The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-08-25

not enclose without taking in these
little scraps. The board, therefore,
very properly offered TO lease them,
and as nobody cOdld beiDjured by this,
and the school fund would get the
! rent, tho board arc TO ba commented
for their course and not censures
Under that lease, as we understand 1t,
the lessee takes the risk Of being
oUsted whenever any person shall ac-
quire title, or when the State shall per
maneDtly dispose of them. And these
are the only public lands leased by
the board. And yet this is "the head
and front Of their offending" The
"Disinhsrited Knight floats upon
shoreless sea of Gems lrioug suspicion
and sorIiest of fGnoles
Third--The "Knight" arrsigns the
governor for inconsistency, because as
governor he yetoes bill, and
yet as member OF board
acts under law duly passed into OK
istenee! Doubtless the governor con
sid9red, and correctly, too, that there
is broad distinction between his acts
as governor in approving or disap-
proving bill and his acs as a mem
Der of board. Suppose that some
ono else than the governor had been
the member; tho governor simply oC-
cupies now such position of such per
son who might never have known, or
needed to have known, of tho veto.
Alas, for tho poIntless spear Never
was more pertinent tho "Kuight's" il
lustration Of "pitching around propc-
sltions az a Hindoo juggler losses
balls"
Fourih-But tho "Knight" eriticises
tho executive veto, thusly: "The gov
ernor approved the ACT OF 1885
with forfeiture clause liEo the
tho one in the Sth section of the
Act of 1855" Why, Of course,
he did. But the alluslon in
tho veto message Up, 4, lines 1929
to the Sth section ia not TO condemn
the forfeiture clause, but 10 show that
because no legal proceedings arc 70 be
instituted to forfeit, or otherwise
thor9 could be no authority in forcibly
evicting tho purchaser on an OK parto
affidavit. Tho forfeiture clause YVES
correct, and doubtless tho governor so
thought, but In the Act OF 1883 10 GG-
thority Is given TO proc9od by force
aud oyio5 the purchaser without hear
ing, as in the act Of 1885. Both Acts
now li3 eforo us, and both arc clear
on this point And yet our Knight"
claims not TO SEQ tho obvious dlstinc-
lion. "Turning tho board into Scot
land yardw (Arothor expression we
roc0gnizel. Never was fair Eyelyn's
bower greater puzzle TO the childish
mind than the Knights dilemma in
this illogical labyrinth, Is it any
wOader tina. the governor has to veto
Acts when one, said to DO senator,
Will thus attempt, consciously or un-
consciously, 10 Impose on tho public?
ono act provides for taking tho pur-
chaser by force end putting him OIL
tho LAID without hearing, while tho
other contains no such provision what
evor. Aud yet we are grayely told
that by approving tho one and disap.
proving tho other, tho governor a.ultl-
ties himsell
Fiuh-Tno "Disiuhtritod Kuighp
wants to know go what funds tho
money for tho Greer county lands will
go?" aye Gods, it doth amaze us"
that Is state senator should ask such
question. Now, honor bright, doesn't
ne know that tho monies for lands be-
lIuging to tho schools will so to tho
school fund?
S xth--But he "wants 20 know
where the land board gols authority
10 hire mon TO 60 out and
classify land and procure such further
Information Us will enable the board
to doal with tho subiac'w II this
"Ryonger OF his couury's iusultod in.
t,lligenco" hDd spent ~ much time in
the reading OF the law rs no nus In
perpotrating his ellusion 80 tho News
no would not have insulted his own
intelligence by asking this question
II no wi Turn to the 6ightoonth pac.
ton OF tbolaud board Act, no will dis
cover that 10 gives unlimited power
to employ all agonta necessary, and
to uso such funds as may ba ncces
sary.
seventh Again; Tho governor il
! directly arralgucl, aud bis veto OF th'
land bill, on account OF the watero,
lands, Is contras Cd with tho leasing O
watored lends in Greor county. Nov
a iolso is no, q sale. But we have M
Information that tho governor Ia,
anything 70 40 with tho leasing O
waterod lands. Indeed, our inform
ton Il positive that tho governor Wa
not wien tha bosrd, Aud we are equa'
~ certain that the board Is not respou
siblo for tho governors veto.
And now, good Sir Knight, havinI
, poised 4 lance against you, having an
swered all tho demands you hsv
chosen to prefer, and which In reait.
required no response TO an intelllgen
people, "tarry vet awhile, We have an
other hold on you" Permit us, P1r
dislike. to turn plaintiff, aud sugses
, what shall be said I'su honorable sen
ator who will Ontor the arena oi shsmt
, full attacks upon c)-artiuatC OraUc
of his state government, ov,
, fictitious nsme9 what /, tn
I roal matter here? Why this psw
about Greer county, We don't kIo'
, who is this, our competitor, VIII
. prances so boldly from the front an
Is inspired by seaside Souudings, bu
we hear there is seuator-mark yOl
e the News says be ia senator Nh
+ while holding the commission of son
= tnr Ia thu leunl nd Nisar and attOrnn