The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1886-01-21
CATTLE CHATTER.
fcontinued from Second Page.l


commissioners tell us under oath that this
state of facts exists.
DR.. A. E. Carothers, of San Antonio
We ought not to make charge which we
cannot substantiate.
Col. Simpson, do not object because
the rsen of North Texas are not here to
defend themselves, but l contend you
have no right to point out that section.
1t is said by party who is now on this
floor that have 10000 acres illegally en-
closed.
Capt. j. D. Swink Zone of the grass
commissioners)- Yes, sir. The abstract
shows it.
Col Simpson-With all due Difference to
the gentlemen, will state that offered
the board six cents an acre, and they re-
fused it.
DIR. Carothers-And the reports of these
same gentlemen are not true as to forty
eight sections have, and some Starlight
q Carothers have.
Col. Simpson-If we look back year
or two at the stock business, we find it has
continued to go down and down. You say
this is because of the Panhandle and Kan
sas quarantine, but we say the Terrell
plan, the herd law and the land board
make our lands worthless. They have
done us more harm than all the quaran-
tines in the states and the Indian terrific
ry. And, as to the quarantine, think, if
this convention had met in North Texas,
nothing would have been said about quar-
antine. YOU have but comparatively
little of the school lands in the other sec
tions of the state. We are the parties af
fected. Half of our lands are school
lands, and we offered to pay for it. You
have the fence cutters, and we have but
few men who don't want to pay.
Capt. North, of Austin-I wish to offer
substitute. 1t might be well to strike
out the words be compelled My sub
stitute is to strike out these words and in
sert in their place the words, "all persons
unlawfully holding lands" so as to make
it apply to nesters and rustlers.
Mr.. Seligson, of Galveston think Mr..
Simpson is wrong in his Interpretation
of the effect of the section, as being an
imputation upon north Texas. We desire
nothing bat even-handed justice to all
parts of the state. We are not here to
speak of any higher law, or assumptions
by the land board. So far as Col, Simp-
son is concerned, l believe he has COM
piled with the law The report don't re-
fleet upon him, or any man who has, or
upon any section of the state
more than another, simply because some
in it may not have acted according to
law. l recognize free grass as the great
bane and bone of contention. 1t has pro-
duced the nippers, and this is what causes
the decline in lands Only three weeks
ago Mr. Pierce had twelve or fifteen
miles of fence cut. Another man had con-
siderable school land fenced in; another
had 10000 head of cattle, and only 5000
acres of land-ten thousand head drifted
away, and when they tried to get back
the fences were cut so they could. These
are facts, and facts are stubborn things.
Now, there are thirty millions of acres of
these lands, only ten million acres of
which are in north Texas. So there is
more of this land somewhere else in the
state. We are not responsible for the ac-
ton of the land board, and don't see
anything in the resolution that reflects
upon the men of north Texas. Why
should the gentleman assume that the
resolution pertains to north Texas, be-
cause north Texas is not named as an ex-
ception to the rule?
NAON $500
to say whether the governor or the land
board is right. l don't think the stock
men generally are in favor of free-grass'
At Victoria, some land was rented from
the International railroad. Some twenty
thousand head of cattle drifted among
the horses, and the man who rented the
lands drove them back, and the range OF
the party who owned 10000 head of cattle
was burned. The cause of this was free
grass. say let us strike out the free
grass idea as something belonging to thu
past Let us keep step to the music o.
we will be left side tracked on the road tt
progress and prosperity.
Col. Simson-The fight on free grass i
over two years ago 1t was fought OF
the Terrell bill. There is no free gras
fight with us. We want the land and W
want to pay for it,.
Mr.. Nelson's a member OF the com
mittee raised the same objection to thi
clause, that Col. Simpson does, but a
there is a good deal of school land II
southern Texas, | waive that objection
The clause, however, is too strong, ant
may be.taken by some as a reflection upol
north Texas. We think we are in tn
right in having rendered cents, and som
bidding and some cents, as demande
in the land board. l am willing, however
10 let it go.
Mr.. Frank Maddox, of Austin - TIL
bone of contention seems to be the word
''usurpation" and favored class" | say
if any man desires to pay, and has mad
tender of cents, he is not an usurpel
We took it for granted that when mai
bid cents and rendered it. he was com
plying with the law, if the board had don
its duty. That being the highest bid, h
could not be called an usurper. 1t Col
Simpson has bid cents, as he says, he i
not an usurper, and the resolution don
make him one for it don't apply to sucl
cases. So don't see no objection to thu
resolution as it came from the committee
1 don't see why it should be an objection
even where man lives in the Panhandle
do not live there, but TIN
Day Land and Cattle company, o
which l am member, have 144,000 acre
near there and in order to avoid the pre-
.Niudices from the grass commissioners re
nofts. we bid six cents for it. Still
Ipo1lld not admit we would be usurpers i
welhad bid but four cents. The use of tn
word usurpers should not be considered
os Abplving to those men who applied