Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-23
Tarrant County Representative Tells a
Gazette Reporter What He
Thinks About II,
A Careful Criticism Of the Objections
offered by the Governor to
the Bill,
And the Conclusion Reached That His
Exosllsncy Is rOlerably Fair
Free-Grass Man,

had been watching the actions of their
representatives were at a loss how TO
view the land bill as finally passed.
The conflicting legislation as proposed
by the house aud senate and the vari-
Gus amendments and counter-amend-
ments 40 confused and bewildered the
public mind that few men outside the
legislature were able to express O def
mite opinion as TO the proba-
BILE result OF this legisla-
ton upon the landed Interests
Of the state. And when the governor
allowed the fate OF the bill to remain
in doubt for number of days and
finally vetoed 1t, his reasons for doing
so were read with much Interest by
every citizen who felt an interest la
the bill. The state press generally re-
garded the veto as the disposal of
very unwise piece OF legislation.
Wishing TO obtain the views of one
Of the members who was conspicu-
Gus figure in the last Legislature
and who had much to do
with the preparation OF the
bill before 1t went to the
slaughter house OF the senate, our re-
IOfJer interviewed
HON. w. $. PENDLETON
in his law Office in this city and OBJ
tanned lengthy criticism upon the
governors veto, which is as follows;
Mr.. Pendleton was found surrounded
by pile of legal papers, which he
thrust aside when the interviewer
made known lis mission.
How does the veto of the land bill
by the governor suit you?" asked the
reporter.
III am rather pleased than other
wise, considering the shape Of the bill
as it finally passed, after going
through the senate and the conference
committee; though had the bill passed
both houses rs reported to the house by
it's land committee, veto would have
been great disappointment to me.
| approve of the veto, but do not con-
cur in all the governors reasons for it.
Indeed, his first objection to the cap
ton Of the bill, as embracing two dis
tinct subjects, and being therefore un-
constitutional, seems to me to be I'M
tenable. He claims that one of
these distinct subjects is the pub
lie lands proper; the other, the school,
asylum and university lands. i can
see no reason for distinguishing the
former from the three latter classes of
lands, more than fer distinguishing
the school or the university from the
asylum lands. The asylums have no
more relation to the university or the
public schools than to the public at
large; they are a separate interest, and
their lands are Just as much separated
from the public school lands as from
the public lands at large, and IL the
bill contains two distinct subjects, 1t
contains four, being for the disposal OF
four different classes ofpubllc land and
the old law, which created the land
board and which was approved by
the governor, is equally unconstitu-
tional, because IL embraced three sub
iects, viz the disposal of the public
school, university and asylum lands.
II is Just ~ valid an objection to the
bill 10 say that II Is unconstitutional
because IL provides COR the leasing and
safe OF the lands, and, therefore, en-
braces two subjects. The fact Is the
bill has but one object, which Is, the
disposal that Is, the leasing and SALE
OF all that is, the four classes) of pub
lie lands above mentioned.
"The governors second objection to
the bill is certainly a good one. 1t Is
not sound policy to permit any person
or corporation To control vast eX tent
Of the public land for long period OF
years exempt from legislative control,
and all the governor says on that sub
ject ia eminently just. In fact the bill
rs 1t went into the senate limited the
amount that would be leased TO fifty
sections In unorganized and ten sec
tions in organized counties. But his
arguments In their results are as forci-
BILE against leasing system as against
this bill. | think IL can be shown
that any limitation of the amount
leased is impractical, and can
not be enforced. The lessee gets
the use OF the land only, not
from the state the use of fifty sections
Of land, how can law be framed so
as to prevent him from permitting his
neighbor to use such land for grazing
purposes2 Ii Ia plain that such q
plain that man could thus indirectly
lease as much land as no might want.
This proves that n leasing system Is
A DANGEROUS EXPERIMENT.
The only eflectual counter check tC
this necessary result of leasing sys
! tenn would be to give the settler 3
preference right to lease a few sections
adjacent to his purchase In any coun
ty, organized or unorganized. This /.
the fairest thing for the email
stock man. II we must hay,
q lease system. But 1t seems
that the governor, although
protesting friendship for the email
| afnqH man 0htaofa M this ma rfio,tla