The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1885-01-15

The DISTRICT COURTS
A few days since, the comptroller
placed in my hands for suit accounts
against the following named col
lectors and ex- collectors. AS the
courts will not be in session for some
time, | thought best to notify the
several parties before inStituting pro
ceedings against them, believing that
some of them would settle, and there,
by save to the state the commissions
otherwise to be retained. Some OF
them have already responded favora
bly, and made arrangements to settle
RAILWAY REPORTS
l have found it necessary to lnSti-
tute no suits against such companies
to recover penalties for failure to sub
NIT to the comptroller's department
the reports required by article 4 ,249,
revised statutes. The suits brought
in 1882, under direction of my prede-
cessOr, and the recent affirmance by
our supreme court of two judgments
imposing the $1,000 penalty, seem to
have convinced these companies that
| this statutory provision will no
! longer lie treated as a dead letter. The
comptroller, however, found it ueces-
sary few days since to notify this
| office that fe s. companies had failed
| to report for the year 1884. Instead of
Immediately instituting suits against
them, they were written to and given
ten days wherein to comply with the
law. In every instance where such
company had any actual eXisteIc6eS-
cept upon paper the report was iirne-
| diately fOrthcoming~@
OPINIONS.
1t having matured into a cusi, m
for this office to advise other than the
| executive officers named in the con-
stitution, have during my term of
Office furnished written opinions, not
only upon questions submitted by the
heads OF the executive departments
1T the seat of government, but also
have in no case failed to advise dis
tricU and county officials upon Ques-
tions submitted concerning the dis
charge Of their respective duties, IN
less convinced that such action on the
part of this Office would invade the
province of some other executive or
judicial officer. This has, of course,
necessitated the writing of a great
many letters and opinions, Of which
very many were upon novel and in
teresting questions. Letter press
copies are taken Of all official letters
going out Of the office, and from such
press copies those opinions discussing
the most important and novel ques-
tons are transcribed with appropriate
head-notes into the permanent opinion
record book. The number of letters
during the past two years was some
what less than during the Two years
just preceding, but the number of
opinions was corTespondingly greater.
The opinion branch Of the business is
decidedly the most onerous as well as
the most important Of the duties in
cumbent upon this office.
LAND FRAUD SUITS.
The land fraud board, acting IN
der and by virtue of an act approved
on the 18th day Of April, 1888, filed in
this office from time to time their
directions to institute suits under the
provisions of the said act to cancel and
annul the claims Of title to a very
large amount of land situated in diff
ferent portions of the state and claimed
by many different persons.
The board seemed to conclude that
the persons whom they have directed
suits to be filed against had violated
he provisions ri the act of July s,
1879; and Oh y ,,riI 6, 1881, providing
for the sale of the alternate sections of
school land, wherein those acts fixed
limit on the amount Of land one per-
son n.: :est.t- acquire.
The act left no discretion with this
office, and | have invariably taken
such steps as were within the bounds
of my official authority to have the
suits brought and prosecuted to judg-
ment, though in many cases l was
doubtful of any beneficial results &C
cruing to the state from the institu-
ton and prosecution of the said suits.
Resulting to some. extent, possibly,
from the great amount of work the
board undertook to do within the linn
tied time given them by the law. they
failed in many instances to furnish
very material, and in fact indispeEsa-
BILE information. In some cases the
residences OF the designated defend
ants were not given. In many others
| was not informed whether the de-
PENDANTS were adults, married women,
or minors, when in tact they were
often married women and minors. In
one case l was directed to sue for land
alleged by the board to be in certain
county. when in fact it was situated
in some other distant county. l have
been directed to sue persons for land
who had transferred it, as l learned
after the fling of the suits, before the
creation of the board, and who OF
course, therefore, had no interest in
or claim to the land.
In one cause the board commanded
suit to be brought against certain per-
20 10 TO oh ho
as aly time asserted any title or claim,
and the evidence that the title had
not been in them was on file in the
| General Land Office.
In one case [ was commanded to
sue two persons as firm, as partners,
when in fact they had never borne
that business relation to each other,
and there was deed of record in the
county where the land lay, executd by
| one of them, conveying all of his in
! terst in the land and the sections
standing in his name to the other one.
In one case [ was directed to sue
| to cancel the title to certain sections
of land. as taken up in the name
of the wife for the benefit OF
| the husband, when IN fact the lady
was the mother instead of the wife,
with considerable fortune, and she
had seen proper TO invest some of her
money for her own benefit in the land
offered by the state for sale.
In another case l was directed tC
sue to cancel the title to certain Sec
lions of land as taken up in the name
of the wife for the benefit of the hus-
band, when, as matter :of TACT, the
alleged wife was the adult brother OF
thealleged husband.
| These cases are not much more, il
any more, than fair sample of The
crude condition of the work of the
board. 1t was the exception, instead
of the rule, for the board to furnish
any evidence or give any clew to evi
dence sustaining the grounds on which
they directed the bringing of suit.
1t is to be borne in mind, that
the law putting the school land OF
the market in express terms au
thorized its sale by the first pur-
chaser after the first payment hat
been made, and it seems tt
me to be grossly inequitible t
harass innocent purchasers witt
suits, yet in directing suits. wher,
the board went beyond the first pur
chasers, which was rarely done
there appears to have been no dis
elimination between innocent anC
fraudulent yendees, and suits ar
now pending against persons witt