The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1904-06-03

provement Fund was irrevocably vested j.,
| the trustees named for purposes designated
| does not relieve them of the character OF
State agents In carrying out the PURPOSES
| of the act, or divest the State of interest
| in the funds. and the action of the trustees
| in dealing with ii. 1t was clearly Compel
| ent for the Legislature to prescribe the linn
| it's to which the trustees might go in bind
| ing the fund which was vested in them by
| the State for specified purposes beneficial
to >he public"
@ Legislature Has Power.
II must be borne in mind also that the
| act creating the board reserved to the Leg
| fsIature authority to legislate on matters
| concerning the lands, and this also has been
decided by the Supreme Court of Florida
| in the case OF the trustees Of the Internal
Improvement Fund VS.. st. Johns Railway
| Company, Is Florida Mr. BrOward says
that the act Of Congress provides that the
land shall be applied exclusively for the
purpose Of retaining said lands" Our Su-
preme Court has construed what this
means, and no power but the United States
Supreme Court can question such cOnstruc-
ton. In the st. Johns Railway case cited
on page 545, our Supreme Court says: 1t
must be borne in mind that a very small
portion of the lands vested In the trustees
were donated for general internal improve
ment purposes. not exceeding 100000 acres;
much the larger portion. probably nineteen
ewentieths Of them, were donated under the
grant OF swamp and overlooked lands.
When this vast domain is considered, much,
II not most OF II. lying out OF the reach
and beyond the influence for development
OF the great and leading works indicated
Ia the 4th section. 1t would have been sing
ulRr IL some such power had not been re-
served. No more efficient mode of reclaim
ing them could have been devised than that
OF constructing lines Of railroad and canals
through them, thus rendering them acces-
al RI furnishing atfOO
for their productions. enhancing the val"ei
Of the adjacent lands. etc
Court Against BrOwar".
'On page $40 our Supreme Court says: 1t
Is contended that the Legislature had nc
power to make the grant to the St. Johns
Railway Company under the 18th section OK
Its charter, because a previous Legislature
had vested the lands so granted in the
Trustees OF the Internal Improvement
Fund, and that they had become bound 10
the creditors of this fund by the terms OF
the contract. and that the 18th section ia
diversion of a part of the fund from the
purposes of the trust. and is therefore. in
operative and void because il impairs the
obligation OF said contract.
1T must be remembered that the charto:
Of the ST. Johns Railway Company was
granted after the act establishing the
Board OF Trustees of the Internal Improve
ment Fund. and the point then raised -
now sought to be raised by Mr.. BrOw"r3
rs to the power of the Legislature, ard :
effectually settled by the language of TIE
Supreme Court on page 547 of the same de-
cisiOn, as follows:
All OF the lands vested in the trustees
were pledged to the purposes of the trust
except such as the Legislature authorized
10 be otherwise applied. and these cEc"o-
tons apply exclusively to the swamp and
Overdowed lands These are the lands
granted to the St Johns Railway Company
rH-dn ha of ifG 81
the grant is strictly within the limits, and
only, Of the lands named in the 18th section,
which reserved the power to the Legisla-
ture TO make the grant. If they vested in
the trustees, they did Sd subject to this re-
served power of the Legislature to dispose
Of them in the manner and for the pur-
poses mentioned in the 18th section % this
act
Legislature Not Bound.
In the same decision the Supreme court
repeats what has been held by all appel
late tribunals, that the power Of one Leg
islature is not limited by the act Of an an
tecedent one unless the act of the first is
of such character as to call into operation
4 constitutional limitation upon the power
Of the second. The Internal Improvement
act is not organic law. On this point our
Supreme Court says, on page 552 'fh
power Of the Legislature reserved III the
29th section being original power no.
Parted with is not and could not be limite1
by the 9th section TO prevent an.
future Legislature from exercising its so
called power over the same subjects. unless
rights had become vested arising under cor
tract which brought into operation some
constitutional limitation upon the eXerCiS"
of such power by future Legislature. This
is a principle well esta blished by all the
authorities on this subject
Benefits From Land Grants.
When the lands were granted direct to
the railroads. not single right remained
vested that could be- impaired. The sale 10
Disston had enabled the trustees to pay
every creditor of the board Since then the
board has not created any new debt. Oh
the contrary. ii has accumulated a larg"
fund which is subject to legislative author
ity. | may add that but for the policy Of
granting lands direct to railroads the board
would never have been able to accumulate
any funds. but would probably have been
hopelessy in debt al this time. and involved
in costly litigation.
Necessity for Land Grants.
AT the time the policy of granting lands
to railroads was inaugurated in 1881, all the
decisions cited except that in 81 Florida
had already been rendered. Nobody ques-
toned the power of the Legislature over
the land, or its power to donate these lands
to enable the building of railroads. Indeed,
The act creating the board of trustees shows
clearly what the purpose of the legislative
authority was. The act itself provided for
State aid 10 railroads and canals. After the
VOSe decree was paid the State abandoned
its former plan because it had been, ana
was. a failure. From all parts of the State
came a demand for the construction of rail
roads 1t plain that the capital could
not be attracted to build lines of railroads
into sparsely settled territory. because
there would be no return for years to the
investment. The poor credit of the State
prevented a repetition of the plan which
had proven so disastrous, and nothing was
left but to offer inducements to capital in
the shape of direct land grants The plan
then put in force was inaugurated and car
ried out by the Democratic party through
it's leaders. l heartily sustained il.
Attacking Democratic Policy.
THE mileage of railroads In this State is
three times as great ii would have been
had any other policy been pursued AS a
member of the Legislature l voted to grant
these lands to railroads. and in doing so
think I acted wisely. I do not propose to
stultify myself by assailing a Democratic
policy which I advocated and voted for.
Neither do 1 think political exigencies war