Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-28

THE ETHICS Of THE LAND Law.
The San Antonio Times skilfully evades
an answer of THE GAZETTE IS question as
to the ethics OF that feature of the Texas
land system which provides for for
fixture of the land and all prior pay
ments upon it of a settler who fails to
pay upon the very day it becomes due the
annual interest due upon the land on the
lst of August of each year. To the hypo-
thetical case put by THE GAZETTE, Illus
trating cases of frequent occurrence
under the school land law, the Times
replies that ''the vendor would be per-
fectly justifiable in enforcing his lien. -
But the Times does not assert, and it will
not assert, that the vendor would be en-
titled to retain all the purchase money
paid upon the land, all the an
nual interest payments upon the land,
the improvements upon the land and the
land itself, out of which the obligation
arose, leaving the purchaser q bankrupt
because of his inability to meet a small
obligation ON the exact day of It's ma
turity.
It is one thing to enforce a lien, it is
another thing to escheat the property of
citizen to the state because he cannot
pay his dues to the state
Suppose a citizen were unable to pay
his taxes when called upon by the state,
would it have the right to forfeit the
property upon which the taxes were as
sessed? This obligation is as sacred as
the rights correlative.
Such a proceeding would not be so
harsh and arbitrary, as is the decree
of forfeiture of school lands for non-pay-
ment of interest money on the exact day
of maturity. A forfeiture for delay
i'll the payment of taxes might
not involve ali the property of
the citizen, but every case of forfeiture
of school land escheats to the state all the
Accommodations of the settler, who of ne
cessity puts into the land all his available
funds in the effort to develop it.
The claim of the Times that the right
of forfeiture is one of the considerations
of the contract was perhaps not
made seriously, nor intended to receive
a serious reply. The mortgage of land
may claim a right of forfeiture as one of
the considerations of his contract, but
should he attempt TO enforce such a con-
tract lie would be summarily kicked out
of court
How can the state defend q claim
which its judges declare so grossly inequi-
table as to render a contract void?
Is it true that the moral essence of an
action is changed because of its perpetra-
ton by a state?
THE GAZETTE does not so believe, nor
will it credit the Times with such belief
until it distinctly afIirms it.
Long ago Imprisonment for debt was
abolished in this country; it has never |
been permitted in Texas. Yet the sys-
TEN of which THE GAZETTE complains |
works a greater hardship than imprison-
ment.
1t confiscates all the property of the citi- |
zen because of his inability to pay debt. |
1t inficts more serious penalty for |
the nom payment of interest money on !
school lands, on a certain day than |
it visits upon the author of grave felOnies
1t makes delay in the payment of a
debt due the state a crime punished with |
a penalty against which there is a consti-
tutional inhibition even III the case of
treason.
In the face of these incontestable facts,
upon what ground can it be denied that
toward the actual settler upon the pub
lie domain the state is guilty of conduct
which in a private citizen would be pro-
without dissenting voice,
plain, indefensible tyrannical swind-
ling.