The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 20, July 1916 - April, 1917 Page: 350
426 p. ; 23 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Southwestern Historical Quarterly
,owned land which, valued at the same rate as public land in the
United States, would be worth 5,000 or 6,000 francs. At the
least estimate it was certainly worth 2,000 francs. Was this
"chimerical," Castro asked, and had it been done with a "facti-
tious credit?" Castro considered that the judge of the court had
not taken an impartial view of his work, and had been occupied
only with the interest of the colonists. They had forgotten to take
into account the fact that he had gone to Texas to aid person-
ally in the setllement of his colony and had borne its dangers.
In conclusion, he thought that the judges had condemned him
with "a complete disregard for the fate of the seven hundred
Frenchmen," who had already been transported to Texas and who
were dependent on his actions.'1'
On January 30, 1844, a law was passed repealing the laws
authorizing the president to make colonization contracts, and for-
feiting all which had not complied with the law. The president
was forbidden to make any contracts granting "any further time,
privileges, or facilities" to persons with whom he had already made
contracts. The attorney-general was to ascertain as far as pos-
sible the proceedings of the contractors, how far they had com-
plied with the laws, and to make a report to the next congress,
in order that it might take any action that it should see fit and
proper. The president, when he found out that any contracts
had been forfeited by the failure to comply with the conditions
required, was ordered to make an immediate proclamation to
that effect.112
From the debates in the Texas constitutional convention of
1845, we learn some of the main reasons which led to the passage
of the act of January 30, 1844. The question as to whether the
colonization contracts could be annulled came up in the consti-
tutional convention, as the Constitution of the United States says
that no State can pass laws impairing the obligations of a con-
tract. It was alleged that the colonization contracts "were
fraudulent and unconstitutional in their inception." The op-
ponents of foreign colonization declared that "inasmuch as there
was a general lien upon the public lands for the payment of the"'Ilbid.. 37.
112Gammel, Laws of Texas, II, 958-959.'350
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 Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 20, July 1916 - April, 1917, periodical, 1917; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101070/m1/356/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.