Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-01-08

"a
aci,nI settlers aud thar In SINAI
,,oi,es and inns much as the declpfn
ton was acted on ana persniis wv
induced 10 settle upon them, uiu u Nv
become the duty Of the state W Ia
out this policy and protect Tue lis,'
of those WHO had settled mere un'..
the belief hat IL would tie dome, az,
did she not act In extremely Dau lal.'
in going contrary thereto? ne s'H ~.
assortment then has caused the III
iurv. and has so far i4iled TO rtuieS
ihe grievance, leaving this TO W.
iniured patty. IL she not guilty.
then. In bringing about th'
cause. rather than they who comm
the crime? OF course the state canilo'
take away the vested rights" OF ihes'
Land CORPORATIONS and monolOlies
which have acquired these Janus
tbis would be tnking advantage oil hei
avn Yronp. which il contrary 10 all
Inv md eubversive 10 true liberty, huI
Che can and ought to refuse to charter
these corporati0ns in future, ana lil
thot way prevent the requirement OF
ca much aud And rs to the existing
state of Affairs, the state can ana
ought TO pass a law giving ana gran,
;ng ia the commissioners court ~ ench
county the power and authority 10
proyide. uuen up and establish hign-
WAYS m, und aud passage way- through
each tract If land, at convenient as
lance. upart, for the convenience OF
thp peol,le, upon proper proof lhhl
necessity requires II, 30 ~ ~ INV"
travel to towns ana sell
AIngI 10
water. The fact that they VINO
own these lands are capitalists auh
corpnrntions do not lessen the duties
they have 10 perform or me rights
they must necessarily reiinqulsh' ~
Is not the duty or the object OF ihe
government to discourage the rlch or
the poor, but rather to encourage
them and at the same time Woicc'
them. BY protecting them sht en-
courapes them to labor, accumulate
and build up the country. BY pro-
tecting the poor she limits their poN-
erty aud prevents them from bee1in-
ipg poorer. Would not the passage OF
good and wholesome law OF thiS
character be bercti ial to all CLASSES,
both the rich ana the poor" Would 1t
be rejecting ON the wisdom and the
learning Of those men VINO advocated
the passage of the "ilfty-cent act"'
such law might prevent the rich,
who own large tracts OF land, rom
using their lands rs t.ey would like,
but still il would he in accordance
with lw in not allowing them to use
their property IN such way rs 10
iniure the rights of Others; and would
only be calling for an exercise OF those
duties which they agree To perform
on becoming citizens Ola community
And would not the passage OF IA
herd law requiring the stocknlan 10
herd his cattle upon his own land
prove Of incalcuiable benefit aud add
vantage, This suggestion is not new,
ard Is opposed by many for various
reasons. This opposition, however,
comes from the slockman and his
sympaihiZpts who are moved by self
interest. Why do they oppose
the passage OF such law?
For the reasons. rs they cla'nl, that Il
would work destruction of property;
that IT would decrease the price OF
cattle; that it would lessen their power
tn borrow money; that it would drive
out the small cattle owner ana AZ last
that il would be impractirahlc and
could not be enforced What n mui.
tiplicity OF reasons And how ialla-
cious are all Of them.
lit would really work all these in
iuries and would not result in greater
good IL certainly should not toe passed
II is trGc that the stucknan ia al nd
vantage 10 the state, and should not
bo cried down and attempted TO be
driven out through Jealousy Of the
vattness of his wealth. Oh, no, Aud
law having this rs It's object ought
to be and would he ignored and dcs-
pissed by every hunest-Miudrd man.
But will "hcrd law DO these things!
Certainly not And are the reasons
given, the real cause of this opposition?
Most certainly not.
That the cattle business would not
he n lemuucraiiVc ~ before is perhaps
true. And why should il he when the
profit that accTur- to the cattle owner
is taken from anothcr, who PEE haps i4
in much greater need ~ it and II not
j. certainly better entitled TO IT,. BY
what law human or diyiue-by
what principle Of right or justice.
was il intended that one man
should profit from The rights
OF o!hers, without consideration
moving fiom the person benefited"
II il true that gracious providence
spread this world with "uarpul OF
green and that he gave it 10 m an for
his ben tit and enjoyment without
money and without price, but il il
readily to be seen that he did not In
tend IL as an especial favor Ia any par
ticular man or class Of men. And ii is
to be supposed that "iniinite wisdom
has endowed every man with under
standing sufficient to perceive the
error Of such II belief. Even were II so
intended at the start, governments are
less generous, aud act more OH the
plan Of mutual benefit, and hence s,ll
the land. Natural rights were conferred
equally upon every man. IL IL only
IN tho acquired ones That we tNrcl one
the other. The grass, though the
natural growth OF the soil. Is not a
small item in the schedules of benefits.
Does not he who purchases the land
own II and all that pertains thereto?
Would 1t be right Ia
take corn from the crib of another. To
feed cattle upon ? IL not, please draw
The distinction hcteoen his corn and
his grass. While the stockmen would
like to have the benefit of this grnsa.
gratis, (and he Is not to he despissd on
that accountl he certainly has IA pro.
per conception of right and Justice.
and hence If he grass be taken from,
him his fpplinUa Nynuld unt la. i,,;,.,. 4