Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-07-25

law?
Again Mr.. Templeton says: VT is
hard to trace kinship with herd law
In any OF the features of the lease
law.n
There Is no one so blind as he who
will not see. The encouragement OF
Texas does not wish to recognize the
herd law features or the herd law ten
denotes of his pet, the lease law, or
perhaps the true explanation Is that
he does not wish these features or ten
denotes TO he seenby others. But for
all that there is only the difference
between the present lease law aud the
prospective herd law that there is
between the pollywog and the fully
developed frog. Mash the pollywog
with stone and there will be no frog.
But spare the pollywog and you insure
the frog. Repeal the lease law and
have no more of 1t, and there will be
no herd lawl But sus tain the
lease law ahd the herd law
will inevitably follow. True, at
this date Smith is not
absolutely required to herd his cattle
on his own land only. But for the
very excellent reason that Jones has
not yet determined or completed his
arrangements TO take up by lease all of
Smiths range, except the land he
owns. When Jones does so determine,
however, or completes his arrange
ments to that end, the lease law under
which Jones will be forcing tribute
from Smith, or forcing his cattle from
the school lands, will be to all intents
and purposes herd law in its effect
on him. Mr.. Templeton defines herd
law as one that requires, as no one
will deny, the owner of stock to herd
them on his own land, and denies him
the use of the commons for grazing
purposes" When Jones has perfected
his lease to the Jones and Smith range,
and Jones notifies Smith to keep Off"
will he not be required us effectually
to herd his stock on his own land, and
be as etlectually denied the use of the
commons for grazing purpo ses as IL the
lease law was in name, AS in fact, a
herd law? The lease law does not
allow any man to turn his stock on
the commons as freely as in the DAYS
of the republic; but it gives to Jones,
or any other one man, the right to
fence in thousands of acres of
this commons for a long
term of years and to shut
out from The further use of said com
mons every other mans stock. No.
The lease law is not in every respect
herd law, since it is not coiicd herd
law. But there Is just the difference
between the two that there is between
twee-dle-dum and twee-dle-dee. Mr..
Templeton can't see it or won't see il.
But all the same the people of the
West and Northwest see it, and can
not be fooled 10y calling that
lease law which can be
converted into herd law at the
Will of Jones or any other man. A
skunk by any other name will smell
AS loud.
Mr.. Templeton lays great stress on
the fact that before the lease law was
enacted men were gobbling up the
school lands in large quantities and
thus curtalling the enjoyment of the
commons so far as all others were con-
cerned. This wasl II palpable wrong,
but the lease law was not the needed
remedy. A law making it penal Tor
any one to fence in land not his own
or legally under his control would have
been sufficient Jones was gobbling
up the commons selfishly before
the lease law was enacted.
The legislature recognized the
seltishness of the business, and to rem.
edy 1t passed the lease law, legalizing
his act OF selilshness. Before the lease
law was enacted he could only fence in
vast bodies of the commons by brute
force, but that which was wrong in
principle is now made right, at least in
the eyes of the law. Now, AS before
the lease law was passed, in utter dis
regard of public and even OF private
rights In hundred, of Instances. he
fences in vast bodies of the commons
and shuts ont all Others.
Mr. Templeton says further: "The
farmer and every other man should
that there is nothing open
Or secret in the lease law which works
forfeiture or Limitation of the right
10 turn all stock of which he Is pos.
'essed free on the range; his legal
rignt Is the same now that it was ten
years ago-just the same" We pre-.
sumo hemeant to say ''there is nothing
secret IN the lease law" ETC., but such
a statementas this is not only mislead-
ing nut untrue. Ten years ago Smith
could turn his stock free on the range
'hd nave no fear or cause for fear that
ne would or could be compelled by iu-
RES 70 take them oil at days notice.
DOES MIR, Templeton pretend to saw
mat he can do this now? Does he
pretend to say that Smith has anv
guarantee now that Jones. or
some other man, will not terminate
Ire.