The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-01-29

lection suggested by the senator from
Bexar IL not we'll founded, and II this
bill IL defeated II must be for some other
reason.
tie next proceeded to a discussion OF tho
merits OF the bill. AZ the bill had come
before the committee, there was much In
n he could not vote tor, hut these provia-
iona could be amended. The senators who
had spoken on the opposiuon
seemed 70 direo, the,r aafo,sm
conceded by tho friends OF the bill ought TO
DO stricken out or amended. IL was unnec-
essay TO discuss things conceded Sem
ators seem to think that the bill must be
adopted as whole, while the TACT was the
committee OF the whole would put u mo
proper shape and then In that revised rom
present ~ 10 the senate for no ION. The
question was, ought the underlying idea OF
the bill TO DO adopted The bill has two oh
iecis TO accomplish. OnP, to withdraw the
inducement for fence-cuiting, and the other
-Incidentnl to thnt-to benefit the school
fund. The inducement for fence-cnttinR
was free grass, and the question that was
dividing the senate was whether Tree gra.s
ought to be removed or not. liza man was
In iavor OF Tree grass, then he could not sup
port the bill. but II he was not In favor OF ",
he would. This was the fundamental idea
OF the act and the nrst thing TO he deter
mined was, should Texas adopt law
against free grass. II not, the bill should
be defeated. II so, the bill should be per
fcoted and passed. To that issue tue als-
cussion should he confined.
No man had the right 10 the grass OF an.
other-that 10 the vested right-the right OF
ownership, for IL was not his properly nut
tho property OF the land owner. On The
question OF right-abstract rlght-there
was no room for argument. But TINS dls-
onssiou perhaps saould take the ground OF
kaN hrAnfshf
question whether free grass" was the
moving cinse OF this fence cutting
trouble. There were, no doubt, other
causes contributing 10 tho dlthcnltyi
bnt the great source OF the trduole ls
free grass. Men had occupied this lana win
their stock. 1he owner then came IN ana
fenced up: these, by long use, had grown TO
look upon free range Us vested fleht anu
they took this fencing MS mn infringement
upon their rights, and so they cut the fence
because they thought 10 an encroHchlnent
upon old and established customs. The
people of Texas from time immemorial
hsye been educated to the Idea that slook
may be turned loose and Craze anywhere,
provided they do not go into the garden or
enclosure OF a neghbor. and these men,
imhued with this idea, looked upon TINS
fencing up OF large tracts OF land us an
encroachment on old customs, which they
had been educated to believe were vested
rights, and this gave rise TO the hrst OF
fence.cutting extended from these
fences to all others, and Owls
ion grew up among the people on
the simple question OF whether cattle had
tho rights TO run where they pleased. or
whether men hsd the right to fence against
them. II has been said by senators that
this will bring about "a revolution, put
would remind them that IL IL a resolution
in the right direction. Texas and Colorado
arc the only two states that cattle are 81
lowed tree range. All the other states pro-
vide. and indeed 10 was the common law OF
England that the owner of stock must feed
them upon his own grass aud not that OF
his neigh boris. In Texas IL has been other
wise, and when the prevailing ideas Vt CIV.
inzAtiOn pervsded Texas aud iences followed
. certain class held, that this fencing was
revolutionary and ience-cutting as sup
posed remedy Tor this evil has resulted. IN
the past no doubt free grass wis well
enough, but the time has come when we
can with pr0pricty sop ana reverse the or
der OF things. Now il has been said that
tuis bill is in the interest OF the rich man
sni will make the rich man ric or ana the
moor man poorer. That will no doubt he
| true In some Instances, but now does II
make the rich man richer and the poor
man poorer? Let ia see. Whst poor man
will IL make poorer Certainly no. the
/ farmer, the planter or the mechanic, Ihnt
will not be claimed. Then what poor man
does 10 Cifecl2 The only poor man Affected
will be the poor csttle man, whose cattle
have h ad frer grass In the past, and who,
| after the adoption OF this bill, VIII be
,liged to pay four cents an acre per al.
mum rent Tor the land upon which hs will
craze them. He will be made poorer by
this expense OF his lease. NOW IL he IS get
ting good profit on his capital invested
under the provision OF tins bill, has ne
right to complain! That liz TO say; II we
20 back several years, We IND that beeves
| in Texas were worth aboHt SIS per
head, and men got rich in raising
them, because II cost them nothing for
grass to feed them. Civilization and the
development Of the country, the Increased
railroad facilities for shipment have en-
HANGED tho value OF his cattle In few years
from SIS head to $50 q head, really
ought to say $35 per head, for that is the
general market prce. Now, with tree
grass. II he made money at SIS a head
and he certainly did, rs all will admit-he
must take more out OF free paslurage at
$50 or s35 per head. The difference be.
tween SIS and $50 ia bl2. Then he has
profit from the free grass range of to day Of
Sl2 n head moro than lao did few years
ago. VIII senator's tell me That the poor
man. making such "A profit ~ this, is sub
| iected To Il .errihle hardship because by
! tho provisions of this bill he will have 20
nay cents an acre for the land upon which
| TO raise his stock? Let ue see. Ten acres
| to q head, 10 cents year, four years, Sl.Gli
! then he pays FOR the use OF lana
for the four years necessary to raise the
calf TO four year old steer $l.G): that 10
EXPENSE for the feed of the y Ger, and yet in
fhis home market he sells the steer tor $50,
which IL M advanced prohJ OF siz aOoVe
what 1t was four years ago, aud even then
it was O profitable busiDess-aud for this
4 ala Lao. az, no
pitiiul sum of 81 40 to go.to the CHI dren OF
the state for four years grazing upon the
school chi!dren's land as the expense OF
making beet out OF a calf, leaving net
additional profit from four years ago, OF
| 5000. Most poor men can stand thht
kind of oppression, and revolution that
| only oppresses in that way is hardly as
| terrible as some of the senators seem to ap-
prchnd. But admitting now that one
particular class of men Will be slightly in.
iured by this act--aud oil laws must be
| made general--no act however wise, that
| does not iDiare some one-l still hold thai
the maxim, the greatest good W the
greatest number must prevail, and " now
| and then mau is ii ghtly injured and the
great M ass of the people are benefited by
| il, is it sound reasoning TO say tho many
should ne Inconvenience tor the benefit OF
the fewp
Now I,t us see how this law will effect
| the other poor men OF the stale, eI-
cept tie poor cattle man. The poor
mechanic. the poor farmer, tho poor
aborer, in allbranches OF industry,
paws his taxes upon his occups
ton and his taxable property, 30 far as re-
quired by law, for the support OF the insti-
lutions Of the government and civilization.
One of the greatest Of which is the public
school for the education OF The children Of
all the poor men OF the state. Now what
does his bill do for the public educationf
II proposes 10 lease these public lands upon
which cattlekinHs, syndicates and Door cattle
men have been feeding their stock for years,
at cents per acre. That will bring into
the sch DOL fund of the state nearly ST. Co.,
| 100 a. -~o.so.t h,,i IF vvhiob rou, 90 frnrn