlers go upon
it, for common uses. These school
lands do not belong to the state, ex-
cept in the relation of trustee; they
are set apart in fee simple for the
children of Texas, for their education,
and it is the duty of the state to dis.
pose of it in that manner which is
best suited to promoting the cause of
education. To let it remain idle,
when it may be leased for the benefit
of the children, is to throw away a
valuable birthright; the state is simp-
ly trustee, and when it fails to secure
revenue from the lands it violates
its trusteeship. These lands are set
apart for specific purpose, and to di-
vert them from such specific purpose,
either through neglect or by design,
ought to subject state officer or Off
GERS to Impeachment and removal
from Office. These lands belong to the
children of Texas; they need revenue
from them, and they should have it
whenever it is possible to procure it.
They have title in fee simple to
them, and are entitled to that which
is below, upon and above the soil.
They own the trees, and the grass and
the water, and no state officer has any
right to do one thing that may impair
the full value of this right. Hence
the lands, If not purchased, should be
leased. for the highest price at
tainable, with an eye to leas-
ing the greatest amount of lands.
Timber, grass and water, should be
made to pay revenue to the cause of
education. The state land board has
overstepped its right in ruling that
watered sections shall neither be.sold
nor leased; the board thus violates
rights, and makes worthless
the most valuable of school lands.
Watered sections are thus made COM
mon, when there is no commonalty. in
any class of school lands. These
most valuable sections are held from
sale and lease in violation Of law,
when they should, by the very man.
ner of reasoning presented by the
board, be used to swell revenue for
education. There is no power resting
in the board to change any right
acquired through the legislature, and
no doubt its members could be placed
on trial for violating statute law.
Title has already been acquired to
these school lands and these discrimi-
mating acts of officials are illegally as
sumed. tits held that the withdrawal
Of watered sections from sale or lease
enhances the value of adjoining lands,
but 1t must be shown that this is
true. Experience has not proven it.
But we were addressing this article to
in lands. The school chill
lren own lands, the state being trus-
zee, and it is the duty of the state to
procure the value in these lands. The
grass belongs to the soil; it is folly then
% talk of free grass on school lands.
The grass on private lands should be
40 more free than that on school
ands. There is no commonalty in
private lands, and it is the states
luty to protect holders. To discrimi-
late between rights belonging to the
Ichool children and to private indi-
both of whom have obtained |
title from the state, is oppression.
DO PERSONAL organs pay2 The
Houston Post can answer. !