The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1892-11-03
TEXAS TITLES.
SURVEYOR B. A. BALL EXPLAINS THE
CONFLICT IN LAND CLAIMS.
An Open Letter Arraigning Land Commits
sioner McGaughey and Refusing Obedi-
ence to the Ruling Of His Great
Rubber Stamp.
ROBERT LEE, Tex, Oct. q, 1892.

ROBERT LEE, Tex, Oct. q, 1892.
Austin Statesman;
We have, for the sati sfaction OF
others more interested, been induced
to invite your attention to lnclosed
COPY OF an edict from the general land
office of Sept. 20, in connection with
facts supposed to be interesting to
your readers elsewhere.
That surveys in this county, ana
doubtless in others of West Texas,
are in a chaotic condition productive
of much future legislation there is no
room for doubt. Recently quite a
large number of actual settlers in this
county, after improving the lands
awarded them by the state, ready for
the pillow, were notified by the sheriff
through writ of sequestration sworn
out by the "Austin and Northern
Land company" that they were
"tresspassers" upon the lands of said
corporation. In preparing for the
defense their homes in court, the
discovery was made that field notes
heretofore recognized as correct, To-
Gated lands upon, or in conflict with
older surveys made by railroads. In
view of this discovery the writer was
nominated by actual settlers, con-
frmed by tho commissioners court of
this county, for appointment by the
land commissioner as "state sur
veyor," under the provisions of the
act approved April 3, 1887, creating
that office for purposes named in said
act, without pay for service in the
"absence ola previous appropriation"
Having before us the example of
Jesus Christ and George Washington,
we regarded it no crime TO serve the
public for reasonable time in the
"absence ola previous appropriation"
We consented more for the satistac-
tion of actual settlers and home seek
ers than from any hope of becoming a
the appointment.
My commission was issued by WI.
McGaughey, under seal of the land
office about three months ago. After
going to the expense of time and
money in making preparations for the
work, and running a few lines from
bases fixed by railroads in making
their location, the discovery hereto
fore mentioned was confirmed and the
fret demonstrated that outside the To-
cations made by the railroads the sur
veys in this county are fraud upon
the state. But before could embrace
otner localities Of the county demand
ing attention growing out of threaten
ing law suits or make an official re-
port of the facts to the land office my |
was suddenly "this day
without any known cause
nor is there any mentioned, as seen
from the copy enclosed.
Now the myssery surrounding this
action of the commissioner is in our
opinion in need of some explanation.
Why is it that provisions of law for
the correction of errors productive of
litigation, wherein the homes of peo-
pie are involved in arbitrarily denied
operation? Why is it that the actual
settler, when sued for his home and
is denied the provisions
of law which enable him to show that
the lands claimed by the above
named corporations are in truth and
fact the property of the state? Why
is that settlers are required to pay ar
nually part of the purchase price of
school land, when the new revised
map of Coke county sent me to cor
rect and return to the land office,
shows that such settlers are not
within mile of the lands awarded to
them, and of course are paying their
money to the state without gain
ing any title whatever to the homes
they have improved. If they are
not upon the land awarded or patent
ed by the state, what claims have
they? Why is it that plats sent from
the land Office here show certain pat
ented lands in one location, while
other plats covering the same terri
tory show the same land to be in a
different locality and to be identified
by different boundaries? Why is it
that persons who are sued and others
threatened with suits for land occu-
pied by them in good faith as actual
settlers, are denied the operation of
laws aiding them to prove by actual
survey made by appointment of the
state, the fact that they are not with
in two miles of the land covered by
the patents issued by the land Office
to the corporation, or to some one for
it who claims the title? Why is it
that. patents issued by the state
identifying land by field notes con-
tanned therein, call for beginning cor