Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-06-20
Letter From an Ex.Clerk.

AUSTIN, TEX, JUNE IS, 1851
To the Editor OF the Gazette.
In The GAZETTE of the 18th inst. |
appeared an article, copied from the
Graham Leader, of which the follow
ing is an extract: "The report of the
land-frauds board shows that the rec
ords of the county commissioners
court of Young county were changed |
at the land Office, and that the mu,ila-
ton of records had never been APP
proved by the court" AS the repub-
| lication of the article in your paper
gave it notoriety to which it could
not otherwise have attained, and as q
somewhat similar charge has hereto
fore appeared in your columns, ask
the privilege of a small portion of your
space for the making of plain, unvar
nished statement, to the end that the
truth may appear and justice be done.
l ask this the more boldly because l
have observed with admira-
ton the evident intention
of THE GAZETTE to allow all sides of
question to be presented and fairly dis
cussed. Now let us see what this
Equalization of records" was. / am
not now an employee of the land Office
and have not been for nearly twelve
months, but / was one of the clerks
there at the time the appraisement
rolls for the counties embraced i'm the
Young land district were filed, and
part of my duties was to make exam
nation of such rolls and report their
condition to the commissioners. If he
approved the appraisement, the roll
was copied into a book kept for
that purpose and the original filed
for rnfn xty1.n
In making these examinations all er.
, rors discovered were noted on the
E rolls, and lists of such errors pre-
, pared and forwarded to the surveyors
of the respective counties for their in
1 formation and guidance. Where the
D errors were glaring and numerous the
' commissioner Withheld his approval
until he was notified of their correc.
> ton by the surveyor. Sometimes the
: appraisement was approved upon the
: express condition that the proper cor
e rections would be made upon the
Z records in the office of the surveyor.
y These errors usually consisted in Civ
. ing the wrong numbers to sur
d veeys and the certificates by
+ virtue of which they were made,
to the blocks, and i'm the
naming of the grantees. They were
>, discovered by comparing the rolls with
Re the files in the land Office and by in
r spection of the maps. In the case OF
the appraisement rolls for the Young
land district many errors of this char
10 acter were discovereu-in some in-
,r stances surveys were placed in the
is wrong counties-and the proper cor
n, rections were noted on the rolls, and O
list of the errors, with the corrections,
u given to the surveyor for the purpose
a. of making his records conform TO those
er In the land office. In making part OF
If this examination the surveyor, Mr..
- Geo. n. Heifrin, who was then in
e to dispatch his busines.
of and return to his home in Graham, AZ
4 sisted me by going over the maps and
=, correcting his own mistakes in the
IL numbering of the surveys and the
t. blocks, etc. AS to the description Of
OF the lands the commissioner had to
Il rely upon the sworn statement of Mr.
. Heifrin that he had personally in,
y Lspected them, and that they were rs
,%KaesItibed. Many, Of the errors found
ne In Mr.IHelftln'Erepo we're doubtless
RI the result of|hasty transcription from
his records, which we're then and are
IL ham. The rolls examined by me were
est simply copies from his records. and the
40 corrections of the errors il
20 his report did not need
zee the approval of the commissioners
W. court of Young county. In fact they
us had nothing to do with the matter, /
no being simply question between tn,
ne surveyor and the land Office. III Mr.
lo1 Heifrin did not note the corrections on
to his records he stood very much In hi
eel own light, and If he was not grateful
|, :, for the service rendered him he Is tn,
~ first surveyor have ever heard of VIII,
10 was not. They were intended to max
lily his records more correct and to proven
nd delay and inconvenience TO purchaser
nd of school lands in his district. VIVA
=" was done in his case was the inyaria
os- BILE practice in the land Office in al
Ide cases. What else could or should nav
Ike been done? Mr.. Heifrin, believe
mo lives In Graham and will, am sure
corroborate this statement Such 1
Oh the alleged humiliation of the records
m OF the commissioners court of Youn,
on county IA thing obviously absurd), an,
H., ask every honest man who reads thi
10y statement TO answer whether such al
MS outrageous perversion, Of the trutl
ley should be countenanced. In view q
the fact that the whole mater wa
fully explained to Mr.. Patton, both b,
myself and Commissioner Walsh. an,
that he prOfessed to be satisfied witt
B. the explanation, the language of hi
report Is amazing. He did grave in
nat Justice to Capt. Walsh, and lie shout,
all have corrected 1t long ago. One thin,
sw more and am done, The Leader il
z" the same article repubIishe,
80 by THE GAZETTE SAYS; 81
be was the law of his ow,
ing making that enabled the clerks I'm III,
Tue land office to grab the children's Ian,
nd Ia Haskell county, allude to tbi
are because was one of the clerks referre,
les To, and to anticipate discussion. HOY
M many, clerks do you suppose filed O,
a.? school lands In Haskell county. ane
IL now much land was involvedi nv,
70 clerks purchased three sections In salt
ne county, buying two Of three sections
le- me other purchases made by few
ke clerks We're In other counties, Will,
ms the commissioner at the date of thes,
nd purchases knew nothing about them
ld. the clerks knew that he had ex
yer pressed the opinion that they were no
use inhibited from buying school lands. M
IN, ne ala not regard them as publi,
~ lands, which they were fully swar.
,id they could not buy, While specu
W. ia'ors aud sharps were grabbing