Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-27

The Post doesn't remember to have
seen any opposition 10 the land bill In
The GAZETTE until the day before the
veto message was made public. Mean
time 1t must be borne in mind that
THE GAZETTE had sharp cores
pendent at Austin, one who Is capable
of telling his paper how to "catch on"
- Houston Post.
The veto was proclaimed April 18th.
The Post is respectfully referred to
THE GAZETTE of March 18th, second
page, second column, and to numerous
issues Of the paper subsequent to the
veto. The GAzETrE's correspondent
was capable OF telling his paper
how to "catch on,r but THE
GAZETTE is not of the "catch
on kind. There are certain
members Of the legislature who
could testify to the opposition OF
THE GAZETTE TO the new land bill
from the day the senate laid its inn
plous hand upon that measure, and to
its advocacy Of the bill under protest
all the time.
THE GAzErrE's opposition to lease
law needs no demonstration; but this
paper In common with free-grass MEM
bers of the legislature, knew the hope
lessness Of any effort for It's repeal by
the NINth. These gentlemen, and
THE GAZETTE in Difference to their
wishes, had no wish to offer futile
objection to the inevitable. The free.
grass men sought and only hope to
eliminate from the inevitable lease
law as much n possible its obstruction
to the settlement OF the country Had
the new law been framed early In the
session 1t would have been an extreme
measure, and the compromise features
of the bill as 1t went to the governor
was n splendid tribute to the activity
and earnestness OF free-grass men and
marks the rapid progress of the anti
lease sentiment when dispassionat,
argument can be made.
II was the growth Of this anti-leas,
sentiment that made OF the new lant
bill both lease and sale law. 1t was
the most efficient lease law that will
ever be enacted in Texas, for If mel
could not have been forced or induced
TO lease under that law 1t will b,
found impossible TO construct Law
, that will compel leasing. But whil
this is true, the new bill was also
decided improvement on the presen
complicated method OF selling
. public lands. For this reason, the bill
was supported by advocates and op
. ponents OF the leasing system, and To-
y the same reason the new land bill wa
opposed by the extreme advocates an,
opponents of the lease law.
a IL the Post would concede to other
, the same honesty of purpose which
claims for itself there would be n
: difficulty In understanding why som
"a free-grass men outside OF the legisls
u ture rejoiced at the veto. 1t was
Il choice OF evils from their standpoint
10 on one hand was the land board o
n the other, was the new bill whlc
II gave over the unorganized counties fc
o ak years TO the cattle raisers, bu
which facilitated settlement In tho o.
ganized counties. And back of a
n was the huge lease.law majority &
d the legislature. Some free grass me
u preferred the new bill; others, the Ian
q. board. Before the senate amende
er the bill, THE GAZETTE preferred it I
y the land board. When theprovlsior
" facilitating settlement were eliminate
10 or weakened by the senate and the
" by the conference committee TIL
o. GAZETTE preferred the land board |
10 a law that irreversibly for six yea
tied up the unorganized counties frol
settlement. Six years Is long tia
m in Texas, and the vetoed bill place
~ II beyond the power OF any legisl
ly ture to annul the leases, As II is, II
la repeal of the lease law IN toto is po
lie sibiiity. Does the Post concede Il
m argument