The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-04-26

anu doJ iuu tuDui ing duu oitudtC'
! in about eighty counties in the stat
3 organized prior to 1875, and said bodie
| were similar in bulk and size to blocl
as described in said act and all of SAT-
land so put on the market not sold
, are still on the market, that the va
lidity of said sales and the action o
bis said predecessor have never, so ia
as respondent is informed, been cues
toned, or his good faith impunged, al
an example: He placed upon tht
market about thirty sections contain
ing $40 acres each, nearly all in {
block in McMillen county and in thu
same way about $50 sections in Med
ina county lying in blocks and not ad
joining any other public lands anC
the balance of lands in seventy
eight counties in almost
q similar condition which he
will show by proofs at the proper
time, and this construction is borne
out by the further fact that these
three counties of Ell Paso, Pecos and
Presidio, contained the main bulk Of
the public lands, viz: Ell Paso county
100000 acres, Pecos county 1920
acres and Presidio county 232,24C
acres, thereby showing a Legislative
intent and necessity as supposed by
the legislature to exempt the school,
university and asylum lands therein
situated from sale, and having his
own personal understanding of what
the Legislature intended when they
passed the law, and having before
him the benefit of the unquestiOned
acts and precedence of his predeces.
sor, as we'll as the law itself, then con-
strned altogether, he, after giving the
matter mature elaboration, did con.
strue said section 20 so as TO authorize
him TO make the sale as detached
sections" For nearly twenty years
tn 5se lands had been on the market
to actual settlers under the law, no
notice was required to be given to any
one who desired to settle on it, and it
remained unsOld with no revenues de-
rived from it to the school, university
and asylum funds, and being reliably
informed and knowing by personal
observation that said lands were not
fitted for agricultural purposes, and,
as such, no one desired it. What
other conclusion could your respond.
ent come to than that the legislature
intended this very character of land,
situated as they are, to be placed on
the market and sold as it was sold?
Thereby securing a great benefit to
the people of Texas in the way of
taxes, interest and purchase money
tor same. And always mindful of his
oath of office and the weighty re-
possibilities resting on him as q SER
want of the people, he sought in this
instance in good faith and for the
present and future welfare of the peo-
pie of Texas to do a duty which he
believed was beneficial to the people
thereof. He might have been mis-
taken in the construction he placed
upon the law, but he acted within the
scope of discretion given to him
by the people and the laws of
the state, and ne submits that his
acts were for the best interest of the
state and not against the actual set
tiers. There being no doubt in his
mind then the sales were made as to
proper construction of section %, there
was no necessity as he supposed for
calling on the attorney general for ad-
vice, of course as a cowardly officer,
seeking to shirk responsibilities not
only in this but almost in every case
he could call on the law officer of the
state for advice what to do, thereby
placing the responsibility of this Of
flee on the attorney general which in
his opinion was never intended by the
people. If This respondent has done
wrong in the sales of those lands it
was an error committed in the light of
the highest precedence, and resulted
in great benefit to his constituency, he
is more than willing to be held re-
sp0nsible for the conduct of his office
and he docs not seek to make his
shield or armor of the attorney general
admitting at all times in cases of
doubt his duty to call on him for adj
vice. He denies that said lands were
sold at price less than their value
but AYERS that it was within only a
short time since it would bring the
price for which it was sold and on
this charge he will submit proof if
necessary at the proper time. Hav-
ing determined that these lands could
be sold under section %, he was not
required by law to find out who the
purchasers were, where they lived,
their standing, occupation or person
mel, save to know that they were not
corporations; and looking to the best
interest Of the people he sold to any
one who would buy on the terms fixed
by law without inquiry save as above
named. The notice as required by
section 6, of the acts of 1887 and 1863
were given literally by sending lists
OF the lands to be sold to the clerk OF
the county where the lands were 10.
Gated aud no lands were awarded OF
sales completed until said notice was
given. AS a servant OF the people he
respectfully and most emphatically
d enies that he entered into any col
fusion or combination whatever with
any of said purchasers. His office be
ing public, belonging to the peo
pie and for their benefit
any one without regard tC
standing or condition can, ON applica.
ton, get any information he desires
from the office and your respondent
seeks to serve all alike. If anything
that pertains strictly to the office ha:
been improperly communicated to the
public by any imploye, he knows
olhing about it. Res ondent denies
that he has tailed to comply to the re-.
quirements OF article 1906, but in truth
aud in fact he has cOmplied with SAID