Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-03-27
THE CAPITOL LANDS.
How Far They Arc Affected by an An
cient spanish Claim.
Review OF The Claimants Rights Inc
A,torney.Gencrars Opinicn'
s7scia, to the eaIcue.

special TO the GaIe'ie.
Austin, March - Fer seme lime
the capitol syndicate has been greatly
hammered in its operations ny 9h oiu
Spauisn claim to the capitol ANUS
which have been pressed, 81 some
think. with view To- blackmali' BE
tween the years $50 and lsS-, twenty
nine colonization contracts Were en-,
tered into 10y the states OF Coahuiia anu
Texas, involving almost The ehtire Ter
I ritory OF the latter. Only fourteen OF
these were carried into Effect, ana all
OF these located in the eastern portion
| OF the state along the coast OF tue
! gulf aud the frontier OF Louisiana;
| The grant in question loon IN all
! Western Texas. portions ol AriIoha,
/ New Mexico snd the Indian Territory,
and the entire strip OF puollc iahu
north of the Panhandle, which was
( thought TO belong to Texas IL was
fist revived in lSs2, when bill was
introduced in congress Tor Inc reliel oil
us inheritors by the donation OF u
certain amount OF the puoilc ishu OF
the United States. Land Commits
sioner Mcfarland began TO inves-
tigate the merits of the claim,
and this inaugurated the CORE
spoudence with Commissioner Walsh,
on the strength of which the
hill WAS Killed in committee, but tue
matter was not allowed to remain
u,uet. and the capitol syndicate was
confronted with it in England rs well
as ON tins side of the Atlantic iii all If
its business arrangements. II the
claim had been OF any value, it would
oil hnIlnnle-es
to the state, AS well rs to settlers on the
lands which are involved. Mr.. j. V
Farweli one of the capitol contractors.
who recently came in from Chicago,
submitted the question to the attorney
general, and his ruling, which was
rendered to-day, is appended: The
case referred TO, ON which the supreme
court rendered decision, is the cele-
brated Mercer colony case. In regard
TO the claim set up under the old col
uniZation contract with RegnOla and
Beale To the land set apart by the state
of Texas for the erection of new cap
itol, the Encouragement says:
81 have TO say that ii is utterly
groundless, and in my opinion is moth
ing more nor less than impudent, III
not an Infamous attempt to extract |
to whom the state has contracted ii
for the erection of said buildings. The
commissioner of the general land OF. !
flee of the state of 'reXa1, in letter to
the Hon. n. G.. Mcfarland, commits !
sioner of the general laud Office in
Washington, informed him that no
attempt was ever made to comply with
the contract; that no claim against
the state has TO this time been set up
under il, and that too within the past |
few years not a civilized being has |
ever lived within the limits of the land |
included within the contract Now, !
the colonization laws of Coahuila aud |
Texas required that lOJ families nj |
least should be brought within the ter
ritory of the contract within Nix years, |
under the penalty of losing the rights
and privileges offered in their favor,
etc, and of the contract being nbso-
lutely null should they not present 100
at the least. see Paschal's
digest Particle $40. On the Goth of
March, 1894, the congress of Coahuila
and Texas declared that thereafter no
contract shall be made and
those heretofore made shall be
strictly fulfilled, aud in accordance
with the laws of March q, 1884 -
Paschal's digest, article 737. Ga the
18th day of December, 1889, the con-
gress OF the republic OF Texas enacted !
that lit is hereby declared that all inn !
presssrios' contracts herein closed on
the day of The declaration of independ- !
euce are the vacant lands Of Texas or
the property Of this republic Of Texas,
aud subject to the disposition of the
government of the same. n--P aschal's
digest, article t7aS. These citations
from the laws of the state.
having application TO the claim, should
be conclusive that il is utterly without
merit and is not entitled to the least
notice. The supreme court Of the
United States Il few months ago rem
dered Judgment against claim set up
under Il colony contract in which there
was far more OF merit than there is in
that being set up In the case under
consideration. II will receive no at
tentiOn from the state, and it certainly
should receive none elsewhere.
[Slgned john ID. TEluLEroN,
Acknowledgement.