The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-01-29
The Brown LanG Bill.
BILL ARP.
Pickens Sentinel.

MIR. EDITOR: l notice that the Greep.
vii Daily Nc,cs of the 4th instant com.
ments rather unfnvorably on what has
been said by the Pickens Sentinel. and
endorsed by the ANDERSON INTELLr.
GENcER. in regard to the Brown Land
BIli, which was rejected by the House at
.he .he recent sitting Of the Legislature.
The Ne,rs closes what II has to aay with
these words: "The Legislature refused
to grant this perfectly proper request and
permit n transaction which would GER
tainly have allowed the widow and chill.
dren Ut an honest Suuth Carolina citizen
10 realize on property hnncstly inherited
from him, and would probably have been
nt immense benefit to the State, because
it did not know anything more about the
matter thnn our esteemed contemporaries
do, and, like them, undertook to act
without taking the trouble to learn"
1t these remarks are just, the action of
the House in rejecting the Bill
was unjust. 1t acted, the Ne,Us
says, without taking the trouble to
learn what it was doing If legisla.
tive body il not convinced that it is right
10 adopt given proposition, it is certain-
y safest to reject it. 1t was the duty of
those who desired the passage of the
Bill. to inform the Legislature of its
merits, but no such information was civ.
en- Yet that supine body, the South
Carolina Legislature, which undertook
tnact without taking the trouble to learn"
did learn as follows: In tho year 1894 q
certain party obtained from the State n
grant for one hundred and thirty acres of
land, lying in the upper portion of Geo.
nee and Pickens Counties. 1t Is claimed,
~, -, sls
from the original grantee by descent, sale,
assignment, &c, down to the heirs of G.
W. Brown; but these say there is miss
ing link in their chain of title, and thew
asked Tor the passage of this bill to rem.
edy this defect. On the other hand it
was Learned" that there is an entirely
different party claiming the land in cues.
tion, under the same grant of 1894.
With this party c0nversed several times
while in Columbia. He stated that if
tho rights required under the original
grant had been forfeited for non payment
of taxes, he WAS willing and ready to pay
whatever was right for the States claim.
1t is clear, that it would have been very
improper for the legislative power of the
State TO have interfered, in what Ia now
or Will soon be, contest between indi-
viduals over rights which apparently
conflict. ami that too, without any knovl.
edge as to the legal status of the respec-
tive claimants.
An the Legislature did not have time
to do 'all that it should have doue.n
rs Legislative body, it should not have
wasted time in discharging the functions
Of Il Circuit Court.
The Legislature also learned" or at
least heard that when this grant of 1894
was made, the land office had been closed
by an Act Of the General Assembly and
was TO remain closed for four years.
There is preamble to this act which
among other things recites that many
persons were obtaining grants for large
areas of land with no intention OF :s,s
proving them. This grant, therefore,
may be void on its face. Almost the
entire scope of country covered by the
grant of 1884, has been recovered by
junior grants from the State, whose
officers IL stems have ignored the said
grant.
The House acted also under the vague
impression" Aha: there Is already Law By
which forfeited lands can be redeemed,
aud that 1t Is the prerogative of the sink.
ing tund commission to dispose Of vacant
lands.
Moreover, itseems to me, that It would
be bad precedent for State which has
courts for the adjustment Of claims. and
the trial of titles, to undertake, by isgis.
lulive enactment, to bridge over th,
cha.ms made by the statute of limita.
tions and the carelessness Of individuals.
1t the able editors of the Sentinel and
the lNTELLIGENCER spoke without
knowing, in my humble judgment, they
spoke we'll.
Respectfully.
T. f. Roacs