Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1906-11-03

"A criIlclSm OF Dr. Jones Tor his
vote upon the law of 1908 in relation
to the extension of time on school
land certificates appeared in last
weeks issue of the Independent.
The article is misleading and for the
Information of our readers we shall
state the exact facts in relation to
this matter:
The act in question in substance
provides that any person holding a
school land contract on which inter-
est has been paid for fifteen years.
after paying all interest and taxes
due on the land, may surrender his
certificate to the county clerk and re-
ceive new certificate, upon which
interest shall be paid at the rate of
four per cent per annum. At the
time of the passage of this act there
were large numbers of certificates of
nearly twenty years standing which
the holders desired to renew and as
there was more money on hand in
the State School Fur q than the COM
missioners could loan under the re-
strictions placed upon them by law,
1t was deemed wise by the legisla-
ture to pass an act to encourage the
holders of such certificates to con-
tinue debtors of the state instead of
borrowing money elsewhere to make
final payments for their lands. The
effect of the act was not to re-instaue
old contracts which had been legally
forfeited, assthe article III the ''Inde-
pendent" would Indicate. The fact
is that any certificate which was
legally forfeited before or since the
passage of the law is not reinstated
thereby. Moreover under the old law
the Supreme court of this state by
continuous line of decisions for more
than twenty years last past has
steadily held that the holder of GER
titicate of purchase might at any
time compel the county clerk to ac-
cept all arrears of interest or princi-
pal thereon, even though forfeiture
notice had been issued and served,
provided the service of the notice had
not been in every respect as required
by law.
In the case of Hansen VS.. Wilson,
decided in 1888. and appearing in the
10th Kansas report at page 211, the
court in the syllabus of the opinion,
which was written by the late Chief
Justice Allen.
The publisher of this paper, in
common with the majority of the
the citizens of this county,
has felt that it was not square
deal" for holders of old contracts who
had refused to pay their interest dur
ing hard times to be permitted be-
cause of some technical defects In the
service of the forfeiture notice to-
come in and divest second purchasers
of their rights to the lands, but the
Supreme court of this state, both
when a majority of the court was
composed Of Populists and at all
other times within the past twenty
years, has steadily held that holder
of certificate could not be divested
of the legal right to claim the land
unless forfeiture notice was served
in exact conformity to every detail of
the law.
The statute of 1903 neither adds to
nor takes from the rights of holders
of contracts of purchase in this re-
gard and any attempt on the part OF
contracts of purchane in this regard
and any attempt on the part of the
publisher of the Independent" to
make it appear otherwise is simply an
effort to obtain an unfair advantage
over an opposing candidate in polit-
whacking political methods ought to
be repudIated by the voters at the
polls.