Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-06-30
MEANING IN DOUBT.
Goss Land Law Under
Discussion.
THE AUTHORS INTENTION
Validity of Certain Sections OF the
Law viii Be Decided by
the Courts.
THE AUTHORS INTENTION


of the general land Office and the at
torney general. Since the adjournmhlt
Of the Legislature the meaning or GER
tain provisions of the new school land
law has been considerably discussed,
and | asked the author of the blll ms
idea of the intent of the last legisla-
ture. He told me that soon after the
law was passed the commissioner or
the general land office gave out the
oplnlon that settlers who have pur-
chased school lands under former lave
and permitted their lands to forfeit
cannot purchase their forfeited lands
under the new law without In all cases
paying In cash the interest due at the
time of forfeiture. He stated to me |
that he thought the commissioner was
wrong in this construction of the law.
The question is one OF vital interest to
settlers on school lands In West Texas.
1t has been submitted to the attorney |
general for his opinion and he is ex-
peCted to render his decision within |
the next few weeks. The provision of |
the new law bearing upon this ques-
ton reads as follows:
ANY owner of lands heretofore pur- |
chased. and which land has been or |
may be forfeited for non-payment of |
interest, shall have ninety days prior |
right after this act goes into effect,
or after the land is again placed upon
the market, to purchase said land with
out the condition of settlement ind
occupancy In case II has been occupied
for three consecutive years as required
by law, but If not, then he shall re-
side thereon until the occupancy I'M
der the nrst and last purchase shall
together amount 10 said term of three
years; provided that when any for
feiture has been made the commission
er of the general land Office shall add
TO the appraised value OF such llnd
the amount of interest due thereon at
rVrhf .l, H1a
paid in cash with the first payment of
one-fortieth of the appraised value of
the land when purchased under the
preference right to purchase given
herein"
In regard to this clause of the law
Senator Goss stated to me that it was
intended as beneficial provision and
not as a hardship, Its object, he said,
| was to give certain persona the privi-
| lege OF buying their forfeited lands
| without the condition Of settlement
| and occupancy. The exemption from
| the three years occupancy required in
other cases is the leading thought in
It. His construction is that when the
! settlers land is forfeited for non-pay-
| ment Of interest, he has ninety days
prior right after 1t is again placed
upon the market to purchase said land
| undCr the new law without having to
reside upon 1t in case It has been oc-
cuplcd for three years under the for
mer purchase; but If he buys within
the ninety days and thus avalls him
self of this privilege of buying without
occupancy, then he must pay in cash
the interest due at the time of forfeit
ure During the existence OF his prior
right no other person is permitted to
buy.
When the ninety days are passed his
prior preference right Is gone, and he
cannot thereafter get any of the hene-
tat.
jected to any of its requirements or
burdens. The senator holds that he
can then buy the land on the same
terms and only on the same terms as
others; that Is to say, he will be re
CURED to live on 1t threa years. but
Will not have to pay up the bark in
terest as a condition OF his purchase,
He thinks this is the plain and unam-
biguous meaning Of this provision.
The senator Is of opinion that the law
says rs plain ms language can make
It, that the purchaser must pay this
back interest on the land when pur-
chased under the preference right to
purchase given herein" II he buys
after the ninety days have expired,
he does not purchase under the prior
or preference right given In the law,
the author of the bill maintains, for
that right only exists for the ninety
days mentioned. If the legislature
had intended to prohibit persons from
purchasing their forfeited lands at ali
, unless upon the payment OF all back
. interest, It would have said so in plain
terms he holds. A dozen words would
1 have been sufficient for that purpose
. he told me. But his idea Is that the
: legislature intended no such thing
s Such law he says would have beer
y unjustly oppressive and cruel to tn,
o people who have lahored to dcveloI
the west under the most irving dir
II | 40 ri al
u terests OF the school fund And h,
:. stated that II has been n matter of n,
y little surprise to him that any on
a should seek to put upon the law thl
Il strained and unreasonable construc
X tlon, alike rulnous TO the settler AM
hurtful to the interests OF the state
and contrary to Its plain and eviden
meaning, while concedlng that IL ad
mits of the beneficial construction be
4, fore mentioned.
But while the meaning of this claus
seems to Senator Goss to be perfectl
IS plain, Its constltutionallty he concedo
~ rs not so clear. / heard this matte
ID freely discussed when the bill was III
lie der consideration, Some of the legI,
te lators, among the number Chairma
he Smith OF judiciary committee No, 1
he the senate, as well as the governo
ne uoubled the power OF the Legislature
he under the constitution TO give form,
d. purchasers prior preference right
he buy their forfeited lands, especiall
Mt where forfeitures nre taken In the I,
IN ture, It Is agreed that the point is n,
I'd entirely free from difficulty, The cor
lis missioner, l learn has not direct
20. submitted this question to the attorne
general. but 1t viii be necessarily h
volved II. his answer to the maui,
IS. made. The constitution SAYS that Ii
legislature shall not have power
m grant any relief" TO the purchasers
~ school land; and It is claimed that n
he clause under consideration is gu
as gestion TO the purchaser under d
act of 1887 (for 1t is mainly to puroha
ers under that act that 1t would n
ply) to permit his land to forfeit IN
at he may buy under the new law at /,
AZ reduced rate of interest. ana III
nd while II does not undertake directly
la' grant him ''rellef" on an existing co
tract, yet in an indirect way il one
=. ntes as relief by giving him specl
'nnt advantages In case Of forfeiture
an. offering him better contraot-al
da- thus sug costing, as Il We're. that /
er old contract be not carried out a
~ hence is unconstitutional. -Senat
NY Goss admitted the force OF the arr
ment to me, but his opinion is that (
position Is not well taken. He ~
,sr, that no one viii deny that the legs
of ture has the right at any tine Ia re{iu
an the price OF the school lands or a. -