The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-03-21

Texas Central Railway company. this
day decidedly / is clear that Il was IN
tended "a grant land to the companies for
the construction pf the railroads which
their charters authorized them TO build.
II may be conceded that 10 long w tho
general law which granted the privileges
OF acquiring lands remained ia force. and
so long as no constitutional inhibition
stood IN the way, legislative authority TO
change the Inc 20 be constructed should
be continued to carry with II the privilege
OF earning lands for the construction of
the new line, Al all events, II IT, clear, we
think. that the net OF February T. 1854,
supplemental to the act OF the same date
which extended the privilege Of the gen
crAl law OF January 20. 1851, o the com
pany. restricted those privileges to the line
10 Austln and to the eNtentcn of TINT
line. Tho proViso THAT said company
shall restrict themselves to the following
route VIZ to an eAtention Of their exist
ins road 10 Austin etc. admits of no
other cons tructi1n. The purpose and eff
feet OF the first section Of the act OF
November 10, 1866, WAS merely to give the
companies 10 which IL applied ton Ncnis
from the date Of The act within which
to comply with the terms of thnr char
ters and the general laws with respect
to land grants, Let Us admit then, for
the purposes of the argument, that IN
1870 when tho name of the company was
changed, and when II was granted au-
thorty 10 alter ihg line to be 70 CON
structcd, that n had the right 10 acquire
lands hy the construction Of lts line ns
fixed by the supplemental act Of February
lSji We are stlt confronted with the
question: Did tho legislature haye the
nower. had It so intended. TO authorize
change OF It's line and at tho same time
carry with the change - line the privilege
of earning lands for the construction OF
n different roqd That tt could authorize
a change Of route there can be no dues-
ton, bu' there is a grave question wheth-
or or not it could under the constitution
thon eyieling transfer q privilege or ac-
quiring lands by the construction OF
we'll defined line of railroad from the
route 80 destined TO another not contained
In ihn previous grant The company. be.
fore the passage Of the act OF $50 had
no right TO acquire lands by The building
Of a railroad Co San Antonio; TO com
pletc that right. n new grant was rc1u'-
sito: but at that time the legislature was
prr hlhiicd IN tho brOadcsi terms ff0in
making any grfut whatever. II nailcr1
not that the transaction may be loobed
at Rs being somewhat in the nature ~ an
exchange: and That tho building Of tho
new line may have involved grant or
no more or even Of less land, ihHn might
have been acquired by the construction
uc the old line. u Involved a grant or
land as to tho new line. and that the
legislature had no right to make. Let n4
gtnta the proposition IN another Form, "
n wcro the rieht of the company under
tho existing laws 10 acquire lands by
doing Il specific thing. the legsla are lay-
Ing no power under the constitution -
mike a grant Of lands could not confer
nnoiher--a different thing,
So far wo have discussed the question
as H. in passing the act Of 1870. the legiA-
ia,urc had intended TO transfer the rent
on tho company as 20 tho lands 10 be
acquired from the old to the new llnc'
Eui we find nothing In tho act which
manIfestH such an intention. on thr con-
trary tho 18th section OF the act indicates
that II was not the purpose in my man
mar TO extend the existing rights Of the
company with reference 90 the acuuisl-
tion Of lands from the state.
IL IL to be noted that tho 81 section OF
tho act Of 1870 not only authorizes the neW
company to change its route 80 ms 70 run
10 san Antonio instead OF 70 Austin, but
In addition thereto reserved 10 II the
right In build upon the route formerly
designated by tho old company. IL is
evident Therefore that to ccncede 10
the company the right 10 earn lands by
the construction Of the new llne involves
n new and additional Rrant-a grant
which the legislature under the oonstitu-
ZION OF 1869 could have made neither cx-
pressly nor by Implication.
This question was before tho court ut
a former term IN suit between the same
Dartlcs and the point was chen resolved
rs we resolve II now. tsl Texas N2). Bnt
II Is urgently insisted that the point was
not in~olged IN that case. without con-
rc,ilug the correctness az this contention.
in view Of the magnitude of the interests
involved IN tho present case. we nave
gone over the question anew, and without
reposing upJn the former decision. have
arrived AZ the same result We are there
fore OF the opinion that the Galveston,