USA > Texas > Tarrant County > Fort Worth > History of Texas : Fort Worth and the Texas northwest edition, Volume I > Part 16
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56
But in 1834 and 1835 a bewildering series of laws was passed which opened wide the gates to speculation on a wholesale scale. The first law (March 26, 1834), decreed that the vacant lands of the state should be surveyed in lots of 177 acres each, and sold at public auction to the highest bidder at a minimum in Texas of $10 a lot. Payments were to be made in three instalments, one-third down and the balance in one and two years. Nobody was to be permitted to buy more than eleven leagues, but the law was particularly liberal in that it allowed foreigners to pur- chase and gave them a year in which to move their families to the state and become naturalized-which was necessary for the perfection of their titles. Another liberal feature provided that no one should be molested for religious or political opinions so long as he kept the peace. And, finally, it was decreed that no further colonization contracts should be entered into, which meant, of course, that the profits formerly accruing to the empresarios in premiums would now go to the government. By a supplementary law of April 23, 1834, it was decreed that after the lands had been "once exposed at public sale with all the formalities," if no
100
HISTORY OF TEXAS
offer were received as high as the minimum, they might later be sold to any person offering the minimum price "without the necessity of again opening the auction."
That advantage was taken of this law for speculative purposes does not positively appear-perhaps the eleven-league limit made it unattrac- tive-but the supplementary decree certainly does suggest a clearing of the decks for rapid action. And Judge T. J. Chambers, writing in 1837, declared that only by his efforts was defeated the proposal of a "foreign millionaire company," whose agent was Gen. John T. Mason, to purchase for a "pittance" some twenty million acres of land on the Eastern frontier. "He was informed by several means," he said, "that members of the legis- lature and the governor were offered large bribes to pass the measure ; the governor was pledged to him to veto the bill if it passed, but fortu- nately a majority of the members were honest and killed it." Mason did, however, secure a large grant during this session of the legislature, and after reviewing all the evidence it is not altogether clear that he did not get it under some extension of this law. Stephen F. Austin, writing from prison to Oliver Jones, expressed satisfaction with the system of public sale-"such a law is necessary-public sale is the best and only true basis for a land law. It will benefit the state of Coahuila and Texas greatly and fill its treasury, and also benefit Texas. I recommended this system to the ministers here." Austin wrote from rumor, and did not know the details of the law, so that it is not certain that he would have endorsed this law so freely.
The second law affecting the public lands was passed April 19, 1834, "With the intention," runs the preamble, "of protecting the lives and property of the citizens, constantly sacrificed to the perfidy, rage, and barbarity of the hostile Indians." "For said object the executive may dispose of such number as he shall consider necessary of the militia which the state has in the departments wherein hostilities are committed, and for paying or remunerating the militiamen, he may take of the vacant lands to the amount of 400 sitios, distributing them agreeably to the rules and conditions he shall establish." Just a year later, April 14, 1835, an- other law declared that the executive could not dispose of the 400 sitios of land mentioned in article 2nd of this law. "except solely for the object which said law determines"; but "agreeably to the afore-mentioned law the executive has been, and is, authorized to contract the afore-mentioned lands, or to distribute them, as he shall think most proper, among the militiamen, who prosecute the war against the savages."
Under this law of April 19, 1834, S. M. Williams, Robert Peebles. and F. W. Johnson obtained a grant for 400 leagues. But Chambers cleclares that Mason also manipulated it to accomplish on a comparatively small scale what Chambers had previously prevented his doing on a very large one. Chambers's statement, in brief, is, that the Indians really were troubling the frontiers and that the law was passed in good faith to provide a means of suppressing them. It was the intention of the law that the land should be distributed to the militia, and not sold, but by a trick in the enrolment of the bill it was so changed as to authorize the governor to sell it to anybody, and he implies that Mason took it all. Mason did get hold of some land-how much is uncertain-in 1834,
:101
HISTORY OF TEXAS
under a contract dated June 19, but that it was granted by authority of this law is not clear. Chambers's story of the trick of enrolment, though it is clever and may be true, is, in view of the evidence, somewhat im- probable. If the land was to be distributed only to the soldiers, and not sold, what is the meaning of article 3, which appropriates $20,000 "of the first receipts of the state treasury for sales of lands made by virtue of the law on the subject"? And does not the supplementary law of April 14, 1835, declaring that the governor shall only dispose of the lands for the purpose designated in the original law, suggest the inference that the 400 leagues had not up to that time been sold at all? The whole matter is extremely confused and the only positive statement that one feels war- ranted in making, until further evidence develops, is that Mason got a grant in June, 1834, for ninety-five leagues, certainly ; probably for 300 leagues, and possibly for more. He may have obtained it by a manipu- lation of the law of March 26, or by the law of April 19-though the latter is improbable-or, finally, he may have gotten it by some private arrangement of which we do not know.
The next law in the series, passed March 14, 1835, authorized the governor, in order to meet "the present exigencies of the state," to dis- pose of the public land to the amount of 400 leagues. Article 2 allowed him to regulate the colonization of this land on such conditions as he thought proper, "without subjection to the provision of the law of the 26th of March of the year last past." As an afterthought, it occurred to the legislature that this might be interpreted too liberally, and two weeks later (March 30) another decree explained that the governor was, of course, to consider himself "subject to the general laws of the union."
Under this act S. M. Williams and John Durst obtained 124 leagues, and we have it on the authority of the legislature that the other contracts were made for the remainder of the 400 leagues, but by whom we do not know, since the grants appear never to have been located. Williams and Durst immediately re-sold 121 leagues of their grant to fourteen persons, mainly in blocks of ten leagues each, which, were located principally in the present counties of Harrison, Nacogdoches, and Red River.
The national Congress hearing of this law of March 14, annulled it by a decree of April 25. The reason assigned was that the law was contrary in articles 1 and 2 to the national colonization law of August 18, 1824. The decree declared moreover, that "by virtue of the authority reserved to the general Congress in article 7 of the law of August 18, 1824, frontier and coast states were forbidden to alienate their vacant lands for colonization until rules could be established to govern the same. In the meantime, if any state wished to sell a part of its vacant domain. it must first secure the approval of the general government, which should in every case have the right to take the land for itself and pay the state a suitable indemnity for it. Therefore, in conformity with articles 3 and 4 of the law of April 6, 1830, the general government might buy from the state of Coahuila and Texas the 400 leagues of land which it was said to be necessary to sell." Replying May 13, the legislature expressed its "extreme regret" at the "impossibility of fulfilling the decree of the gen- eral Congress." Not an article, it declared, in the whole law of August 18, 1824, applied to article 1 of the law in question, and, as regards
.
102
HISTORY OF TEXAS
article 2, the governor had been expressly instructed to guide himself in his rules for the settlement of the lands by the national law. Continuing, the memorial said : "This legislature has read and deliberately weighed the literal text of article 7th of the general law [referred to by the law] of the 25th of April last, and does not find, either in the letter or the spirit of the former, the reasons of the latter for prohibiting the border and literal [littoral] states from alienating their vacant lands for colon- izing thereon." The land was already sold and part of the purchase price had been received, the contracts were made in good faith and were not opposed to the general law ; therefore the legislature prayed Congress to repeal its decree of April 25. Here the matter rested until the ap- proach of federal troops put the legislature to flight.
In an opinion of some 4000 words David G. Burnet, late in 1835, upheld the right of the general government to annul these sales.
The next and final law of which advantage was taken to sell Texas land was passed April 7, 1835. News had been received that General Cos had ordered troops to march on Monclova and suppress the legis- lature, and that body forthwith authorized the governor "to take of him- self whatever measures he might think proper for securing the public tranquillity and sustaining the authorities in the free exercise of their functions." Article 4 declared that "The executive is hereby competently authorized to contract loans upon the state rents for the purpose of dis- charging the expense incurred in the execution of this decree." It is somewhat surprising to find that the governor considered this as sufficient authority to dispose of more Texas land. Perhaps he thought that at all times a "proper measure." At any rate, on May 2, Dr. James Grant was allowed to contract for a quantity of certificates for one league each. One hundred of these he sold in Nacogdoches through his agent, Alex- ander Newlands, and the titles were issued by John Cameron after the closing of the land offices. Besides these, James Ogilvy, an attorney of New Orleans, wrote in 1839 that Grant's heirs had in their possession 300 similar certificates, and that he had been interested in 500 altogether. The face of the certificates shows that the price was paid in full, but does not specify what it was. Ogilvy intimates, however, that Grant paid $100 a league. It is possible that some of the certificates referred to by Ogilvy were purchased under the law of March 14.
Enough has been said to show that the transgression of Williams, Peebles, and Johnson in the final speculation was by no means unique. It was not even novel in its magnitude, though it may have been some- what original in method. On the 11th of May, 1835, they addressed a note to the governor, saying that they had "informed themselves of the tenor of the law of April 19, 1834, empowering him to dispose of 400 leagues of land and restrain the arrogance of the wild Indians." We "have conceived the idea," they continued, "of blending the object of this benevolent design with the augmentation of the population by means of a contract, which we offer your Excellency, strictly and literally to fulfill. We obligate ourselves to place, subject to the orders of your Excellency. 1,000 able-bodied men, with all their equipments of war for the term of one year, and we will cause them to rendezvous at the place which may be designated to us within the term of four months at most, 'on the con-
103
HISTORY OF TEXAS
dition that, in compensation for our labors, the 400 leagues of land be granted to us." The governor approved the proposal, and two days later a formal contract was signed. The petitioners were required to raise by voluntary enlistment within two months 500 men, and within four months the whole number of 1,000. They were to be provided by the contractors with good arms and an abundance of ammunition at all times; but the government would furnish them food and horses. Article 12 declared that failure to fulfill any of the stipulations would render the whole con- tract void. No pecuniary consideration is mentioned in the contract, but it is not certain that the contractors were not also required to pay a nominal sum for their grant. For D. B. Edward declares that "A com- mittee [headed by S. M. Williams] from a company of land speculators, whose plans were well laid and whose funds were completely organized, presented themselves before this * *
* Legislature; who immediately passed a decree to sell the vacant lands of Texas, and otherwise arranged it to be done as soon as bidders should present themselves. Of course they were there-and purchased this already surveyed land, of 411 leagues, for $30,000 in hand, to the government." This statement, with slight variations, appears in most of the subsequent histories of Texas. . It may refer to this contract by Williams, Peebles, and Johnson, or to some of the other purchases that were made in 1835. Johnson himself, in a review (MS.) of Edward's History of Texas, replied to this charge with an emphatic denial that either he or his associates "bought one acre of land or were in any way interested in the purchase of said land." A natural inference to be drawn from this statement would be that they got no land at all, which, of course, is untrue. To save Johnson's veracity, therefore, the possible explanation presents itself that no money passed in this deal, and that the contractors viewed themselves merely as em- presarios, who were to get their premium by selling the lands to militia- men.
Johnson's own account of his presence at Monclova upon this occa- sion is interesting, but throws little additional light on the land specula- tions. He says: "Desiring to be present and witness the proceedings of the state Congress, Johnson, with Samuel M. Williams, Doctor Robert Peebles, Major Benjamin F. Smith, Col. Green De Witt, together with some Mexican scouts, left in the latter part of 1834 for the seat of government, Monclova, where they arrived in the early part of 1835. * * * [ Here] we found Col. Benjamin R. Milam, Thomas J. Cham- bers, W. H. Steel, Haden Edwards, Jr., James Carter, and inany other colonists. Here Johnson first made the acquaintance of Dr. James Grant, of Parras, Coahuila, who was a delegate; Dr. John Cameron, Messrs. Almy and Newlands ; also that of David J. Toler, a most estimable gen- tleman. * *
* Gen. John T. Mason, of the United States, arrived about this time for the purpose of having confirmed a sale made by the legislature or executive the year previous.
"Among the most important acts of this Congress was a decree au- thorizing the appointment of commissioners for Texas. * * Under * the decree George A. Nixon, George W. Smyth, and Charles S. Taylor. were appointed for Eastern Texas ; Col. Talbot Chambers, for Milam's Colony ; Dr. Robert Peebles, for Austin and Williams' Upper Colony ;
104
HISTORY OF TEXAS
and Johnson for Austin and De Witt's Colony. Bowie was appointed commissioner for General Mason's purchase. The state treasury then being empty, the executive was authorized to sell a large quantity of the public lands of the state to meet the current wants of the government ; and another decree [was passed] placing at the disposal of the governor 400 leagues for frontier defense and protection. These acts gave great offense to the federal authorities, and the Congress declared them null and void. To this, the state authorities simply protested, and left the matter to take its course, pursuing, however, the policy inaugurated."
News now arrived that troops were marching toward Monclova, and there was a hasty exodus of the Texans and other lobbyists. Williams arrived at Bexar June 3 and Peebles and Johnson reached San Felipe a few days behind him. Williams, as we have already seen, had acquired with John Durst 124 leagues under the law of March 14, 1835, and apparently devoted himself principally to the sale of that grant, while Peebles and Johnson assumed the task of dis- posing of the 400 leagues in which all three were interested. A hun- dred and twenty-one leagues of the Williams and Durst grant, as has already been shown, were soon sold, and Peebles and Johnson worked with equal celerity. By August 20, certificates had been issued to forty-one persons for the full 400 leagues. Fifteen of the certificates were issued by Johnson and the remaining twenty-six by Peebles. They merely state that Citizen So and So "has voluntarily entered the service of the state of Coahuila and Texas as a soldier for the term of one year, and Williams, Peebles and Johnson are, by their contract, authorized to receive his enlistment and designate a portion of the vacant land as a reward for the services which he will render, there- fore they give their consent for him to select for himself such land as he likes-usually ten leagues of it." Their contract to place 1,000 men in the field was entirely ignored.
The effect of the speculations upon the Texans must now be briefly noticed. The large grants of 1834 appear not to have attracted particular attention in Texas, but the deals of 1835-especially under the law of March 14-aroused great indignation. Little authority appears, however, for the statement frequently met with in the his- tories of Texas, that the Legislature thought the separation of Coa- huila and Texas imminent and determined to plunder the latter while there was yet time. The earliest expression of this theory is in a pamphlet printed by T. J. Chambers in 1837, but in all the discussions aroused by the act of March 14, 1835, this explanation is absent. Aus- tin, indeed, writing to D. C. Barrett, December 3, 1835, declared the acts of 1834 and 1835 all of a piece with general Mexican policy, both national and state. The Mexicans, he said, considered the lands value- less-this was evidenced by the whole history of the colonization period-the treasury was empty, and the sale of the land promised the only relief. He blamed neither the legislators nor the speculators for the sale itself, but the sale certainly did illustrate the defectiveness of the government from the Texan point of view.
The earliest expression of disgust with the wasteful policy of the government is found in The Texas Republican of May 9, 1835. An
105
HISTORY OF TEXAS
address from Governor Viesca, calling upon the people of Texas to rally to his assistance against Santa Anna, was printed in this issue, and the editor introduces it with the remark that he prints it as a news item solely, and not with the view of endorsing the governor's call for troops "to sustain him and a vile congress that have bartered our public lands for a mere song." In the same paper is also the answer of the political chief of the Brazos department to the gov- ernor's appeal. He says: "The people view with equal horror and indignation the acts of the present State Congress who have mani- fested a determined disposition to alienate all the most valuable lands of Texas at a shameful sacrifice, and thereby utterly ruin her future prospects. The law of the 14th of March past is looked upon as the death-blow to this rising country. In violation of the General Con- stitution and laws of the Nation-in violation of good faith and the most sacred guarantees-Congress has trampled upon the rights of the people and the Government, in selling 400 leagues of land at private sale, at a price far below its value; thereby creating a monop- oly contrary to law and the true interests of the country." Accom- panying the governor's proclamation was a rather alarmist postscript signed by Coahuilteranus, and Henry Austin, in referring to it, sug- gested that "this firebrand has been thrown among us to promote the views of designing speculators."
Enough has been said to show that General Cos ran little risk of antagonizing the average citizen when he explained that his object in marching against Monclova was to enforce recognition of the federal decree annulling the most objectionable of these land laws. But, as has already been intimated, Cos was probably more concerned about the protest which the Legislature made against changes in the con- stitution and against a federal law reducing the strength of the militia.
The memorial of April 22 deprecated the unfortunate policy from which Mexico had suffered so much in trying to mend one revolution by another, summarized the changes wrought under pretext of the Plan of Cuernavaca, and asked, "If this alone caused a general and simultaneous movement throughout the republic, what may be ex- pected from the violent reforms that now occupy the attention of your honorable body?" The manner in which it was proposed to effect these reforms had especially attracted the attention of the Legisla- ture. That body represented a people "proud of having always sus- tained the immutability of the fundamental principles of the constitu- tion," and "it would be wanting in its most sacred duty were it to
refrain from manifesting * *
* its ardent desires for their preserva- tion and its determination firmly to sustain them." "For effecting these reforms, ideas and opinions have been advanced in your honor- able body," it proceeded, "as unreasonable as if the present general congress considered itself possessed of unlimited power to alter the constitution." In fact, however, Congress had no other power than certain articles of that same constitution delegated to it, "Therefore, the state of Coahuila and Texas, lawfully represented by its Legis- lature, protests in the most solemn manner that, having joined in the
106
HISTORY OF TEXAS
confederacy by virtue of the fundamental pact, and on the basis therein established, it neither does, or ever will, recognize the acts and measures emanating from the general congress, should they not con- form to the plain meaning of the aforementioned articles: It will admit no other amendments of the constitution than those effected conformably to the steps and requisites provided in the same." It pointed out that a portion of the state was settled by inhabitants whom the policy of change did not suit, and that "the contemplated reforms would highly compromit not only the internal order and tran- quality, but also the very integrity of the national territory." The unwise policy of abolishing the militia was condemned, as was also the president's expedition against the patriotic state of Zacatecas, when he ought rather to have been suppressing the revolution of Alvarez in the South ; and finally attention was turned to General Cos, who, it was declared, was interfering "in the most turbulent manner in the internal administration of the state," and was approaching the capital with the evident intention of "overawing the civil authorities."
On the assembling of this Legislature (March 1, 1835), a canvass of the vote for governor had shown the election of Augustin Viesca. Neither he nor the vice-governor, Ramon Musquiz, was present, and the resignation of Elguezabal, the military officer who had been in- vested with the office since August, 1834, made it necessary to appoint an acting governor. José M. Cantu was selected for the place, which he held until Viesca was inaugurated about April 15. One of Viesca's first acts was to call for 100 militiamen from each of the departments of Texas to help sustain the government, but it met with no response. The Anglo-American departments of Nacogdoches and the Brazos were angry over the land speculations and Colonel Ugartechea suc- ceeded in preventing the militia of Bexar from marching.
In the meantime Cos was pushing forward with his plan of crush- ing the state government. On March 10, 1835, he wrote to the con- manders of the garrisons at Laredo, Santa Rosa and Rio Grande that he had learned that the state authorities intended "to attract the attention of the supreme government by proclaiming anarchy in imi- tation of the state of Zacatecas," and he instructed them to arrest any of the officials or legislators who might attempt to cross the frontier. The next day he wrote Ugartechea at Bexar: "The Legislature at Monclova has determined to imitate Zacatecas. It has called for civic troops on the specious pretext of reducing the department of Saltillo, thus contravening the law of March 31 last" for abolishing the militia. The Legislature adjourned on May 21, after passing a decree authorizing the governor to shift the government to a safer place. The Texans at Monclova persuaded Governor Viesca to establish the capital at Bexar, and with them and a body of militia he began the march on May 25.
"On reaching San Felipe," wrote F. W. Johnson, " we learned that the colonists were both excited and alarmed by the political state of things in Mexico, and divided in opinion in regard as to the course that should be pursued. Our report and representation greatly in- creased the excitement if it did not tend to cause a greater diversity
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.