The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-05-12
THAT SIDINGS SUIT.

THE STATESMAN has waited for his
Austin speech to hear from Governor
Hogg's own lips his explanation oil
his suit to recover million ana a
quarter acres of land he claims was
unlawfully issued to railroads ior
siding and switching mileage. 1t
heard his explanation which did not
explain and does not satisfy. The
STATESMAN opposed his bringing the
suit some years ago, which would
have invalidated the title to 20, 900, 600
acres of land, based on technical
construction of the constitution, and
which suit the supreme court decided
against him. That suit for recovery
of some more public domain, The
STATESMAN opposed as being
impolitic and unwise. Texas was
rich in lands, had more of them than
anything else, far more than she
could dispose of or utilize, and for the
attorney general by such suit to
throw an additional cloud upon Texas
titles already much questioned in all
money markets, was to donot only an
unwise thing, but was to render I'M
salable not only what lands she owned
but the lands of her citizens. That
suit was happily disposed of by tho
supreme court.
This sidings aud switches suit is
Just such another unnecessary ana
vexatious.suit. 1t is even more I'M
warrantable in that it affects so
seriously so many actual settlers, who
for years have been assured
in the titles to their homes.
For how can the land claimed
be segregated from the rest
The railroads have received over "a
900 900 acres of land from Texas; out
of which part of it must this l,254,OOO
acres now come? Will not suit for it
involve the title to the whole "A ,OOO,OOO
acres? Shall thousands of suits be
brought and each settler be compelled
to give up his relative proportion, on
the basis of one-twentieth of all the
lands ever granted? What terrible
and unjust hardship! And all for
what? Because of q techinal construc-
ton of law or the constitution.
Texas has had other good attorney
generals and governors. Why have
they not thought such suits wise?
Who signed the patents to theseIands
in the first instance? What
governor and what land commission
or? Has not the case already been
before the supreme court, and has not
that tribunal of last resort said that
the law of 1854 differed from the one
of 1876, and that while sidings and
switches were not allowed in the lat
ter they were in the former? Ii this
is so, then why should the governor
claim i ,254 900 acres, when only 100, 900
acres were patented under the prohih-
itative law of 1872. But all this aside,
to whom can good come from such lit
igation? Not to the state, for that
much land is only drop in the bucket
and the damage done the rest of her
land titles by such suit would vastly
outweighsthe value of this land to be
gained. 1t cannot hurt the railroads,
for they have alienated the lands un-
under a quit claim deed of notice to
all purchasers. 1t can only result in
vexation and injury to our own citi-
zens, those whom the state is under
every obligation to assist and protect.
Judge Clark is certainly right, the
state should unequivocally validate
those titles, and such litigation, ruin
Gus to the name of permanent fair
dealing in Texas land matters, for
ever be put an end to.