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

act OF this State 1t was apparer' CsdI tic
plan formulated by that act VaI Ill ute:
failure. NiFo have persevered in il would
have - to have sacrificed tn q ut.
landed domain of the State. without Idiag
lGU miles Of railway. / suggested that Ia.
State issue So, 0000 600 of bonds and b"i'u
P.500 miles OF railroad. giving the land a
well as the railroads as security for pay
ment of the interest and pIiIcipeI Of tn
bonds. Governor BiCXham, and indeed all
others to whom / made the SuES PStiOi.
were of the opinion that the credit OF th5
State would not enable Us t. float sucn Z,
large amount Of bonds except at a raj
Jus discount. I am inclined TO think thot
MS objection was Well founded. There ~.
therefore, nothing else ID do but u make
grants Of lands direct to the railroad com
pauIcs that would build. or permit the Land
10 bc frijtered away i'm expenses or T..
guarantees. which would not accomplish as
.nuch a. direct land grants. The Poi -.
therefore. Of gIViuE these grants v1s Gc.sr-
-aEa"d ul:o;.. and think wisely 4'..r &C. tlt
~ceH IL - immense i.oITo. cHiost co. i..'
.',tt,. -
Not :: RailrOnd Lawyer.
ana not a rjllro:l lawyer and nave 60.
received. nor accepted a fee fro.a a I'll
road company for u"sri- twen--- y"lrs. " &C.
.5a-cguouuy ! am not in me category OF
t..g-r lawyers referred 10 by Mr.. BrOw1rd
az Il
am. time, / certainly do not agree with
..CSo lawyers who have advised hirl that
;:, title 10 the land is vested i'm the trIS-
tl,s o. the Internal Improvement Fund CN-
clasively. and that the Legislature of the
State OF Florida has no more power or au~
JuorIyy, or control of said lands than any
other 100 men i'm the State [ cannot agree
with This. because the settlement is direuyly
in conflict with the decisions Of the Su-
prcme Court Of Florida. In the case OF the
State o. Florida ". Anderson. which VII.
lo found in the 9lst United States Supreme
Csvyc decisions. the court says regarding
;..e powers of the trustees. that the trl!S-
tees are mere agents OF the State. invested
with -Nc legal title Of the lands for THEN
mOTcS convenient administration; and the
State remains in every respect the bcuefi-
cial proprietor. subject to the guarantees
which have been made TO the holder OF rail
road bonds secured thereby The residuarN
interest in the funds belongs TO the State.
The fact that the trustees consist OF the
Governor and other officers, and that they
are charged with duties of drainage. re-
claiming and settlement Of the public lands
duties OF a purely public character shows
that they are merely public agents invested
with an important branch of the States ad-
miniSt-atiOn.' The reason why the SUI
prcmc Court of the United States passed in
this manner upon the status of the boar0
o. trustees was because il was objected
that the State was not the proper party,
and that the lands belonged to the trustees.
Ia fact, practically the same contention
was made as Is now set up by Mr.. Brow
ard. and the point was raised that the
trustees OF the Internal Improvement
Fund were the only parties legally inter.
csted The Supreme Court Of the United
States thus held that the State was the
real and proper party. and that the trustees
were merely agents Of the State: and such
being the case, / cannot conceive how the
Legislature could have Invested itself OF
the power TO legislate concerning these
lands
els Creature not Creator
The Board Of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Fund was, and is. the crea.
ture OF legislative enactment. and il is al
axiom of Law that the creature cannot b.
greater than the creator In the case OF
Hawkins -. Mitchell ct al. trustees of the
Internal Improvement Fund. our State Su-
prcmc Court. in - Florida. uses this Ian
guacc: In the matter Of guaranteeing the
paymcnt Of interest on the bonds in the
sU; hcrr-c e. ,l.c- trustees Of the Internal