BEAVER LAKE LANDS.
Mr. MAJOR called up his bill [S. 269] to relinquish the right of the State to certain lands (some 9,000 acres) in the bed of Beaver Lake, in Newton County, which was read the second time, together with lengthy majority and minority reports from the Judiciary Committee, the former favorable and the latter unfavorable to the passage of the bill.
Mr. LANGDON understood this bill is to take from the proper forum--the Courts of the country--a dispute as to the ownership of these lands. Such measures should never come into the General Assembly, inasmuch as the Courts of the country provide full relief. He moved to indefinitely postpone the bill.
Mr. BROWN opposed the motion to indefinitely postpone the bill. He thought the bill right; that the State can not afford to allow this suit to be prosecuted, in justice and right to her citizens. It is a disputed question whether or not the Courts can grant relief. If that were an undisputed question he would be willing to relieve the Legislature of it. Has the conduct of the State been such that the State should uphold the claim? If it goes to the Courts it is a legal and not a conceivable question. He insisted the State should not prosecute this suit. The State stood by and saw some $16,000 worth of improvements made upon this land, and yet an Attorney General, without asking the advice of the Legislature, seeks to take away these improvements. When the State recognized the fact she did not own these lands by gathering taxes from those in possession of the lands, she merely stated facts without argument, or an attempt to draw conclusions. This is only a grasping effort of some to line their own pockets, and would fix a blot upon the State which it would take ages to wipe out.
Mr. GRUBBS regarded this as a question whether or not the State would quit claim her title to some 9,000 acres--a question now pending in the Courts of Newton County, and the United States Courts also. He insisted the proper place to settle this question is in the Courts. We are asked to do this against the protest of the Attorney General of the State. The Courts have full authority to settle the legal as well as equitable questions involved in this case. No estoppel can grow up against the State because she receipted taxes on these lands under the circumstances that have surrounded these lands.
Mr. BELL insisted that the State ought, under all circumstances, to act justly and do right, and be ready at all times to set the example of right-doing and just action. The question here is whether the State, having the power, will deal wrongfully with her citizens. He recited the facts in the case as he understood them, and yielded for a recess till 2 p. m.
