The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-10-31
Bethel COOpwOOd Discusses the Matter
at Considerable Length.
Mr.. CARRIERS CONNECTION HEREWITH
And the Truth Concerning the Law lie
Fully eiven--scott Partisan Refused
TO Publish II.

put Wnlch that paner refused TO publish
despite the fact that It agreed TO publish
any answers that might be sent in in Gar
ners defense. Tho letter is a strong one
and VIII have an effect on those Scott men
VINO have been charging Garner with the
passage. of the ''ipiduitous land law" not
Wlthstanding the stockmen and land own.
ers who would be directly affected BY Il.
have mo kick coming" and are in most
cases Garner supporters The letter fol-
! lows:
10 the Editor Of the Texas sun, Corpus
Christi, Texas.
Laredo. Texas, October 2o.--In your Is.
| sue OF the Sd instant appears an article
| entitled, John N Gamers reward Tor
1avoring the inouitous land law plot ex-
posed. Assuming that the editor of the
sun would not wilfully assall the motives
or Mr.. Garner and other supporters of the
land law referred TO In said article. aud
also assuming that the editor OF the sun
| mas been and is Ignorant OF the facts re-
lating TO the passage of said law, | desire
10 put you In possession Of the material
facts bearing upon the case. and then IL
YOU think the author OF the bill is entitled
to your condemnation YOU can turn the
hood gates OF your wrath loose upon said
author.
In the hrst place, the bill which was
enacted into the UBIQUITOUS law was not
written by any person who Is or has been
the attorney Of any OF the owners Of the
spanish or Mexican land grants. for the re-
covcry Of which suit has been Instituted
Dy the state. Neither did Mr.. Garner
Introduce the said bill In the legislature.
In the second place, the bill introduced
by Mr.. Garner. and which passed both
houses Of the legislature. was vetoed BY
Governor Savers. because he the attorney
general and the land commissioner thought
its provisions were too favorable TO the
owners and claimants of the said Spanish
In the third place. the enactment OF
your UBIQUITOUS law was not necessary
IN order TO authorize and make II the duty
OF the attorney general to institute the
suits referred to. as there was already
such law in existence under which the
attorney general had. before the passage
of your said "lniuuitous law Instituted Ia
the district court OF Travis county. AT
Austin. Texas. five suits for the recovery
or lands situated In Webb county. Texas
which arc owned. claimed and held under
Spanish and Mexican grants, Tho suits
were all filed during the month of july,
1901, while your "iniuuitous law was not
enacted until Scptcmber 3. 1901.
The land sued for In these five suits
amounts to 214o00 acres and there are
tbirly-thrce defendants IN the five suits
ln the fourth place The Hon X
law, and The same was introduced in the
legislature at bis reauest BY Hon. j. o.
Nicholson Of Webb county
The principal object acuatlng the attor-
ney general In preparing the bin was 10
confer on the owners aud claimants OF
these Spanish and Mexican grants certain
benefits or rights to which they were not
entitled under the existing law. viz.
l. That In case the State did not sue
for the land the owners and claimants
might bring suit against the State for con
trmatlon of their titles, and on covering
Judgment confirming their titles require
the commissioner Of the general land OF
ice 10 Issue patents therefor
3 That IN case the state did Institute
- - n nj md IND
failed TO obtain judgment for recovering
them, the land commissioner should issue
patents for the land
Now, as strange as Vt may seem 10 you.
the owners or claimants had no such right
under the Law prior to the passage Of
your ubiquitous law, vet under the exist
ing law II was made the duty of the at
torney general. as he, tho governor and
the land commissioner construed the same,
to institute suit Tor recovery Of the idcn-
teal lands for which the Stnte is now
sueing, and the 1--WE suits above mentioned
had already been instituted, and the object
of your ubiquitous law was for the benc-
mt and not the injury OF the owners and
claimants Of the lands. IT was an admin
stration measure and not a measure Of any
lawyer representing tho various owners aud
claimants OF the old grants
The bill introduced by Mr.. Garner pro
yided that suit might be brought IN the
counties where the lands were situated,
and liberalized the rules OF evidence in
favor of the Introduction IN evidence OF
the Spanish and Mexican title papers upon
which the owners and claimants Of the
old grants relied; and Il was because Of
these provisions which the governor. the
attorney general and land commissioner
thought were TOO favorable TO the own
erS and claimants of these old grants that
the governor vetoed MIR. Gamers bill
In support of the statement that these
suits against the owners and claimants Of
these old grants would have been insti-
tuned. and in tho district court Mt Aus
tin. even had your ubiquitous law" never
been placed on the statute books of the
State. ] call your attention TO the fol-
lowing facts:
For several years there have ben persons
inquiring into the status Of titles TO lands
held under Spanish and Mexican grants,
and finally the legislature, by the act Of
May 10. 1899, authorized the appointment
of two agents TO take the field and report
all Illegal occupancies Of the public lands
In his report OF November IA, 1893, the
commissioner of the general land office
called the attention Of tho governor 10
n list of rty-three tracts situated respec-
lively in Nueces. t1idalgo. Encinai starr
and Zapata counties, amounting In the az.
erceate 10 one milton one hundred and
thirty-elght thousand. eight hundred and
twenty-seven Q,13Ss2O acres, which he
said had no standing In the general land
office for the reason that nothing was
known as TO the validity OF the titles
Again, in his report OF September l.
1900 he says: ION November IA, 1899,
had the honor OF calling the attention OF
your excellency 10 the following described
tracts OF land situated respectively IN
Nueces. Hidslgo, Encinal nov Webb,
Starr and Zapata counties. amounting 20
/. f3s s2T acres. to-wit. (Here follows the
LIST Of the lands together with the names
Of the caimants) These claims are not
now and have never been In condition TO
patent. they are alleged Spanish and Me1l-
can grants The matter was referred by
your excellency 10 the first called session OF
ihe Twenty sixth legislature. which author
ized the attorney general 20 institute suit
Tor the recovery thereof. ] have
concluded to incorporate the list IN this
report for the purpose Of perpetuatlng the
data"
OF representatives OF January y, 1897, IN
der the heading, 1.-The General Land or
| fboritv conferred b. the act Of May 10,
| $500 two agents were appointed 10 take
| the field and to ascertain and report all
| illegal occupancies Of the public lands,
| inns calling attention to the list exhibited
! a. tbe report OF the commissioner Of t2c
I -ansrai land office. hut all Of these facts
/ een,e nm without being instigated by the
/ non John ~ Garner and certainly meant
/ tbat suits would be required TO be brought
| bv the state for the recovery OF these
Now Mr.. Editor tnder such circun-
i sfances what could he done 70 throw every
guard possible around the claimants OF
/ these old grants. Was II not wise, 30 far
~ shesr claimants were concerned, 70 get
| the means OF bringing their suits In their
| home counties, and the right 20 use record.
| "a comics Of their last munimeBts OF titles
/ a., .nrnort ~ their rlghtG. especially WAcu