Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-05-12

governor gave In his veto for rejecting
the proposition 10 lease Ut five cents.
The law Of 1885 authorized leases Of
unlimited quantities at four cents, and
the land bill vetoed authorized the
lease Of unlimited quantities at Eve
cents, Certainly, ifthe governor would
veto the latter proposition, he would
be opposed TO a return to the strict let
ter OF the law Of 1883, which contains
the former proposition. The governor
and land board have not been able 10
justify their action raising the four
cents minimum to eight cents, except
upon the assumption that the land
was worth at least eight cents per an
mum, or that II only worth four cents
It was bad policy to lease 10 even at q
fair rate. But as the policy
adopted failed to lease the lands,
and was not changed promptly
when the demsnd ceased, IL
may be presumed that the board has
not earnestly sought TO make leases,
and would not now return to rate
that would be generally accepted, II
the board determined upon leases
without limit, and believed them
worth the eight cents, set as their min
imum, it would have power, legal and
by assumption, sufficient 20 compel the
free grsssers to come to it, terms. I'm
questiouably the land Enclosure act,
vigorously enforced, would compel the
users Of these lands to come to the
eight cents minimum If the use OF the
land Ia worth that much, or. refusing
the terms fixed by the board, they
would be compelled to remove their
cattle. Section ls Of the land law OF
1883 in so many words declares that
the land board shall have the power
TO employ and discharge such per.
sons as may be necessary to cause the
act 10 be efficiently executed and fix
their compensation, and may delegate
to them such powers as are necessary.
etc. Evidently, if the enforcement of
the land Enclosure act would facilitate
the enforcement OF the land law the
board is charged to execute, it is the
duty aud within the power of the
board toemploy any number Of per-
CONS necessary to enable to give force
TO the land Enclosure act. This act ap-
pears to be dead letter. 1t is well
known that its provisions are disre-
garded, But the state of authority
delegated to the proper persons Ia 90
into the free-grass districts should be
suilicientto give il full force and ef.
feet. Then, il the land board,
as was long claimed, believes
the leases worth eight cents, 1t
is derelict in duty in not exercising
the power conferred upon it to compel
those who use tho lands to pay the
state the value Of their use, or the
board has not believed in general
leasing policy, and viii not exercise
it's authority to force this policy upon
the country A return to the eight
cents minimum now would, without
any vigorous effort to enforce the land
Enclosure act, be equivalent TO an ad-
mission that the board does not sup.
port general lease system, and the
veto OF the governor seems to fore
shadow line OF policy that will re-
strict leases until there is q more de.
cided expression OF the popular will
upon this land question. Since he
objected that Gve-cent rate would
give possession Of the country prac.
tically TO one management, it Ia pre-
sumed that he would never agree to
the strict letter OF the law that would
give the country over to the same con-
troll at q lower rate and cut down the
income from leases near about 90 per
cent To be consistenb ifan elght-cent
rate for leases would give possession
OF the country practically to one man.
agement, the governor and board
doubtless would exercise the disore.
ton given them by law to restrict
leases, so that unless the board adopts
a policy widely at variance with its
past course and with the views of the
governor, the leasing system Is TO be
greatly restricted and there is no dan.
ger OF a return to the strict letter OF
the law of 1888, or to the spirit and
practical tenor OF that pernIcious
measure. A general lease of the lands
at four cents would produce n rev.
enue which unquestionabiy Ia desIr-
aole'at this time, when taxes are in
creasing, and il it is the popular will
that whole districts be given over
practically to one management, In or.
der that this increase of revenue may
be realized, the board may make a
mistake in not returning to the letter
and spirit OF the existing land law, but
the governor will have made greater
mistake in vetoing law that was pre-.
.