The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-01-03

school lands leased, compared to that of
University lands, presents a contrast
which willnot be understood by the pub
lie without some explanation. 1t is per-
fectly plain, however, when the circum
stances are given, that these results were
inevitable.
The school lands alternating with other
lands were leased largely by the owners of
these alternates. When the present law
took effect the school lands, to great ex
tent, were occupied by established
ranches, whose owners leased promptly.
Most of these lands were also in reach of
population and sufficiently watered for
immediate nnd profitable use for stock
raising. With the University lands the
conditions are totally different. They are
located in large bodies and in solid blocks,
so that the lessee is compelled to pay for
the whole area appropriated to his
case with school lands. The Univer-
sity lands are without permanent
water, and, for the most part, too
distant from water to be utilized. They
are also remote from population. Thus
the school lands offering superior induce
ments and attractions, and being more
than sufficient to supply all immediate
demands to lease, it is readily perceived
that, under the present conditions, other
results could not reasonably have been
expected.
At present there seems to be no demand
for the purchase of University lands.
Therefore, in order to utilize them for the
purpose for which they have been segre-
gated, it is necessary to adopt one of two
plans; viz: Either the rental must be re-
ouced and the term of lease extended
sufficiently to induce private parties to
develop water and otherwise put these
lands in shape for use, or else the state
must provide the water necessary to make
them profitable and available at the price
now fixed by law. The latter plan is not
desirable even if feasible at all with safety
to the state; hence, it is with confidence
that the recommendation is made that the
rental of the University lands be reduced
to cents per acre per annum, and
the maximum term of the lease extended
to ten years. Another solution still is to
place these lands in the care of the Uni
versity authorities. The regents of the
University are gentlemen in whose hands
the interests of that institution would
doubtless be entirely safe. A careful CON
sideration of this matter may suggest the
wisdom of placing the University lands
under such control, by the issuance of
patents to the regents and their successors
in Office. If this is done, however, the
rights of actual settlers who have settled
upon and improved any of these lands
with view of availing themselves of the
provisions of existing laws should be pro-
nj n thpGp
lands have been occupied for years by
settlers who are awaiting the determine
ton of questions of title. Such settlers
terms as, reasonably, they had right to
expect at the date of their settlement.
1t is clearly against good public policy
that anyone should be allowed to appro-
pirate to his own exclusive use lands be-
longing to the state without paying for
the same. One object of the lease law is
to prevent this. Bat, it is proper,
perhaps, to admit that the chief
object of the lease of the public lands is
revenue. 1t is within the province of
craftsmanship to inquire into the work
ings and effect of the law up to this time,
with view of safely determining whether
or not the interests of the whole people
and the prosperity of the state may not
be advanced by some modifcationlof the
same. From experience, as stated above
it is demonstrated that reduction OF
price and extension of term ia necessary
| to secure the lease of University lands.
| Would not similar reduction of the lease
price of school lands increase the reve-
nues therefrom? Would this reduction
decrease the revenues! If not, then ev
cry argument is on the side of reduction
and every Other consideration demands it
| The welfare of the western two thirds OF
our great state depends largely upon the
prosperity of the stock raising industry
| The extreme west has almost no other re-
source available at present. Stock-farm-
ing, perhaps, will eventually be the chief
| industry of large portions of that section
| This being true, the laws and policy OF
the state should be such as will encourage
that development to which that section is
adapted. 1t were better that the state
should err in the other direction and tenn
porarily lose little revenue rather than
pursue policy which is an incubus and
retards progress and prosperity. The
state may prevent free use and occupancy
of her lands, but she cannot compel leases
in other words, leases must be voluntary
and conseq uently the terms must be suf-
foiently attractive to induce people to
make them. Which terms may be
changed again in future to meet changed
conditions.
IT'S true that when the present law
took effect many companies, firms and in
dividuals were compelled to lease prompt
ly to avoid the penalties which would have
been ruinous had liability been incurred,
but now that all these adjustments have
been made, it is, for tho future, simply g
question of profit and advantage to any
one who may be inclined to lease. II
must also be remembered that the four
cents per acre in advance now Fixed by
law is not the only outlay which the lessee
must make TO secure the benefits of his
contract with the state. He must fence
his land in order to appropriate it 20 his
own exclusive use, and this involves an
outlay of from, say, cents TO 81 per acre,
according to the area embraced in his
lease. In many cases also he must pro-
vide water by artificial means. The term
of the lease is now fixed at not more than
five years, and for lands classed as sgri-
cultural at not more than four; hence, it
is seen that the yearly rental paid the
state, is, in many instar ces, but small
part of the outlay necessary to secure the
privileges enjoyed. These leases are con-
ditional to and ject to change or an
! L., h. ok ha anH IF