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

omitted TO reserve 10 lns "a = VI "
the fuad to which the land belonged, ~
Il aid In the act of 1883. certainly could
not he construed to be a repeal OF the
mln,nE act which we hnd IN the laws
OF t2s3 n. 100 there Being absolutely
netting reousnant 10 the two acts. aud
the same may be construed in paria ma
teret giving to both force and vitality,
Tnls contention IL furt ner strengthened
bv the act of 1880 which seeks 10 pro- i
tee, the vested rights that accrued I'm
der the &C; o. 1858, and recognizing the
existence OF the mining act OF 1883. up
to tho ABORTION cf the act OF 1892 but II
Is tbs cp.n.on OF the writer that the
release granted by the act CT 1895, arti-
clio i0if did not operate TO release the
mineral reservation, reserved under the
act * 500 20 llpds sold after 1883 ana
IN To 1889. bsol%sa the csde OF 1898 was
ar act OF the Legislature seeking TO .quict
The title to the miuera to those lands
ihlt had been sold since 1879 and UP 20
tho adoGtion Of tag ode OF 1885. II
being a legis 4 i've enactment, IL did no,
Apply 10 puoic sc 1ool, university. Agri-
cultural and Mechanical college ANA asy-
lum fuuds, because % the prob b.tion .
the cons tuition regulating those sales.
which orbids the leg Stature from grant
drg relief to purchas OF the same.
You- attention Is Invited to two cases,
which, In my opinion, CLEARLY holds that
the legislature is prohibited from graft
Ing relc3ss of this kind Soc Barker
vs. TorTey 60 Texas, Z, Au1 Flanagan vs.
NoaTorthy. 1. G App. 40" They construe
that the word relief" means in section
4 of article Of the cons ltution Of 1875
said article being nc one forbidd!ng the
leg stature fir N granting relief 20 pur
cha sers OF land be ong ng 20 .he particu-
lar funds above enumerated, TAey hol1
In ehec. that any act OF the legislature
which w9uid seek 10 vary tee terms o.
he orig nal ract of purchase would
be unconstitutional
Purchasers, therefore, under the act OF
1888, which continued in effect uutll 1889,
OF lands belonging TO the particular
funds above mentioned. as a part and
as enc Of the requirements OF his con
tract bought simply the land the State
Ires.rving the mines and minerals which
were subject under the act o. lSS TO ne
explored as to Particular minerals, by
virtue OF the terms OF that act.
This is unquestionably one Of the terms
of his contract that the legislature w3s IL
relieve, concerning which the Legislature
nv virtue of the prohibition OF the con
sttution, WIS for5iiien TO grant.
Tho7efore the code of 1895 granting a
release of the mines and minerals to
The owrer or owners OF the soil dill not
oGerato as A release of the mines aud
minerals belonging to those funds but
only grained relief to purchasers wis
acquired lands which belonged to the
public domain.
1, therefore, advise you that the state
Up to the year 1889 has gr gntei a release
. Of III mines and minerals to the owner
! or owners Of he soil, except those who
, purchased public school, university and
, asylum lands from the time Of the enact
nent Of the mining act of 1883 (see act
D.. 1883. page 1000 up TO the enactment OF
4. he act Of 1885, and that the SITE now
owns, FOR the benefit Of the respective
I funds. the mines aud minerals of ali lands
sold between the last named dates.
FOURTH,
This brings us tc a consideration OF
the effect of the act OF 1852
7, 4: Will De seen that although the mining
laws inherited by this STATE from the
Republic of Mexico continued In effect
until he ct OF 1889, vet. nevertheless
the continued releasing of the mining
sud mineral claims first in the cans l.
tuition of 1886 reiterated IN the consu-
tuition of 1853, again enacted In the con
I, stitution OF 1916, brought forward II the
y code of 1870. md again brought forwa I'd
u in the code of 1885, together with the
, act of 1899, wheh completely changed tbs
" policy Of this State In $ tres tInen. Of she
. mining rds, together with the provis-
ions of the act Of 1889 itself, leads W t.
{ the conclusion That the Sp nish American
, policy which had heretofore been recog-
). ulzed OF reserving mines and minerals
- in oil grants OF lana TO prlrlre iAdiv,i-
T. lis. except whore the grant expressly
conveyed the ti'le to the same, to tht
policy of the Anglo American system
> which passed to the owner Of the fe'
: lil mines and minerals. unloss there WI!
- IN express reservation Of the same II
the grant.
y so
y continued in effect after the adoption o
% the act Of 1889, then there was Sill b!
virtue OF said act a reserv ton OF mines
ana minerals In grants mao. sIbsequen
10 the oct of 1883.
Eut we believe that the act of 1889 wa
"a inte7ded as repeal of the mining az
Of 1888
&c The act OF 1929 attempted to dell CON
- prehensively With the law In referent
- to mines md minerals. 1t was an effor
J. TO completely treat the subjects embrace
10 II. The enacting clause contains
~ repeal of "al laws in conflict with thi
act" See Southorland on statutory cou
~ structon on cage 200.
Tho act OF 1851 further Is The adoptio
,. subs tan daily Of the mine aud miners
y laws Of the United States. adopted. b
% the Federal congress, SEES chspter 6, min
iug lands and mineral resources. revise
AZ statutes OF the United Statee, 1878
Va The adoption o. subst lntlally the sam
10 law regulating mines aud minerals tn
was adopted by the Uuitei States is co.
te iainly persuasive Of the intention TO ado y
St. with the construction placed upor
- It by the courts constituting the Federa
40 statutes, which is to the effecs thst
)" gr ant made by the United States OF pub
y lie lands TO private persons or corpora
~ lions carries the Minerals therein, I'm
tess expressly reserved by the term
Is az the grant. or having been pIayioisl
G. granted American and English Enc
n law, volume Is, page SO. note | ana lu
u thorities cited.
as IN addition TO this act the act OF 1ss
on by certain Of its provisions Clearly indi
J., Gated 10 my mind a repeal Of The mimi
he act ot 1882 and also the establishment
pc of an entirely rev system in retereuc
Nv % mines ANA minerals than that there
fore existing
id IT especially operates So j repeal {
re the oct OF 1888, EXPRESSLY rcssrving tn
in minerals ON lands sold because Il seeb
I'd (see article 3492, revised statutesl to pro
$50 tcct only the rights vested unJsr til
mining act OF 1855,
ss And in protecting the vested gu a.
e cruing under the act OF 1889, in that a
Is ticle, the f,iowing language is use "A
,,e other pr viaors Ct this title saall ap.