The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-08-20
CALLED DOWN ON THE FACTS.
observer" Tell Correspondent to Get
Reliable Data or Say Nothing.


To the Editor of The Statesman.
In Fridays issue of the Houston
Post appears from it's intelligent(?)
Austin correspondent criticism of
the former administration of the gen.
eral land office for it's failure to leave
on file in said office a copy of the lists
of school land claims upon which the
various district attorneys throughout
the state had been furnished, from
which data they might institute suits
to obtain forfeiture of said claims for
non-payment of interest due the state.
The preparation and mailing of these
lists was one of the last acts of Com
if the correspondent of the Post, or
his informant, had been posted on this
subject he would have known that
the name of every claimant who
purchased under the act of 1881 who
was delinquent in his interest pay
ments, was included in said lists, and
to have preserved a copy of these lists
would have been superfluous and I'M
necessary work, as the records of the
land office already show (by absence
of treasurer's receipts on file there)
Just what claims were included in
these lists.
Moreover, this is matter that does
not concern the commissioner of the
general land office in the discharge of
his official duties, for reason that he
I, hi n n wifi q M a f..
ter after the lists had been furnished
to the district attorneys until he re-
ceives proper notice Of the forfeit
ures that have been obtained
by judicial procedure, when
it becomes his duty to note such for
FIXTURES on the records of the land Of
flee, and after having the lands so for
feited reclassified and appraised
placed back on the market for sale
under the present law. To make any
addition to the records of the land Of
| flee than such as are above indicated
would simply cucumber them with
lot of worthless trash which would
serve to confuse rather than enlighten,
and the Importance of keeping the
records of that office free from extra
neous matter is apparent to any one
who possesses a half an idea OF their
magnitude.
Another egregrious blunder made
in this same correspondence which L
desire to correct reads as follows:
''The aggregate bill of costs from the
county referred to is about $4,000, which
Of course, must be dead loss to
the state.n The facts in the case are
that these lands, which the state in
Cured the expense of the above men
toned bill of costs in order to regain
legal possession Of were sold under
the act of 1881. for 81 per acre, ana
comprise the choicest lands embraced
in the original school land possessions.
Hence, at the rate of valuation pre-
scribed by the present law regulating
the sale of said lands, it is safe to es-
innate their value at So per acre, OF
| that the state makes a profit of 81 per
acre. less cost of suit, on every judo
ial forfeiture that is obtained.
In conclusion / would respectfully
advise the able representative of the
Post TO hereafter stick to his business
of reporting discOuraging rumors
about the ultimate failure of the
construction of Austin's dam and
kindred subjects, wherein he
cannot be Immediately overhauled
and his ignorance made SO consplcu-
Gus. Or else, when he obtains his In
formation, especially on land matters,
he sure that his informant is Compel
emf TO give him correct data.
OBSERVER.