Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-03-17

|
| with or have any interdependent relation to the
one on which the question at issue ponds. 1t
| also alludes to legislative and executive con-
struction, but fails to cite the law, the acts or
| the messages, and it asks fifteen questions, to
most OF which no pretense of answer is made.
The courts argument that the ''one-half''
clause is not self-executing fails. because the
principle is well settled in Texas that ''any pro-
vision of constitution is self-executing to the
| extent that anything done in violation of it is
! void. - [ ee Watson VS.. Aiken, So Texas, 53s;
| Hemphill IS. Watson, Gu Texas, 679l.
Besides this, the constitution expressly pro-
vides that ''the legislature shall pass such laws
as may be necessary to carry into effect the pro-
visions of the constitution - Article 8, section
AZ. If, therefore, the legislature failed to pass
II it passed law contravening it, or if the rail-
| way company located on land appro-
R5ted by it, the to act in f, whole u
| necessarily void. BY positive legislation, how
| ever, it has been put in force. Rev. Stats,
| SIO3, 4OS1.
In explaining the object Of the ''one-half''
| clause, the court contends that it was intended
| 'to reach and hold beyond legislative control
! whatever portion OF the public domain remained
! after the execution OF the enumerated pur-
! poses.'' What enumerated purposes?'' Where
| were they enumerated? What was the part of
public domain that this 'one-half'' clause pro-
| control?'' II any OF it was to be held beyond
| legislative control, what was to become of it?
If this rule fixed by the court o give effect to
| the ''one-half'' clause in question can be put
| into operation, then failure is impossible.
! Certainly in speaking OF the enumerated pur-
| poses'' that shall first be executed before
that clause take effect, reference is made to
/ the constitution. The enumerated purposes
| expressed in that instrument that must first be
| satisfied out of the public domain, therefore,
| should be reviewed and the courts rule applied
| to them.
| rrl.. 40
| domain is in article I, on 'Education,' and is
as follows:
| funds. lands, and other property heretofore set
apart and appropriated for the support of public
! schools: all the alternate sections of land re-
served by the state out OF grants heretofore
| made or that may hereafter be made to railroads
| or other corporations of any nature whatsoever;
one-half of the public domain OF the statai and
| all sums of money that may come to the state
| from the sale of any portion of the same, shall
constitute the perpetual school fund.
Is there any enumerated purposes" in this
section that must be executed before the
lone half'' clause shall be given effect? If so,
| what purpose is it?
| Under the article on education, is it possible
! that the constitution expressed purpose to
build railways or to aid other corporations? The
| will, the purpose, expressly set forth in it was
| to establish and endow sys EN- of public free
schools. and to make it 1.-THE duty of the legsla-
ture of the state to establish and make suitable
! provision for the support aud maintenance of
| them. For this purpose it dealt only with the
| public domain, and in doing so, among other
| things, it perhaps unfortunately provided that
'Eall the alternate sections OF land reserved by
! the state out of grants heretofore made or that
may hereafter be made to railroads or other
| corporations of any nature whatsoever
| shall constitute perpetual school fund
To contend that this quoted part OF the section
| under consideration required the legislature to
aid railroads by granting them lands is to assert
il also meant that all ''other corporations of any
! nature Whatsoever should have a part of the
| public domain. The use OF the words 'or that
| may hereafter be made to railroads other
| corporations of any nature whatsoever can by
no rule of construction or of logic be grouped
! into the batch of enumerated purposes that
| denied the ''one-haif'' clause full force. They
cert inly did not express the purpose of the con-
stitution to aid railways, any more than salt
companies. by land grants. So far as that clause
| is concerned the Legislature had much power
| to grant public domain to corporations to con-
! struct turnpikes, canals, macadam roads, and
the like, or to clean out rivers run boats, or to
navigate the air by balloons as to donate them
in aid of railways. By it there is no limit as to
amount that might be gwen or the purpose for
which it should be used. Under 1t million
easy ten to the mile of railroad could be
When il appropriated "all the alternate sec
tions of land reserved by the state out of grants
heretofore made'' to corporations, 1t gave some
thing fixed and certain and placed 1t beyond
legislative appropriation to other purposes, for
under the act of January 30, 1854, page IL there
had been saved to the state out of alternate
grants to railways at least 81 OCO, COO worth of
land. The schools got this. But when it granted
''all the alternate sections Of land reserved by
the state out of grants that may here
after be made to railroads or other corporations
of any nature whatsoever" it gave nothing
absolutely, for there was nothing from that
source then TO appropriate, 1t depended on
several contingencies:
~ That some kind of a corporation would ask
for or want lands.
(2) That the legislature might pass law
granting them.
If the corporations did not earn or should not
be granted lands, or If they not alter
mates, or If in alternates they were not reserved
to the state, then from this source the school
could nothing
Certainly the ''one-h half clause did not have
to wait for satisfaction account Of any
enumerated purpose" in that provision.
2. The second appropriate on of land is to the
university, which is ''1.0O0,0 900 acres OF the
unappropriated public domain of the state
to be designated and surveyed as may be pro-
vided by law" Art. Z, sec. II.
Is this one of the enumerated purposes
that is held to be superior to and must be salts
fed before the 'One-half'' clause can be given
effect? If so, it only one seventeen part Of
the public domain then in existence. and no law
was passed until the adoption of the Revised
Statutes in 1873 putting 1t in force. Rev. Stats,
art. 1923.
the whole have precedence over that which gives
one half of it? 1t seems the legislature took
Glherent view from the court, Tor when 1t made
the appropriation for the university it also ex-
pressIy set apart ''one-ha of the public domain
of the state'' to public free schools. See Rev.
Stats, arts. 1903 and 403l.
3. The third and last constitutional appropri-
alton was three million acres Of the public
domain for erecting new state CAPT.
Although the constitution ''set apart'' this
land and required the Legislature to ''Tass suit
able laws to carry the section into effect" no
action was taken by the legislature to do so until
February 90 1879.
Perhaps this ore of the enumerated pur-
poses" after the execution of which the lone
half' clause was to receive vitality. Admit 1t,
subtract it and the university go 900 from the
whole, and there yet remains 81 000, 900 acres
undisposed of. But why should an appropria-
ton OF one twenty of the public domain
have precedence over that of ''one-half?'' The
legislature evidently did not think it had, for
the same year by two different provisions it ap-
propriated to the schools lone half the public
domain Of the state. Rev. Stats, arts. 1903
and 4O3I.
4. Another mandatory provision that can not
be called an appropriation or grant says: ''To
every head of q family without a homestead
there shall be donated 100 acres of public land
and to all single men of eighteen years
OF age and upwards shall be donated eighty
acres of public land' upon certain terms. Art.
II, sec. 6.
But call this one of the enumerated pur-
poses" on which the court dwells with so much
force that must be complied with before the edu-
cational 'one-haH clause can be given life,
then what is the result? Up to 1888 only
/, 6SS, 6SS ofPland, as shown by the agreed
statement OF facts in this case, had been appro-
priated or claimed under that provision. Added
to the 600 900 university and the 0O0 00n state
capitol grants it will show only 63 6SS acres of
land included within the enumerated pur-