The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-05-08

ton, failnre on part of legislature TO enact
,iSaner laws then 1t may be that those 50
fRni,ired have claims on the people thaI III
h,ynor and conscience they are Douhu "
..>oocnize Int neither the constitution nor
DENOMINATIONS legally made through IL can
he Tins annuIled. "a lengthy review VI
the construction placed on the consututIon
nv the different departments OF tne soaS
~. nj is made to bear out the above inter-
rrs,stion1 Contemporaneous construction
tfsvidenced by acts of legislature Is practl-
cally with single exception of act April 20
1879, in favor of giving effect to the Clear,
the constitution. Gov. Roberts ana
several other distinguished executives
who have served the people since
The adoption OF the present
constitution have, when the occasion PIC
scented itself, in their messages and otner-
wise. favored the plain construction con-
tended for. Not one OF them has Indicated
that he interpreted its meaning as appel
lants would have it. In the judicial ue-
partment not Il single utterance was hearu
in any court prior 10 the decision OF this' III
This court, which countenances the con-
struction now put upon the copsltullon
I'm 81 Tex 36S and 60 Tex. 566 IL was III ell
feet held, without dissent, that the laLSudSe
of the constitution was 10 be gwen Its or
binary meaning. Constituting the conslltu-
ton in the lignt of the proceedings OF the
convention that framed II, leads us 10 tne
same conclusion. An amendment 10 tne
third clause of the section was Oh
tered TO strike out half ana insert
the word 'all'' which would have made that
clause read "all of the public domain OF
the State" Other amendments were made
and defeated, but they show that the
mind of the convention was called Sharply
to the clause. The journal OF the conven-
ton teens with evidence that the real con-
test was not whether the school tunds
should have one half OF the pubic DOMAIN
not otherwise appropriated by the consul
tuition and in addition TO TINS alternateS
from grants which thereafter to be made 10
corporations, but was whether the leglsla-
ture should not be prohibited 10 make. any
grants to corporations to aid in improve
ments. That matter (of granting land to
railway companles) was left to the dlscre-
ton of future legislatures. No such discre-
ton was lett to the le- islature in regard to,
the school fund, or to the ques-
ton of partition. If the States theory
is correct appellant certainly has
not acquired any right, joint or
several in any land, except TO one halt OF
each of the sections in controversy. No
right can be acquired through partition
which did not exist before, but through
partition that right can be made to at
zach in severalty, to particular part of
that before partition held in common, but
appellant must realize any right he may
have through the lands in controversy
without reference to other land. Accord
ing to the record when the constitution
| was adopted there were 1861 ,277 acres of
land. Taking out land for capitol and en-
dowment of university leaves 67961,277
acres, to one half of which, it must be con-
coded, the 81 / DOL fund was entitled if the
appropriation of one half of the public do
MAN is to be plainly construed, that gives
80, 9S0,61O acres, ana under the clause APP
propr,ating alternates from grants 10 be
made TO corporations, that fund would be
entitled to IL, 1873, $50 acres more, making an
aggregate of A, 49,, 209 acres. TO meet this
claim the fund has received only 27,371 ,552
acres, which leaves a deficiency of 49,
.. 502267. Compel every person or corpora
ton who has received two acres of land
when only entitled to receive one to return
one and the question will be settled with
out jar or confusion in accordance with the
law. 1t is believed any other enforcement
Of the right would not only operate great
hardship in individual cases but be in it
self illegal.