The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-02-02
ISLAND CITY NEWS ITEMS
Huntington Matter Has Brought Forth .
Biz Problem.
SAID THAT PERFECT TITLE CAN Be MADE
body Found with n Bullet In the
Head Has Been Idcntifcd--Prcsi-
dent Cham of Commerce.


deep water was secured. Difficulties have
arisen In the matter Of the southern Pa
cific coming here and to remove these and
TO make things clear for the "old man
is what the citizens are now trying to do.
liuntington's attorneys In Houston now
say the Levi contract Is in the way; that
while 1t is In existence il casts cloud
over the title. The question OF the title
to the property desired by the Southern
Pacific is u matter much discussed, and
the views of MIR. Maco Stewart, well
known attorney and abstractor, will be
read with interest He says the Galveston
City company can convey absolutely fee
simple title to the property Huntington
wants and which he has now contracted
to buy; that there is nothing for the legis-
Iature to do and very little the city coun-
eli can do. In discussing the subject with
a Post reporter today, Mr.. Stewart said:
~ have recently had occasion TO pre-
plre for the City company an abstract of
the ten lots desired by Huntington and in
connection with some other business have
BOXED into the title of all the flats.
have interest in the matter whatever
except that of II citizen. AS result OF
my Investigations | am of the opinion that
Title to the fats between Galveston island
AID the channel and Forty-frst and FIFTY
hrst streets is vested in the Galveston city
Company and that a conveyance to Hunt
lllgton would be a fee simple one.
i''Sccond, am of the opinion that
esther the city of Galveston nor the pub
W has any right to the use of streets
through said property unless there should
ph a dedication of such streets by the
Owners of the fee or upon condemnation
~ the authorities.
Third I am of the further opinion that
TIC Levi contract. in so for as it purports
u affect title to these flats is against pub
lf policy, and, therefore, void.
LAS to tho proposition that title to all
oS the fats as far west as lot TO- section
II is vested in the Galveston city com
rRny, / basr my opinion upon that of the
shpreme court as laid down in the Menard
cese as reported in the Twenty third
Texas. For a proper understanding of the
Subject IL will be necessary to examine
the convcyances and the grant under which
the city company derives title The CON
sress of tho Republic OF Texas, by act
approved December 3, 1886, reinqushed
ID favor of NJ. b. Menard and his associ
aics all the right, title and claim which
the government of Texas has to one league
and labor of land. being and situated on
and including the east end OF Galveston
island, thereby vestlng the title which the
government of Texas now has In said land
in said Menard and associates The act
directed the president of the Republio of
Texas to issuc to Menard aud associates
title to said land
In accordance with said act. a grant
duly issued 10 Menard and his associates
by the president of the Republic January
as beginning at the northeast corner OF
lot TO- section !, and running thence due
north 100 varas 10 a stake, thence east
wardly with the channel OF the harbor at
the distance of at least $50 varas from the
shore, said MeDard and his associates pay
ing the Republic of Texas for such grant
$4,000 Menard and his associates then
formed corporation styled tho Galveston
city company and Menard conveyed the
property granted to him by the Republic
of Texas TO said corporation. The SUI
preme court in the Menard case held:
The Republic of Texas had the power.
through It's legislative department ICON
gress) in 1896 to grant that part OF CAL
weston bay south of the channel called
he flats, usually covered with salt water,
so as to vest the exclusive right to the
soil in the grantee. BY common law an
grant of land on bay is limited
o an ordinary high TIDE. The terms of
The act of congress of the Republic of
Texas of December o. 1886. relinquishing to
Menard one league and labor of land on
he east end Of Galveston island. II viewed
IS an ordinary grant, would not include |
he fats. but in view of the object of the
grant (being the establishment of city |
N Galveston isiand) ii was clearly in |
ended to include the flats therein. II is |
air to presume that the president was |
and understood the object OF |
aid grant and purposely designated the |
lortbern boundary in executing title. |
dennrd and his vendees being the owners |
# said flats in front OF the lots out to |
he channel may devote it to wharves and |
he like
THE opinion of the supreme court In
constituting is clear and unambiguous and |
Explicitly holds that Menard acquired title |
o the flats. In discussing the right of |
he city to the streets, the court said: The |
ity has the right To open tho streets to
he channel
ut viii be seen that the city has the !
light TO open such streets, but up TO The !
present time, so far as / have been able |
o discover. the city has never exercised !
Is right with respect to the property west |
u Forty first street, and until the eSer
ise of such rights no street exists there.
The Galveston City company, as decided |
n the Menard case, Is clearly the owner
4 the fats desired by the Southern Pacific
etween Forty-first and Fifty-iirst streets. |
nd as such can convey perfect title to
ir Huntington. or course II will be un-
erstood that the city has the right TO lay
ut streets across the fats just as IL would
ave the right TO open for public use any
Their property. but until the exercise of
UGH right by the city or until there shalt
ave been dedication OF streets over said
ats by the Galveston City company, IL can /
OF be held that streets exist over said
ats. All that the city council will be rea
uired TO do. II seems TO me, is TO forego
+ give UP it's right to open such streets
, the future. the City company never hay-
ne made a dedication OF such streets by
lat or otherwise.
1T viii be understood that what has
cen said relates only to the flats east OF
II 10. section l. which, however, Is west
I the property desired by the Southern
acilc The title To the fats west OF said
Clint to the bay bridge still remains In the
tate. and II seems very desirable TO me
nat The city should acquire such fats so
hey will be open to public use.
Now as to the Levi contract, II the de-
ision in the Menard ease is to stand. the !
ity has no right and can acquire from
no state no right 10 the flats beyond its
ght 10 open streets. This being the case,
~ contract between tho city and Mr..
ayi so far as the fats east of lot 10, Sec
on l. are concerned Is OF no effect Tho
nly right the city can have east OF lot 10
the right TO open streets, 10 do witch
40 services OF an attorney arc moi re-