Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-01-11

| July s., 1879, provided in section y a
method whereby sach lands
sH0UED BECOME FeRFEETED
on failure OF the purchaser to fulfill his
contract, yet the method was limited to
/ lands lying in organized counties, and
was of itself so inefficient in that it de-
! pended upon the services of a number of
! officials aad provided 10 means of pay
/ ment for services rendered, that il IS be-
/ Iieyed not to have been put in force
! Under this act lands were sold on ten
! years time with interest at the rate of 10
| per. cent per annum. The act approved
| April 6, 1881 merely extended the opera
| ton Of the law of 1879 to unorganized
! counties and provided for sales on twenty
! years time at per cent; but as section
| IL of the former law was not
amended or further provision made for
n penalty on non compliance, the condi-
| ton Of affairs was not materially i'm
! proved. On May 2 1882, section 5 of
| the above acts was amended in so far as
| the payment of interest was concerned 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 for 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 8 per cent. and in section
10 provided that Tsthe faiInre to pay the
interest shall ipso facfo work forfeiture,
and the entry on the account shall be ey-
idenee of the fact, and there shall be no
necessity for judicial aScertainment of
the facts of the foreclosure, and no de-
faultmg purchaser or those claiming I'M
der him shall evade or avoid the effect
OF such forfeiture at once by reason of
any statute or law which for coveFture ),
infancy or the like would otherwise give
them additional time for payment or ac-
ton. -
1t is not at all remarkable that this
emphatic and vigorous declaration should
have been
DEEMED SUFFICIENT,
if constitutional, to move the tardy deb
tor to more prompt diligence, and these
provisions were re- enacted on the 9Th of
February, 1855, with the concession that
if the purchaser would pay up by the 1st
of August next, after his land was for
feited on the lSt of March, the penalty
should not attach But ten days after
wards the legislature passed the follow
ing act:
''That the failure of holder of public
free school, university, or asylum land
under contract of purchase from the
state, to make the annual payments of
principal or interest thereon prior TO the
Ist of August after the same becomes
due, shall not cause q forfeiture of the
rights of such holder in such land
1t appears to me singularly unfortunate
that the words "pTincipaI or interest,"
were used in conjunction, as failure to
pay the principal could not work for
fixture for the term of years embraced in
the executed contract of sale under the
several acts mentioned and
as the interest is but the mere
ment of the principal, it begets
doubt with some as to whether it did
not repeal the former clauses of forfeit
ture even were they held not
to be repugnant TO the consti-
tuition. Indeed find that in the
opinion of many both the last named
laws contravene the spirit of section 4,
article VII of the organic law. Should
this be the correct view, we are rele-
gated to the act of 1888, and the means
therein provided for determining the
contract between fhe state and the de-
lmquent purchaser. But in any event it
is painfully true that there is now due the
school fund from the sales of 1879, 1881
and 1888, $500 900, and if forfeiture can
not be made without a judicial ascer-
tainment, or if upon investigation by the
legislature it is shown conclusvely that
there is not force and vigor enough in the
present legal remedies which are sane
toned by the organic law, the necessi-
ties of the several interests to which
these funds belong is enough to move
your honorable bodies to deliberate dill
genee in devising a clear and definite
remedy to be as speedily taken as due
consideration will allow.
In this connection your attention is
further called to the fact that many citf-
zens 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
as interpreted and administered by this
board, find that by a recent decision Of our
court of last resort they are without valid
titles, and their values swept away. and
while this decision from legal stand
point cannot be criticised or questioned,
yet as a matter Of public policy l trust 1
may be excused for expressing my belief
that a compliance by the purchaser in
good faith with the conditions of these
regulations should entitle him as mat
ter of right TO hold the land, not only
against other claimants but against the
state, or to receive
AMPLE PROTECTION AGAINST LOSS.
1t seems to me to impart to such a trans
action the moral force of contract, and
should vest the purchaser with right of
property in the land, only to be
forfeited by his neglect, or
refusal to comply with the condi-
tons prescribed. This puts the state up
on the same footing of an ordinary land
holder dealing with his lands, and sub
ject to the same rules
which prevail between man and
man, in the daily business trans
actions of life. The state having COM
plete dominion of this property, pre-
scribes its own terms and creates its own
machinery for its management and dis
position, and in equity, if not by the |
strictest letter of the law, it should be
held bound to complete liability when |
its terms as set forth by its legally con-
stituted agents have been accepted and |
acted upon in good faith. What should |
be thought of a proprietor of private |
landed interest if after he had encourage |
ed honest men to accept his proposals and |