Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-12-24
FAgMF LAND LAWS
How the State Has Thrown OBJ
stacles in the Settlers Way.
a Ian Should be. Allowed to Leave His
Claim Whenever Business or Ne
ceSsity Demands 1t.
The Laws Should be Revised and Liberalized
and the Poor Encouraged to Come to
Texas for Cheap Homes.
FROM HALL COUNTY


SALISBURY, HALL COUNTY, Tex, Dec. Il, 1883.
To the Gazette.
am glad 10 see that THE GAZETTE,
which has at all times been the friend of
the oman with the hoe, - favors a re-
vision of the state land laws. The settler
and prOspector have long known that the
present laws were harsh and unjust, and
now that The GAZETTE has taken the
matter III hand to inform the public gen.
orally OF this fact, we hope and trust that
you will not let up until we are granted
more liberal laws by the next legislature.
The state has at all times thrown OBJ
stacies i'll the settler way, when it
thought no doubt it was encouraging him.
Now for a sample we call your attention
to that part of the law which requires Il
three years residence upon the land.
The latter part OF the law is where the
trouble IS. 1t says: "And if any pur-
chaser shall fail to reside upon and i'm
prove III good faith the land purchased
by him he shall forfeit said land and all
payments made thereon to the state, and
such land shall be again for sale rs if no
such sale and forfeiture hap occurred. -
cit will be again sold TO any applicant
who complies with the law % r. NJ H.
circular.
So far it Is good enough, but under the
present construction of tlp law, if a set
tier leaves his claim from any cause
whatever during the first three years,
whether he has improved it or not,
cit will be again sold to any applicant
whqcoInplies with the law
s{.>9fie law distinctly says if he "shall fail
to reside upon and lmprOve' he shall for
faI% ln,,, Il
on; but no mention that I know of is
made of improved claims being forfeited,
yet under this same law [ know of seve-
raj settlers who lost their cl aims because
they had to leave them during the re-
cent drouth, and some of them had pref
tv good improvements on them, and they
lost every dollar they had invested in
land and improvements. Now, is there
any justice in this? Should man
not be allowed to leave
his claim whenever business
or necessity demanded it! or is there any
encouragement to Il poor man to invest
his all i'll Improvements under such law
or such construction of the law? 1t is
risky enough here, God knows, and let
the state do her best for lis, but with
drouth on one side and the state on the
other to gobble up our little, the risks are
more than doubled under the present
construction of the law settlers on state
school land are sort of states prisoners
for three years, and let it come drouth or
what it will if they make u break for
their liberty and leave their claims, no
matter whether their improvements are
worth $50 or $1,000, whether they have
been on them one month or two years,
they are forfeited to the state, and sit
will be again sold to any applicant who
complies with the law
1t is well known fact that men of
means are not going into a new country
until it is first proved by poor men. So
justice demands and the people should
demand that the land laws be revised and
and the poor encouraged to
come here instead of being deferred, and
if this country is fit for anything the state
will soon reap the benefits of her liberal
policy. d. S. TROY.