The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-06-12
SOME STATE CAPITA

Austin. Texes. June io.--(stsn !.
The recent decision Of the su,,,.' IN
the case Of Hogue va. Baker s,..
held that the State has no IA n
ject to homestead claims, ~ Y.
fai reaching effect continrs. \.
considerable attention. and latel, !,
has been set UP that the figure. ~.
It is based are inaccurate.
The case, it will be remcmbsr,s
mltted upon an egfeed statcm<,, n
plointiff Hogue admitting thst \.
figures demonstrating thai tha "a
lacks in round numbers io,oOoAs \
having received its share az 4. IN
main aprortionod by the conss xs,
1876. 1t is now contended thnt NV
ply admitted himself out OF co,,vs u.
the equity OF the courts decirio, q.
circumstances Is not qusstior.s p
doubt is raised as to the reItskiI,s.
calculation whereby II was MAJ Z.
that the public domain Is exhsr...s
State. relying upon data furhisz; I
commissioner Of the general ,snS ~
sumed that there were apOro,i-..s
100000 acres of public domain n \.
OF the adoption Of the constiintt. \
1t is pointed out. however. tbsf n N.
good grounds for this assumptjas \
by the way. is doubtful. 49, h
should have been taken Of IL an, ,
lands which the State has lost ~ \
lowance should have been msXs y
large number OF certificates illed ~
veyors prior to the adoption y ~
tuition Of 1876 and Afterwards rs.s
the general land office with ia ~ ,
as well as for the many sufyrm 4
in conflict with older valid s,rvs,s
Furthermore, 1t does not ana, n
the statement submitted 10 Il. ~
court any notice was taken q "
presumption surveys or Of In i,
acres surveyed for school purua.
forfeited surveys Of land sod M,
act Of July ID. 1879, known a. ~ +
act.
Again, there is nothing to show 4
5.0OO,OO0 or Sc acres Of land, Of siI
field notes were returned to IA
land office and entered on the rersI
der this same act of July IA, 1879. n
paid out. were deducted from An
charged up to the public domain
the circumstances, and II The amu
tentions are correct, 1t seems III d
still considerable room for Qua,IoL
declaration that the public domasa
hausted. At any rate. the rUan
be much more satisfactory than Il v
in the Hogue case If the qupstion y
therein could be presented to liz \
its own merits and sometime nr|
a general statement that the publ,
consisted OF $4,000, 900 acres Al Ii, Z
the adoption OF the constitution Il Il
tanned.
There exists suspicion thit N
krows even approximately wha! N
OF the public domain was at III
and there is general desire NJ
PLANTATION Of how the guess given 4
rived at. as well as for an ilenh
authentic history of the transaakul
general land office for twenty ri
past, and it is barely possible Y
Twenty sixth Legislature may Mili
self to the task of obtaining IL
Few people will agree with The IN
shals and chiefs Of police. who, ID
ton assembled at Waco few dan
resolution declared that the cufttz1
the Jurisdiction of city courts hin)
administration of justice. but Asa
question but what they were "a
calling for preventive OF such t61d
the one which has arisen betwea
preme court and the court Of cya
over the authority OF the lesIth1
confer justice court powers upoa
and recorders. The remedy sugr
Chief Rea of Fort Worth was "
one, namely. that the supreme
given final jurisdiction Of all ccnHal
questions. As to the advisablliiJ
ing city courts power to try cassi
violations OF the criminal ccde y
be no question. The iurisdldic1
courts should be confined to yicx
city ordinances regulating sanitatz
ing instructions of streets and th
has been held by a majority cfMl
of the court OF criminal appealh
maintained by Justice Hurt 10 q
from the opinion of his colleasN
Knox chse, 1t is not queftln I
the jurisdiction Of city courts y
but rather one of what was ne
of the legislature to confer ceftan
upon them. In the absence Of ~
tional inhibition against confennl
powers complained OF. the valiaiq
grant thereof must be Recognize
accepted rule that what the say
finn dnoc moi nrnhjhif ID not t1nNv