Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-09-20
THE HEALING ACT.
1t Validates the Sales to Parties Who
Have Purchased in Good Faith.
If There is Any Discrimination 1t is in Favor
of the Actual Settler-True Situa-
ton in Coke County.
SAN ANTONIO, TEX, Sept. Is, 1889

Under the above heading we read an
article in THE GAZETTE signed MANY
Actual Settlers, - sometime since and
reprinted in full by the San Angelo
Standard, September Z, 1889.
1t is an unpleasant task to answer an
article like the above, made up wholly of
misquotations and false statements of
facts and law We do not consider it worth
while to reply to the spiteful personal
attacks made upon Mr.. L. b. Harris by
the writer, as this gentleman and his
family are too well known and esteemed
in this county, where he has been one of
the earliest settlers and an honorable
citizen for the past thirteen years. For
those who have read the article and are
not acquainted with Mr.. Harris
the following viii be sufficient
to show the unjustness Of the
attack Mr. L. b. Harris came to
Texas with his parents in 1888
at lineage of six years and has continu-
ously resided IN Texas. In 1914 he joined
the rangers, and was ordered with his
company in 1916 TO Mexico, where he did
valuable service. In 1917 his company
was sent to Burnet, and he was one of
the nineteen rangers who kept 600 Com
anche Indians at bay and finally drove
them back at the place where the town of
Lampasas is now fiourishing. In 1851 he
was a member of the United States
service under Gen. Mccullough for
frontier protection. In 1876 Mr..
Harris came to this county when
'eMany Actual Settlers were en-
joying life III some Eastern vii
lage, to make it his permanent home,
and ever since he has resided here with
his family. The widely published article
has been eagerly read by many parties
Intending TO locate homes in this county,
and the misstatemeuts therein found may
be taken as true by people not familiar
with our laws, and acting upon the same
will involve themselves in litigation,
disquiet our land titles and disturb the
purchasers of school lands, who well de-
serve to be protected in the possession of
their property.
1t is not our purpose to defend Messrs.
Hall or Hogg, but we wish to show that
the so-Called healing act passed by the
late legislature validated the sales made
by the land board under the act of April
u, 1887, commonly known as the seven
section act.
The writer of the article in question
seems to think the above quoted acts I'M
constitutional without quoting the con-
stiturion or giving any reason for his
opinion.
Article s, section of the constitution
reads as follows:
The land herein set apart for the pub
lie free school fund shall be sold under such
regulations, at such times and on such terms as
may be prescribed by law; and the legislature
shall have 40 power to grant any relief to pur-
chaserS thereof.
We 90 not find any other act in our
constitution bearing on this question.
The constitutiOnality of this act under
this section of the constitution has never
been decided by the supreme court,
but it has been held constitutional by our
district courts, and in the case of Barker
VS.. ToTTey E69 Tex. our supreme
court held that the act of February 10,
1885, extending the time of interest pay
ments from March l to August l to pur-
chasers of school land, is not in conflict
with the quoted article of the oonstitu-
ton.
There is certainly no difference in
granting an extension of time for the
payment of interest to a purchaser of !
these school lands and in validating an
informal sale made to him by high Of
hcials in regard to their con-
stitutiOnaIity. In both cases the |
obligation Of the purchaser to |
I
ance with his contract continues and the |
state, like any other creditor, can en-
force these contracts. The ratification /
of irregular sales of the land board Ger
tainly does not relieve the purchaser |
from his obligation and therefore cannot |
be said to conflict with the constitution |
Furthermore, the rule is: Claw will |
not be held unconstitutional unless it is |
clearly so, and III case Of doubt it viii be /
held valid -
How is the purchaser relieved when |
the state merely makes good her part of /
the contract? As TO apparent discrim-
nation Of the purchasers under the act !
of 1888, and the rulings of the land board |
upon which the writer of the article IN
question seems to lay so much stress, we
win say: When the school land was
first put upon the market under the act
Of 1888, actual settlement was
not required from the purchaser,
but as the lands were taken
up rapidly, the landgboard soon refused
to sell except 70 actual settlers and ac-
tual settlement was made a part of the
contract TO purchase.
Mr.. Harris and many others bought
when the school lands were first put upon
the market and before the land board re-
CURED actual settlement under the act of
4 pTil y, 1888, and these titles are val
dated by the late legislature under the
section:
Section I of the act approved March u,
1889, provides:
Be it enacted by the legislature of the state
IF Texas that all contracts made by the |
and board of the state of Texas for the sale of
.he free school. university and asylum lands
lnder the act of April L. 1883, to any person
who has in good faith made such purchase and
n good faith has complied with the require
nents Of said act, the rules and regulations of
ne state land bOaTJi, and the terms and condi-
ions of his said contract. shall be and are
hereby made valid and binding upon the state in
he same manner as If the said land board had in
I'll particulars complied with the requirements
IF said law.
This section 1 Of the so-called healing
lct of 1889 vaiidates the sales OF parties
who have in good faith purchased the
ands and have complied with the law
and the regulations of the land board and |
he terms and conditions of their con-
ract.
Section of said act refers to a distinct |
lass of purchasers, and was intended tc
20 yer certain irregularities in relation to
settlement and occupancy, who, without
his section, would have been excluded