The Waco evening news. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 1891-1894, 1892-05-17

VI OOilNO VIC lUGh
by Implication that under the decision
OF the supreme court in the Val Verde
case, known as the 81 iings suit, that he
had recovered to the state I,254.567
acres OF land previously granted to the
railroad companies for sldings. When
speaking here on the quiet | asked
him if he had made such an assertion.
After some skirmishing to avoid re.
ply, Governor Hogg finally declared
he had not. Within five minutes
after this declaration he had SO con.
fused his statements as to virtually
reiterate the claim.
This hardly seems entitled to the
prominence given it by Gov. Hogg,
even If the claim were true, but as 1t
is one of his three principal claims for
reelection, | think 1t should be fully
explained and understood. In order to
this understanding it is necessary to
refer TO the statute under which the
suit was brought and the claim made.
The act of 1854 reads as follows:
Any railroad company chartered by
the state heretofore or hereafter con-
structing within the limits of Texas, a
section of twenty-five miles or more of
railroad shall be entitled to receive
from the state a grant of sixteen
sections of land for every mile of road
SO constructed and put In running
order, n provided that the
provisions of this act shall not extend
to any company for more than a single
track railroad with the necessary
turnouts.
The act of 1876 reads:
That any railroad company, etc,
shall, upon completion of ten miles or
more of its road, be entitled to receive
from the state sixteen sections of land
for every mile of its road so completed
and put in running order.
1t will be observed that the act of
1876 does not contain the proviso with
regard to "turnouts. Governor Hogg
in the Val Verde suit sued the Sunset
road for the certificates issued for
sidings subsequent TO the act of 1876
and the court gave the state judgment
for 5000 acres which the road i'm.
mediately surrendered. In delivering
this opinion the supreme court use d
the following language in regard to
the proviso relative to "turnouts" in
the act of 1854
Whether it was intended to be
merely descriptive of the railroads
which should be empowered to re.
ceive the grants, or whether it was
intended to grant lands for sidings,
we are not called upon to decide. IT
must be conceded, however, that it
admits OF the latter construction and
affords reason for the Interpretation
placed upon the act by the executive
officers of the state The construction
of that act does not, therefore, aid US
in the constituting of the act of 1876.
1t will be seen that the court, while
stating that the question Of constru-
ing the act of 1854 was lot before it,
yet virtually does decide that certifi
Gates issued for sidings under said act
are valid and not subject to attack
The records of the general land
office show that there were issued to
railroads for sidings under the act of
1854, certificates covering 1905, 724
acres Under or subsequent to the
act of 1876 there were issued for like
purpose lS7,S43 acres.
The certificates issued under the act
of 1854 were chiefly located in what
is no@ the interior and most densely
populated counties of the state, such
as Dallas, Navarro, Ellis, johnson,
Parker, and in the rich long leaf pine
counties of Newton, Jasper, Hardin,
Trinity, Polk and others. The certi-
ficates issued under the law Of 1875
are almost, without exception, located
in the arid or semi-arid counties Dor
dering the Rio Grande.
The lands located by the 1884 GER
tifcates, amounting to over 2O,OOO,-
600, which the court in effect declares
unimpeachable, have long since passed
into the hands of second and third
parties and now form the happy homes
of thousands Of our best citizens.
When Governor Hogg by assertion or
implication EN- braces these lands as he
does, in his claim of recovery, he
J L.