The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-02-10

20 tho minerals or to the mines in lands
that were then owned by the State, the
title to which was then in the State. The
very granting OF this release sustnlns the
cpnte ution that the State mad at that time
a reservation OF the mines and minerals
OF all lands heretofore granted. This Is
further emphasized by the re-enactment
LOT substantially the same article In the
constitutional 1853, and again emphasized
by the recnactment OF exactly the same
clause as contained In the constitution
OF 1850, in our present constitution OF
1876.
4 j. therefore, am convinced, and advise
you, that all grants made prior 20 the
adoption of the constitution OF 1876 were
made under the reservation made by tina
Spanish law. which reserved 10 the state
OF Texas the ownership OF all mines and
minerals, and that tho title to such mines
and minerals remained In the State until,
by The adoption OF the constitution Of
1876. the same was released TO the owner
Of the soil.
SECOND
II may be conicndad that The constitu
tcn of 1875, being SIN in force. the
question Is not the release prospective IN
It's effect. and continuous in It's operation.
and therefore grants 10 the owner or own
ers Of the soil all mines and minerals.
both OF land that had been patented at
the date of Its adoption and lands suisse
lands to be patented in the future.
We do no think tina. the constitution
: OF 1876 had any other effect than to release
! to the owner or owners OF tho soil the
I mines and minerals In lands heretofore
granted. Tho article in question reads as
follows:
THE State OF Texas hereby releases to
the owner or owners OF the soil all miues
and mneinls in lands heretofore granted,
: subject to taxation as other property"
i Of course, II this section Is intended 10
be prospective, and 10 the nature OF ,
5 grant in future continuing in rs effare.
!, and operating upon grants thereafter
a made, of course the question IS simpllhed;
l at least in 50 far as the lands subse1Wont'
: ly, or that may yet be granted, belonging
d 10 the "p1bllc domain" and each patent
that has been or may yet be issped,
5 would carry with 1t release 10 the owner
G or owners OF the soil the mines and min
. erals Oh said lands,
In tho construction that should be
a given to this section. the entire matter
turns upon the construction of tho Wor1
: release"
a AS a general rule 1t is admitted that =
d constitution Is not to be interpreted as q
s. private writing; that the language used
u is not TO be deemed a used in technical
: sense. but the meaning is to be ascer-
: tained and to be studied in the light OF
ordinary language, of course, taking INTO
ing its formation. the customs and condl-
II ton OF the people who framed It, ana tho
J. popular meaning of the word at tho time
n II was framed. Grouse vs.. Grouse 81 Pa
l. ST., 255; NELL Va. Kinheld. "a Cal, III,
g Miller VS.. Dunn, Il Cal, 462; Sprasue vs.
Norway. 81 Cal, 173; People VS.. n
IN K. r. Co, "a y. Y, 4SS.
e IT. Is further laid down as a genera
'e rule. both of constitutional and statutory
'r construction. thai law so enacted By
ie either method shall be deemed TO operate
a. prospcctively, unless the unequivocal In
VS. tention TO operate rctrospecively only, Is
IT apparent by the language of the sans
'r o'Rellley vs. Utah, 81 Hun. IN. ", i06
Shreveport VS.. Cole, 12a U. S., 1885, e:
l. Parte Burk, 50 Cal, G; Strickler VS.. Colo
~ RADIO Springs, 16 Col, 10; Cumpton w
ur East St Louis. 78 H.. 1854: State VS., Bar
ne bee, Ind. e5S; State VS.. Thomson,
Y Kan, 432; Stock Co, VS.. Maysalle, Is Mon
at /; State VS. New Orleans, 90 III. Anu.
rt 500; Farnsworth VS.. Rock, S3 Me-. 40
ST Capron va berries. SO Nd, 220 n. c. c
a c. vs. Coal Co.. 81 Md, 557; State vs.
as Lancaster Neb.. oil; Evans VS.. Fnil
Oh lpi III Pa. St., 226; ms. CO, vs. Kay
n so Tex. 5l9,
"a The question then resolves itself int
ca this proposition: Had the word release
ed as used in that clause of the corsllutio
I'm such an unequivocal meaning, not In !,
he technical but in it's general sense, as
To- lands then reduced 10 private ownersn!
he by virtue of previous grants. but also
no lands tina; thereafterwards became ID
an property OF private individuals?
81 The dictionary defines tho word re
in loasc" to mean An act TO let loose c
free; liberation or dlschwse OF restrain
ca OF any kind" Also gives tho law dehn
ed, tiop OF the same as being "a giving up c
'od REIMBURSEMENT of some right or CLAIM
al The conveying OF i mans rights or tene
RED ments to another, who has some estate
ION he possession
the The word, therefore, refers to a cond
me ton shat is in existence. and such Wa
'as its popular accepta.on.
Nn, Applying this definition to the partt
II ulAr constitutional enactment, II coul
OF hardly be construed TO mean the treeln
en- OF something which Is yet to be, or re
nat lniqulshmcnt from restraint winch
eV- yet TO arise.
ght The word also had a legal meaning {
and the time Of this enactment. 1t Is Dc
ION 1ped 10 be the giving up or abandonin
IN of claim or right 20 a pesson asain'
the when the claim exists
es- Tho common law definition o. rclei:
nd is, that 1t Is "a discharge or conveyan'
ase OF mans right IN lands or tenemen
nee to another THAT held some former esta'
to in possession" Cam. and Eng. Enc Lar
ant volume 20, page 400
ins These definitions show beyond qutsNe
meant only TO quiet an existing claim
the interest reserved to the mines and mi
new erals. 1t certainly did not intend to a
as feet lands that were not at that tin
owned by private Individuals for II
,tcd State was at that time the owner OF 2
landA tdat had not been rcduoed to pr
the vate ownership, and II the release W
the pIospectlve, as well as retrrSpe ctive
the operated as a release 60 The State, vi
salt was herself the owner OF the mines az
minerals, in all public lands. We Their
ing Zero have the anomaly II the State S an
nes ing a release to herself. II the frame
mi OF the constitution had intended TO =
on peal the oSls;ng law, which The very a
the Itself recognized, that is to say, the Ia
lea rcserving nl.nes and minerals in Q
pa grants, a simple assertion " that ia
,la- wou.d have been sufaGiept Ap: la
gusge could. and we think would ha
sti been used, but by simply using the wo
hat release" which, viewed IN he llght
OF the law then existing, and in the g
was Of the decision OF the sup enc court
all the casa OF Cowan VS.. Hardeman, Sup I
the the fact that q, grant in ~ ure W U
$50 /. Il. 40 a.,.r