The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-10-17


ferred to hereafter. Let us
consider first, the legality of
the transfer of the Waco and North
western land grant to the Houston and
Texas Central Railroad company.
sLAsHING DECISIONS.
In the several decisions of the SUI
preme court in the case of Shirley VS..
Railroad, it has been decided that this
land grant did not pass to the Hous-
ton and Texas Central Railroad COM
pany by the trust deed, nor by the act
OF merger, but in the last decision of
this case, rendered January 90, 1889,
the court says: 1--WE are of the opin-
ion that the title to the land donation
of the Waco and Northwestern Rail-
road company did not vest in the Hous-
ton and Texas Central Railroad COM
pany by the terms of the conveyance
executed to the latter in February,
1873, but this acquisition of the land
donation was consummated by the
Houston and Texas Central Railroad
company on January "a, 1874" which
is the date of the deed executed by the
president of the Waco and Northwest.
ern to the Houston and Texas Central
Railway company, now ON file in this
Office.
2. Was the land grant of the Waco
and Northwestern Railroad company
ever earned from the state? The vouch-
ers in usual form, on file in this office,
indicate that said grant was earned as
other grants were at that period. In
the case of the Houston and Texas
Central Railroad Company VS.. w. J.
Quinlan, in the district court of
Travis county, March term, 1889,
this question was raised by
defendant who argued that said grant
was not earned, etc. The court, how
ever, gave judgement for plaintiff, viz:
the Houston and Texas Central Rail
road company, assignee of the Waco
and Northwestern railroad company,
and cancelled the patents under which
the defendant claimed the land in
conflict with unpatented surveys
made by virtue of certificates issued
to the Waco and Northwestern Rail
road company. Appeal was taken,
however, and the question as to
whether this grant was earned or not
will be passed on by the supreme
court without the necessity, perhaps,
OF another suit to test it. In the
meantime, of course, this department
will issue no patents by virtue of said
certificates.
3. AS to whether the Houston and
Texas Central railroad was entitled to
land for necessary sidings or turnOuts
is to be determined by the act of JAN
uary 3d. 1854, entitled Gan act to en-
courage the construction of railroads
in Texas by donations of land" Sec
ton | and that part of section y,
quoted below, are the only portions OF
said act bearing on the question.
Section l. "Be it enacted, etc,
That any railroad companies charter
ed by the legislature, hereafter or
heretofore, constructing within the
limits of Texas a section of twenty-five
miles or more of railroad shall be
entitled to receive from the state a
grant of sixteen sections of land for
every mile of road so constructed and
put in running order.
Sec. II. "The provisions of this
act shall not extend to any company
receiving from the state grant of
more than sixteen sections of land,
nor to any company for more than
single track road, with the necessary
turnouts," etc. The words "with the
necessary turnouts" mean certainly
that the road should take no land for
unnecessary turnouts. 1t was for the
governor to determine from the re-
ports of his inspectors whether a given
turnout was necessary or not. The
object of the law was to encourage the
construction of railroads by means of
donations of land. A necessary turn
out is an essential part of a road, es-
sential to its operation.
A DIRECT QUESTION.
1t is road. If it was not intended
to give land for turnouts these words
are superhuous and meaningless. Had
the intention been to give no lands
for sidings would not these words
have been omitted? That necessary
turnOuts took land is the construction
given this statute by Cows. Davis,
Coke and Hubbard, all three eminent
as lawyers, and by my predecessors in
office. If they were mistaken, even if
their acts were illegal, should the
state question now? Should
she attempt to reimburse
herself at the expense of innocent
purchasers now holding in good faith,
it matters not whether they be corpo-
rations or individuals, citizens or
aliens?
POLITICAL CLAPTRAP PARALYZED.
No one thing, perhaps, is so de-
structive to prosperity and develop
ment as uncertainty in land titles. 1t
paralyzes effort, prevents investment
and improvement.
Every consideration of public inter
est and good policy suggests that the
effort OF those with power or in posi-
ton to WELD an influence be exerted
to heal, to restore and extend conf