The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-01-17

Office which leaves but little to record
here. and this report, in connection
with that of the Treasurer,
will exhibit the Improvements
made and revenue derived
1t will be seen that the receipts from
sales and leases amount to Sooo,VVV'
and the estimated receipts from inter-
est on land sales alone for the year
1889 amounts to $4,000, and from
leases Sl69,O0O, making a total Oh
SS79, 900. This embraces what are
deemed valid claims. which when col
lected constitute available school fund.
1t will be understood, however, tnaV
| this is to some extent conJecturaI, silIGo
all losses that may ensue from forfeit
ures, corrections in surveys anu coh-
| fiicts must be deducted.
The leases in perfect standing amount
to $3.50, 1922. To this may be adueG
S14, $40 for leases in Greer county ana
S26,Ol7.36 suits on delinquent leases
making a total of 500, 020OS. In an an
probability the two latter items VIII VIII
! fall short of estimated results. lt%jll
be seen that the interest past que the
school fund and accruing under the
several acts prior to 1887 is estimated
at $500, 900.
1t has been found that while the act
of July s, 1879, provided in section II
a method whereby such lands shoulu
become forfeited on failure of the pur-
chaser to fulfill his contracts, yet the
method was limited to lands lying III
organized counties, and was in itself SO
inefficient, in that it depended upon
the services of a number Of officials
and provided no means of payment loT
services rendered, that it is believed
not to have been put in force. UnueT
this act lands were sold on ten years
time, with interest at the rate OF III per
cent per annum. The act approved
April 6, 1881, merely extended the
operation of the law of 1879 to un0r-
ganized counties, and provided for sales
on twenty years time at s per cent,
butas section 2of the former law was
not amended or further provision made
for a penalty on noncompliance the
condition of affairs was not materially
improved. On May 2, 1882, section .
of the above acts was amended in so
far as the payment of interest was con-
cerned in the latter, the requirement
being that it "Should be paid on the
full amount of the principal unpaid at
the date of each payment OF interest,
but no provision was made Tor the
enforcement of the contract.
The act of April II, 1888, made the
terms of purchase less onerous, giving
thirty years time. and reduced the
rate of interest to five per cent, and IN
section 10, provided that "the failure
to pay the interest shall ipso tacto
work a forfeiture, and the entry on
the account shall be evidence OF the
fact, and there shall be no necessity
for judicial ascertainment of the facts
of the forfeitures, and no defaulting
purchaser or those claiming under
him shall evade or avoid the effect OF
such forfeiture at once by reason OF any
statute or law which for coverture, in
fancy or the like, would otherwise give
them additional time for payment or
action"
1t is not at all remarkable that this
emphatic and vigorous declaration
should have been deemed sufficient,
if constitutional, to move the tardy
debtor to more prompt diligence, and
these provisions were re-enacted on
| lllG JUL VI LC'JT NAtAA Wv
concession that if the purchaser would
pay up by the 1st of August next
, after his land was forfeited on the lst
of March, the penalty should not at,
tach. But ten days afterwards the Leg
: islature passed the following act:
"That the failure of holder of pub
lie free school, university or asylum
land, under contract Of purchase from
the State, to make the annual pay
: ments of principal or interest thereon
. prior to the 1st of August after the
same becomes due, shall not cause g
forfeiture of the rights of such holder
: in such land"
f 1t appears to me singularly unfor
, tunate that the word "principal' Oh
"interestn were used in conjunction
as failure to pay the principal could
+ not work a forfeiture for the term Of
q years embraced in the executed con.
! tract of sale under the several act;
i mentioned, and as the interest is but
) the increment of the principal, it be-
a gets q doubt with some, as to whether
! it did not repeal the former clauses Of
forfeiture even were they held not t
| be repugnant to the cons titution
y Indeed, find that in the opinion Of
= many, both the last named laws con.
travene the spirit of section 4, article
I VII of the organic law. Should this
. be the correct view, we are RELOCATED
f to an act of 1883 and the means therein
| provided for determining the con.
f tract between the State, and
! the delinquent purchaser. But in any
event, it is painfully true that there i:
now due the school fund from the
sales of 1879, 1881 and 1883 half mil.
; lion of dollars. And if forfeiture can
| not be made without a judicial ascer.
tainment, or if upon investigation bv
( the Legislatureltis shown conclusively
! that there is not force and vigor
enough in present legal remedies
3 which are sanctioned by organic law.
the necessities Of the several interests
: to which these funds belong is enough
f to move your honorable bodies to de.
! liberate diligence in devising a clear
! and definite remedy to be az speedily
! taken as due consideration will allow
I In this connection your attention ia
I further directed to the fact that many
citizens purchasing lands under the
: act of 1888 as modified BY the rules Of
the Land Board, after they have made
payments, and complied in good
faith with the law q. in
terDreted and Administered -