Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-06-01
AN OPEN LETTER.
Senator Gibbs Views on the Land and
Grass Question.
Opposing the Sale of Laud by the State
to Corporations.

inst, read with no little interest your
editorial on the land and grass ques-
ton and as you state that it is for our
especial consideration, am tempted
to write briefly explanatory of my
views as compared with your own.
Since my candidacy for lieutenant
governor have written but few pri-
vate letters, and none for publication.
Whatever record | made as u senator
was not made with view to future
political preferment; and neither
would abandon any of my convic-
lions for that purpose; but my youth
and political inexperience are such
that realize the truth that | have
much to learn. So far as the West Is
concerned / would not knowingly do
1t an injury, for the commercial inter-
ests of my people are too Intimately
identified with the interest of your
people for me to be otherwise than ex-
tremely favorable to your prosperity.
Moreover when settled in Dallas it
was considered frontier town, and
while it is now the center of a great
agricultural district, yet l can safely
say that as a senator l represented
class of farmers by far too intelligent
to expect or tolerate from me anything
but fair and just course in dealing
with the people of other portions of
the state. think you have, to some en-
tent, misconceived my views on these
questions, though to great extent,
matters Of record.
First-As senator, by bill or other
wise, I always contended that there
should be no sale of land to others
than actual settlers, and in bodies not
exceeding $40 acres. My reasons were
that cheap homes for our children and
the future citizenship of Texas was of
paramount political Importance to in
creased taxable values and that the
longer such condition of things ex-
listed so much longer would the at
traction of immigration continue.
Second For this same reason, and
others, opposed the sale of land by
the state TO corporations, and even OPP
posed the granting of franchises to
purely land corporations. Money is
now cheap in foreign and domestic
financial centers, and cheap money
invested in cheap land means an early
enhancement in market value of land
and the result would be no more cheap
moneys for the people. This is truer
of investment by corporate than in
dividual capital, because corporate
bodies have facilities for holding land,
which are not common to individuals
VINO are susceptible to repeated
changes in circumstances, dispositions
and life itself. Moreover, while it is
true thet certain great enterprises can
only be accomplished by corporate
capital, it is equally true that the or
binary avenues Of trade and livelihood
should not be usurped by corporations
to the detriment of individual energy
and enterprise. Commerce and even
agriculture is dependent for activity
upon borrowed money, but great
deal of corporate capital unaccom
panied by fair proportion of ilesl
and blood, contributes very littl,
socially or politically to the prosperity
of a country.
Thirdly-My views on the leas,
, question are and have as representa-
tive been briefly as follows:
l am opposed to leasing any schoo
land in counties where there are only
10000 acres or less. / am in favor o
keeping open to actual settlement, no
subject to lease, this much of the bes
+, school land in each county where tn,
school fund owns any land, and il
> favor of voluntary lease system as t,
!, the balance of the school land in sucl
: counties.
y / opposed the Terrell bill, and al
y other legislation with herd-law feat
u ures, because / did not believe i
!; practicable or applicable to all section
and did not wish to see the state us
its power to coerce citizens to pay tn
school fund very small amount, an
the landowners, corporate and ind
vidual, large amounts of money. Th
policy of voluntary lease system
:. based on the law of supply and d,
mand, and the aggregation in eac
county of sufficient land for actus
settlement, is policy based on SCUM
e. business principles, and cannot poss
nt bly, interfere with a healthy settlemer
~ of the country. The state cannot L
SO expected to deal so unfairly by tn
81 great mass of its people, and especial
w by its school-children, as to sell a
at actual settler home at 81 per acr
=. on twenty years time, with A pc
~, cent. interest and at the same tim
- give him the free range of all the su
m rounding country, when there al
w W, Others willing to pay for its use
~ handsome revenue TO the school fun,
y The school children of Texas are el
~ titled, under the constitution, not
NC the land itself, but TO the revenue
, be derived from the 81 900, 900 acr,
he of land belonging to that fund. "
~, must either lease or sell this land
II, realize the annual revenue bequeaths
,,o to us. If we sell in unlimits
FIJI quantities, at low prices, we ha,
we parted with the land and are fore,
~ to search for doubtful investments
n low rates of interest. Selling in larj
;~ quantities would erect barriers to sc
e Element much greater than are erect,
T., by short leases. If we lease the lar
at all except certain well defined actu
~ ~ settler reservations, we derive reven,
ROC for the schools and don't int
he fere with the settlement OF the countr
no and get the benefit of the enhance
,ts value of the land and surely If the
an Is any speculation in the matter, Ii
10 school fund should be the beneficial
10 rather than syndicates or Individual
at This was the evident intention of Of
ds fathers who founded and required
ch us the perpetuation of this fund. If
understand your position correctly ii
hill only difference between us il thi
of You agree that there should be no "a
ina to any but actual settlers and insj
m that the 35 600, 900 acres Of school laI
nns should lie idle except so much as
i x.sa ttac III.