The Snyder Signal. (Snyder, Tex.), Vol. 24, No. 5, Ed. 1 Friday, July 7, 1911 Page: 2 of 8
eight pages : ill. ; page 22 x 15 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Friday July 7 1911
- 3
Paga Two
THE ENYDES SIGNAL ENYDEH TEXAS V
BALE OF SCURRY COUN-
TY SCHOOL LANDS
In the issue of June 24 of the
Snyder Daily Signal there appear
ed au article entitled "Sale of
Scurry County School Lands"
over the signature of "A Citizen
and Tax Payer." The writer Jus-
tifies his comments on the sub-
ject under discussion on the
gorunds that in the Daily Signal
of June 22nd. there appeared an
article on this mibjeet which was
in many respects misleading and
that it was a matter of interest to
Scurry County citizens. For the
same reason that this article of
the "Citizen and Tax-payer" is
misleading in many respects and
in many important particulars we
desire that this article be publish-
ed. The article above mentioned re-
cites that "Some time during the
latter part of Judge C. It. IJucli-
mill's administration as. party
went before the Commissioner's
Court of which Commissioners
Stinson and Lowe were then mem
bers and made the court a propo-
sition to sell their school land at
$10 per acre "ne to have what he
could make on same over and a-
bove the amount and to sell the
same within two years from date
and further agreed to give said
Commissioner's Court a bond
that in case he did not sell the
eutire amount of Scurry County
School Land within two years.
specified at the price of $10 per
. . . i i
hi re. that h would take the bind
himself at that price and the not.
for which said land were to be
Mild were to bear 5 per cent per
annum and said court did not see
fit to iieecpt said proposition."
Heing aware that if such a pro-
position were made it would pio-
hahly be of record in the minutes
of the Commissioner's Court we
mad' investigation by reviev.'.nir
the minutes of said court to de-t'-nnliie
the exact nature of t'"
proposition. An inspection of too
i j . . . . - .
minutes will show Mint ro si-Mi :
nmiuwitioii us above set out was
jtia.l" and entered of record on tin
' . . . . ..
( eirt Records. Tbinkin
the i -ord of such a proposition ulJIj.. ;iK. sale."
tad perhaps been overlooked we j f redoing excerpt is ulto-f-;rthr
iuv.-tiiMted the matt r : e. r inisbading from the fact
by 5;.ikiri in-piiry of 4u lire C. -hat n offer of 7.0 per acre for
j;. I. ii !..i!i?.n. II- informs us that i ilit Jd wi made to the curt
i.. Mi-h Ti".".!i;iii was eer tj f r tie? bid of the pun-ha-
I: i i U 'ir ' '. be w.i"
C-v.ntv .tudire. He s.ta1s that ht
v. . . ....... .1 ir ri
(iec.isi.in in I
C'''T.mission-rs
Court room.!
II. P. Wellborn -asaoily remarked ' hil a im.t i-m to reject the bid that
tlatji" would like to s. 11 th-!wtis th-n before the court is not
H-iio.. land for 'be county on such ; .orre. tly staled his motion being
ter:;n n above set. ut. hutthat he' t0 r.seind the action of th court
d" s that not remember who was :n . Irg the h' i !..nd '. the
present or what members of the purchasers of i" sune. v.bich
C.inviissioners' Court were i.res- ! w in f;"1 tb- -nv mo'.:.-i that
Lt. if any. and that his best
cr lleetion of the matter is that the
co'ir vh at li'sure a! t'.ie time be j
heard Mr. W.Hlrn make this re-
rr.ark. lie state that he did not -
charge his memory with any de-
tc.ils of the matter if they w. r-'
tri.en i.. ! . re i son t'li h V'l'-w i
the court could not entertain such '
a proposition from a bed stand
ioiiit. in that the profit an in
definite amount would under
nich a contract would have to b !
paid out of the co.i ify 's gent-ra.
fund. That his judgment is cor-
net is shown by the following lan
guage .ptoted from the Supreme
Cnnrt of Texan: "It is. in effect.
held that the Commissioners' t
Court are not authorized to dia-'tcr
r.nc nf iho lait ( rferrinc trt tbi
kIiooI lands) otherwise than by
sale or lease." I
ir ur i.'r. i
It would be contrary to both
law and public olicy. for the ' of the motion of Mr. Rrock that j
Commissioners Court to pay an J it was very easy to come in after!
agent for s-!linjr th can'.v s Upd ' a trade was already made and tf-1
out of the proceeds of tV .-Vier the figure of the purcha'rs
thensof. i w.r alreadr known to offer a I
On further investigation of the!
CASTOR I A
Tct Ir fi-ta acil l""1 ..'r-i
Tl V'l Yl3 F'Tl J"5 J
'' w ''- "a"
l--rs tia p yffjT
proposition above quoted Com-
missioners Stinson and Lowe
state that no suen proposition as
mentioned by the "Citizen und
Taxpayer" whs ever made to the
Court during their tenure of of-
fice and they state further that
they never heard any person say
anything about such a proposition
in court or out of court.
The other two members of the
court during the latter part of
Judge C. It. Buchanan's adminis-
tration were A. W. Roberts who
how resides in Tarrant County
Texas and J. R. Coker of Herm-
leigh Texas. These parties we
have not had opportunity to in-
terview but Judge C. R. Hiiehan-
an. A. S. Iowe and T. C. Stinson
above quoted constituted a ma-
jority of the commissioners' Court
at the time it is claimed that the
above mentioned proposition to
sell the Scurry County School
land was madeto the court. From
their statements it will be observ-
ed that they and the minutes of
the Commissioners' Court are a-
greed a sto the fact that no such
proposition was made to the court
of which they were members.
The artiele of the "Citizen and
Taxpayer" further states that on
"Thursday June 22 a party'learn
ing that the Commissioners' court
of Scurry County bad decided to
sell the Scurry County School
bind and iilso learned that the of-
fer tiny were accepting was so'ne
$cM per acre -iind he. desiring to
pim-hnse said land and further
... . i .1 .
more desiring 10 mane no- i-ni'i
bring as much as possible went
before said commissioners' court
and made tlit-m an offer of -47.00
per acre mid Mr. I'.rm k. one of
111.- Commissioners r.-ade a mo-
tion to reject the bid th.tl was
then before tie court which was
tli. bid that was later accept. 1.
and Judge Fritz II. Smith ruled
his motion out of or.b r and in ti c
fa.-e of the 7.00 per acre offer
accepted the $C.." per acre which
i:k. s a difference of $7.4.x.
. . . I . 41... 1 1
;Ilir that much more than said
.uu-tv offered than t lie amount
' '
that was iffe-.-l by the parties
to whom the Co'imiissioners Court
rs of said lf.nd had alr. a ly 1 n
. ecj.vd bv order of the court.
Th motion of Mr. l?ro k referred
t.j :n th" foregoing excerpt as 1m'-
re-j.ould have bn made in view of.
th- fact that ti e Rale had already
hem eon; pie ted
1-urly known 1
This fact was evi-
iilell'lV KlJOnll u mr v ii
Tuxi-aver" at the time he wrote
js article f..r the reason that we
fm. th- following language us-d
il .Ti'm: "At this time (referring
t the $7.' offer) there could j
have been no other transaction
had between tie Commissioner
Court and the parties wlio pur-
chased the land than an oral a-j
pre m nt and all thinking men
knnw that an oral agreement to
cii tt rnnld not tve en-1
forced.." The writer thus reveals
that the question of whether or
not th eommissioneri' court f
having made the le of m'h
I ln.l .n t-.-. i v in IT A higher bid
'therefor woulJ "back out" of j
the trade already made. It was us-
jur iraur ii'. -- -
as argument in the discussion j
few cnt more per acre. It wa
not e:airo-.J at any lime pnaing
thr negotiation that this $7.00 of
fer was received before the land i
was sold by the person making J
i 'ftrr or ll-v n-v otli r r'rcn- j
It w argued by tV. e l-'5ri.'!rr .
m r.-e:r.d the a t.n of the evr.rt '
not been made and that the requi-J
site papers for transfer had not
been executed rnd that therefore
the commissioners court could not
in law be made to comply w:.i!
the terms of their contract of
sale. We leave it to your code of
ethics and to your judgment as
honorable business men as to
whether the commissioners' court
by refusing to "back out" of its :
contract acted as you would
have done under similar circum-
stances. Ve are informed that the per-
son making the $7.00 per acre of-
fer for the land is the same person
whom the "Citizen and Taxpay-
er" states made the $10 per acre
offer herein referred to; and it
is further stated that he made
said $7.00 offer among other rea-
sons because he desired to make
the land bring as much as possi-
ble. We are forced to conclude
therefore that he had reversed his
judgment as to the land's being
worth $10.00 per acre in that the
$7.00 per acre offer was made to
make the land "bring as much as
possible." We desire to call your
attention further to the fact that
the person who made the $7.00 of-J
fer was endeavoring to j:et the
commissioners court to do exactly
what it did do in so far as the
principle and manner of the sale
are concerned. That is to say that
he wanted the court to sell him
the land at a private sale at $7.00
ner acre which is exactly wh:it
was done except the sale was for
about 4" cents less than he offer-
ed and to other patties than him-
self. He did not offer to change
the contract vl;'n h" en.b-avoicd
to jret the coniiiiis-.ioii. rs' court to
back out of their contract al-
ready made and sell to him. but
merely offered a sin;'.!! s'lm per
acre more. I'lib-ss he it-M ' 1
the court for an net which be him
self endeavored to get it in .. I
cannot onsisteutlv criticise cith-
er principle or manner of t'i-
s'l'c. In oth.-r words hi coni--
tent criticism i limited to' the few
cents difference in valuation
jf the l.u. d as he and thp court
viewed it.
The "Citizen and Taxpayer'
pi'.yer also states in his article n
f erred to that "sanj purchaser
of said land are to have the right
to transf. r to Se.irry County any
pap.r that they may take in th"
sjiI" of said land said paper to
contain a li n oa said land and
Scurry county is to release the
present purchasers from all fur-
ti er liabilities on said land arid
take other ver.de s sob ly for their
indebtedness." Idealizing that it
would be difficult for the county
to s !1 its land to advantage if the
purchasers had to remain bound
f..r a period of forty years on an
obligation as large a this one the
courts of Texas have made legal
that provision of the contract a-
bove quoted. Those who hae fil-
ed upon school land in this state
and in Scurry county know that
the law in its wisdom permit
them and requires no more of
them when they sell the land they
hold tha nit contained in that pro
vision of the contract just quot-
ed. Hy refreshing our memories
if we have been concerned in the
transfer of school land we will
recall that the purchaser of the
land assumes the balance on said
land due the state of Teias And
the grantor ir snch conveyances
is re'eased from all further lia-
bilities to tbeState of Texas. Our
constitution and statutes have left
this matter optional with the eom-
misisoners' Courts of.th virions
eouT.ties. and Judge Hunter in
rasing upon this question in the
Wie county case say that this'
has been wisely done. TheH'ommis
sior.ers' Court of our Neighboring
county the county of Kent in its
contract for the sale of its school
laols inserted a similar provis-
ion. Also the commissioners eourt
of Wise count v did the same and
v.o doubt ir.anv other counties of;
or -ute.
. .... . ...
ihe :-t iti.-n tr.d Taii '-y.r
in eo::.tniinr th: r-rv cf tl.-
f rtra t f ivf rf-rr.-l to s -v :
"It further means that Scurry
County may become involved in
almost endless litigation as said
parties may sell said land in
small (iiiantities. and at any time
8t.(tier8 fnj to make their pay-
ments to the county the county
will have to bring suit to fore-
close said lien on said land and
thereby pay out court cost and at
torney's fees in each separate in
stance and will have no better se-
curity in the wind up than they
now have in the land."
The writer of said article in eon
st ruction of that portion of the
contract must have overlooked
another provision of the contract
which the commissioners' court in
their wisdom inserted that is the
provision which stipulates that in
the event the county has to bring
suit for the recovery of said land
or any part thereof a penalty of
ten per cent is to be taxed against
the persons against whom the
suit is brought to cover the cost
of the litigation. In fairness to the
court attention should have been
called to this further provision of
the contract. Furthermore it may
be remarked that unless the coun-
ty has sold its school land for
more than its value the writer's
fears would havenever been real-
ized even if the court had not in-
serted the 10 per cent penalty
clause.
The article referred to
criticisis the court for selling
said hum wiiuoui oiiiciany ex
amining same. We do not know
what the writer would call and of J
fieia! examination of land but j
suffice it to say that it is a well
known fact that this school laud
. has been iii litigation for soi 1
time. One of the eominisisoners
; was present at the trial in which ;
! one of the issues w as the value of j
. 1 I 1 T! . .a a - t
shki iaii'1. i ne Huoriieys Hniiis;
for Scurry county endeavored to'
prove th" highest valuation possi-1
j hie for this land. We are informed j
j that the value testified to range j
J ed principally from $.".( k') to $.(
. per acre
. s. Lowe one of the Com-!
! mission rs was present and heard 1
the testimony of Scurry'
I County's witness under oath as to '
- the value of the land and from j
witnesses to who had been Select '
i rl liecausc of their beliefs as fi
n i?h valuation. We who hae.
J not s.-. n the land and have nr.
j know!. !:' as to its valuation
j should in all fairness make soinci
investikTrftion before indulging in j
j violent criticism wheren we cor-
i demn tie integrity of m.n and of'
fJ( ia;s whose honor has not here
to-fore b. t-n quest ioned.
If ther" are those w ho are anx-
ious to ae.piire this land and are
disi:ppoir.t'd b-eause they did
not do so. they may have a ten-
dency to be harsh in their criti-
cisms and they may state that the
consideration for sai l land is un-
concionab!e r.d that they would
give a great d-al nu.r fur it. We
are informed that it Las been stat-
ed that tb vkv.l children of
Scurry (Vm!v hve zi depriv-
ed of from to i'A.UtO by
virtue of the . If this is true
and those who s bIi are hon-
est in their judgrr-'tt as to th
value of the land we are author-
ized to say that thy rr.y aeiaire
this land at a figur that wiil cut
in two the above mentioned im-
aginary profit and that ail that
would le required in the transac. ;
tion would -t that they the pur-
chasers execute go.l and mer-;
chantable paper therefor. And it '
is highly probable Jhat the lnd'
may now Ik purchased from th-;;
present owners at an even more i
reavmable profit. Tho interest-
ed may ee the purchasers. At I !
surely no fair minded perso:-.
would expert that these pure ha-
ers of tit is land would part wit'i
it without a reasonable profit. ;
Your cartful investigation and
pemsal of this arti-Je is init-!
' j
fir it eontaiii-s the facts.
"A CITIZEN"
iWAXTT.Ie-HM.a. Furs
il.vk.r.s rr leitttr.
u x f . v i iv v
t.;ryt r-..- ;a
i Fro Wt : l'r ': S'f t
W.
ORGANIZE FOR STATE-
WIDE MOVEMENT
Restaurant Men Mad at Saloons
Will Fight Anti-Prohibition
Special to Signal.
Snn Antonio Texas July 1
Because the saloon keepers in this
city have refused to dispense with
the custom of furnishing free
lunches to their patrons all the
restaurant keepers including the
proprietors cooks and waiters
numbering more than one hun-
dred and fifty have organized to
work in the interest of State-wide
prohibition.
The restaurant men say that
the free lunch business knocks
them out of at least $"0 a day and
therefore they have concluded to
come out against the saloon busi-
ness generally.
: Geo Bickham
X
GRAIN HAY
MILL PRODUCTS
Car Load Lots
Snyder
j wwwyyvvwvvVvW
GAY McGLAUN
LIVERY STABLE
First-class Rigs Careful Drivers.
Snyder Buss transfers to any part of
the city. 'Phone 164
f.
Figure With Us . .
I5ECAUSK we are headquarters
for anything in buiJcH - ar.:l Fencing
Line. Oar prk-?s ar liht. and in
.juality we excel. Full line of the
Sherwin-Williams Paints.
THE SNYDER
f"i Tl TT T wm vm mm rm
w m
u
ri
ti
Coal and W mi
M
n
n
ii
M
M
U
11
ALL KINDS AT
Jim Dawson
Near Farmers' Union Gin
Quick Delivery. Phone 272. Snyder fj
Stubborn Ca
I was under the trtatmcnt d two doctotV wriirt
hr. R. L Phillips ol Indian Valley Va "nd tey r-
nounced my case a very itub&ora one ol vcramry wtai-
ln1-?? not bf to $it UP wh I fwneed to
take CarduL
I wed it about ore week before I uw much chae.
Now tt tevere pain th had feta fat ry x!e bf years
tas jor.e and I dool aunTer at afl. I am fcelinx bcticf fca
la a or.z tie azd cannot speak too kithJy cf Carizi"
Ca
AUG
vlQUl
?? ftos tn':r wbo tc!!er froa trj
a tie troubles eo conmoa to women.
Cardal rs a builder cf woruu-dy sirerrrS. Ccrtpcsei
of tmlr notable fcsrtdicat tt acts JuickJy cfte
wcmar..y systcn bu3d;ng KP wcr.xn.'y strt tzir.g c?
Tr r V-cccss:-i C5 tor nor tvai M years.
Cf Ias..es have wrlr.en to tell cf L':s fctr.cft tey I
received frm it Try it lc your troupes. En t:y.
i
rt.-Viiiiii.. : r- r- rs" it t
Club Officers Fined ;
Special to Signal.
San Antonio Texas July 1 :
M. C. JJena and F. II. Costa prcsV
ident and secretary respectively J
of the Orand Circle de Obneros a j
Mexican organization was eae'a j
fined $100 and sentenced to three
day simprisonment for selling j
beer in violation of injuction. I
The case will be appealed. !
Express Rates Reduced. j
Special to Signal. 1 j
Washington July 1 Antic)) f
pating an investigation praetj-
cally all express companies ex-
cept the Long Island have filed
new tariffs believed to show a
reduction of rates.
Family washing 6c per pound !
all Hat work ironed at Snyder
Steam Laundry.
Commission Co :
To Dealers Only
4 .mm.S.S.AAM..
VVVWSAAaaaam
LUMBER CO.
mm n wmvm n rm'rmmmww wm w
a
11 1
f
U
u
n
TZWlTiTWWmwm9mw'vm mm mm wmmwmm "" ' 1
VomrnTonlc
rrx aru jr. 4
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Barnes, E. B. & Hardy, J. S. The Snyder Signal. (Snyder, Tex.), Vol. 24, No. 5, Ed. 1 Friday, July 7, 1911, newspaper, July 7, 1911; Snyder, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth287824/m1/2/: accessed May 9, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .