The San Angelo press. (San Angelo, Tex.) 1897-1907, 1902-06-18
LAP LEASE DECISION.
THE LAND COMMISSIONER Ex-
cEEDED HIS AUTHORITY.
No Right to Cancel, Except For Nom
Payment, No Right to Renew
Land Already Let.

Yeiser of this city we're successful
this morning before the Supreme
Court in one of the most import
ant land questions in many
months, and it is a decided VIC
tory for the actual settler The
effect of today's decision is that
the Land Commissioner is with
out power to cancel a lease for
any cause other than nonpayment
of rental and to execute a new
lease.
The case decided was that of
]. e. Ketner, relator, vs.. Charles
Rogan, Land Commissioner, and
G. G. Slaughter, being manda-
mus proceeding to compel the
Commissioners to award two Sec
tions of land in Lynn county to
relator, Ketner, on his applica-
ton to purchase as an actual
settler, and one additional Sec
ton.
Ketner's application having
been rejected by the Land Com
missioners, this original proceed
ing was instituted. The Com
missioner rejected Ketner's appli-
cation on the ground the lands
were then held under a valid lease
by G. G. Slaughter, the latter
having purchased lease from
one Stith, which had been exc
cuted for q period of five years
from Sept. 4, 1895, which would
make their expiration Sept. 4,
1900. Slaughter continued to
hold under this lease until April,
1900, when he and the Land Com
missioner entered into an agree
ment whereby Slaughter was per-
mitted to cancel this lease and q
number of others of the same
character before their expiration
and to consolidate his leaseholds
for a new term of ten years, COM
mencing in April, 1900.
Ketner attacked the validity OF
this consolidated lease on the
ground that the Commissioners
was without power to cancel the
lease before it's expiration and tC
execute new lease for a new
term of years, because this latter
act would result in continuous
lease, the effect of which would
be to deprive actual settlers OF
almost all opportunity to pur-
chase homes and prevent the set.
Element of State lands. The vail.
dity of the second lease was con.
tested because it was executed
during the existence of a valid
lease, and the court sustained
this contention.
The defendants answered that il
the lease was invalid at the time
of its execution, the other lease
having fully expired and the State
having continuously accepted
payments annually of the rental
thereby ratified the consolidated
lease. Defendants commended
that the recent land act validated
the leases, and that the lane
should not be sold until their ex.
piration.
The opinion in the case wal
written by Associate Justice Viii
liams, and from which extracts
are taken. In speaking of thu
provisions for making leases un
der the act of 1895, the court
makes this summary: "Thest
provisions sufficiently show thu
legislative policy, the scope of thu
powers given to the COMMISSIONS,
in leasing, and the restrictions OF
these powers.
Among the powers expressed
there is none to cancel an existin,
lease except for non-payment o
rent and none to execute a nev
lease of lands already let; and tn,
only claim that such authority il
included in, or arises by implica
ton from that expressly given.
"The outline which we hav'
given makes itapparent, we think
that such powers cannot be i'm
piled, for the reason that it's ex
istence is inconsistent with TIN
purpose of the law and it's expires
provisions"
| Another conclusive quotation
sit is evident that power to can
Gel lease just before it's expira
ton and to execute another coul,
be made the equivalent of the pow
'er withheld. In this way ten
year lease could be PRACTICAL,
made one for twenty years, AM
thus might be indefinitely ex
tended. In this way all oppor
tunity to purchase at the expira
ton of lease would be com
pletely shut out"
In discussing the discretion o
the Land Commissioner thu
language is used:
"While, from necessity of tn
case, he is authorized to canoe