The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1889-10-24

preme court and applying the same.
lis true the state was not a party to
the suit of Shirley VS.. Railroad, cited in
my former letter, but if Judges Hobby
and Stayton, when they say that the
acquisition of the land grant of the
Waco and Northwestern was consum-
mated by the Houston and Texas
Central railroad by deed of a certain
date, meant that said deed was illegal
and void, then you are right in your
conclusions that the case does not
apply and your contempt for my abil-
ity to apply an opinion is just. Pos
sibly said deed may be voidable from
some other cause, and successfully i'm
peached on account of fraud or some
thing else, but how the state can be
interested in the question or become
party in such a controversy am
not sufficiently intelligent and en-
lightened to understand.
ADDS GALL TO BITTERNESS.
If, again, you are correct when you
hold that the repeal of the act of jan
uary 80, 1854, cancelled all railroad
charters, of which it formed a part,
and the adoption of the constitution
of 1869 annihilated all vested rights
then existing and started the world
anew, then it matters not what the
proper construction is of said
act, and l am again con-
victed of ignorance. AS to, the time
and effect of the repeal of said act.
(See Railroad Keuchler, VS.. Com
missioner, sc Tex)
The only statute which you are con-
siderate enough to refer to, and con-
strue for me is the act Of August Is,
1876, under which the Houston and
Texas Central railroad never applied
for or received a certificate, the last
certificate issued to said road being
dated April TO- 1874.
l do not feel at liberty to indulge
the contempt for district court de-
cisions which you inculcate. In the
case of Houston and Texas Central
railroad VS.. w. ]. Quinlan, quoted in
my former letter, the facts are that
Quinlan was the owner of patents
made by virtue of valid certificates,
and there was no defect in his title
except that his surveys were in con-
hict with older surveys made by virtue
of certificates issued to the Waco and
Northwestern Railroad company,
which you claim we're never earned
but are void. Quinlan in his defense
aised this question as 1 stated, and
also the question of the legality
of the transfer of the certificates to
the Houston and Texas Central rail-
road. The district court, however,
cancelled Quinlan's patents and gave
the land to the Houston and Texas
Central railroad assignee of the Waco
and Northwestern. One object l had
in referring to this before was to save
you, "pressed by other heavy, import
ant litigation" from useless loss of
time.
LET THE STATE BE HONEST.
When I discussed precedent 7 did
not propose to set it up in estoppel of
the state, but l hoped that my re-
marks would be sufficient when your
attention was called to such uniform
contemperaneous construction as the
history of the issuance of certificates
for sidings displayed, that you would
be willing to admit that purchaser
now holding under patent is pur-
chaser in good faith, and no proper
defendant for such suits as you con-
template. Nearly all the certificates
involved in this question of sidings
were patented years ago. Thousands
of citizens of our state are purchasers
of these lands, large proportion of
whom, of course, are actual
settlers. Do you now propose
to bring suit against each
and all these citizens, or only lay
claim to such lands as remain unalien-
ated from the original grantee? In
other words, is it your intention to
bring thousands of suits or only a
few? Some expression on this sub
iect would relieve public suspense,
perhaps carry JOY to many a house
hold. | have no solicitude in this
matter for any railroad, syndicate or
land corporation. They are able to
fully protect themselves and defend
all their legal rights. More than is
legally theirs they should not be al
ed to hold. But do insist that the
state should be willing to admit that
citizen claiming under patent is
sued and sealed by such governor, as
say, Roberts, an ex-chief justice, is a
purchaser in good faith, when nothing
is wrong about his title except that
another governor directed the issu-
ance of certificates for sidings.
You seem to be exercised over the
fact that the Houston and Texas
Central railroad has been eager re-
Gently to secure patents to their lands.
Their eagerness has been restrained
sufficiently to compel them to comply
with the requirements of this office
that they resurvey and put up corners
on all their unpatented land and they
have received patents only as this
work progressed. And now, through
out the whole extent of the land
granted to this road, the man in
search of a school section finds his
| a,,,,or, oe+ob1iobod Tho sopna hoc