Replies

Texas does seem to have the most private land. This is why it's the most prosperous and free of the states.

Exactly right. Sometimes people ask "What makes Texas so different from all the other states?" The answer is fairly simple: When Texas was admitted to the Union, it retained sovereignty over all of its unpatented public lands within its borders; in contrast, the other western states ceded sovereignty over their public lands to the federal government, usually for the purpose of dumping the cost of law enforcement in the sparsely populated public range onto the feds, who were only too happy to take the western states up on the deal.

Most of the lands in Texas have been severed from the sovereign, i.e., patented into private hands. Those that were not, totaling some 2.1 million acres, were placed into the Permanent University Fund, the bulk of which are situated in the massive mineralogical storehouse known as the Permian Basin. Lease bonuses, oil and gas royalties and surface lease reveneues from production activities on the University Lands, which are shared by The University of Texas at Austin and Texas A & M University, place these two institutions squarely among the wealthiest public institutions of higher learning on the planet.

The Henderson ranch, which is at the center of the Red River controversy, was duly patented and the Henderson family holds the same pursuant to a regular chain of title from said patent (actually, a series of patents) to the present day. These are clearly private fee lands, severed from the sovereign, which could have been one of the following entities, depending on when each particular survey was patented:

1. Spain

2. Republic of Mexico

3. Republic of Texas

4. State of Texas

Please note that the cited sovereign entities which could have patented any or all of this 90,000 acres now owned by the Henderson group DOES NOT include the United States, which has literally had to purchase just about every acre in Texas it now owns.

Contrast the Henderson situation with that of the Bundy family, who, with the exception of 150 acres of private fee lands they own, are running their cattle on public lands which have never been patented, i.e., severed from the sovereign, and which for all purposes is still owned by the U.S. government. The Bundys may have some prescriptive claim on at least some portion of these lands, but at last report they had yet to persuade a judge or jury as to that assertion.

At any rate, next time somebody asks, "What the hell makes Texas so different?" you'll have the answer ready for them.

All correct as far as it goes. Start with Spain. Additional reasons why Texas is different.

The ADAMS/ONIS TREATY of 1819:
http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Adams_Onis_Treaty_1819.pdf

SUPREME COURT CASES:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/606

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/172

Rule of ERROSION and ACCRETION: If a stream changes gradually due to natural errosion and accretion, the boundary changes and follows the course of the river.

Rule of AVULSION: If a river suddenly leaves it’s bed and forms a new one whether by natural or some other means, the boundary does not change and follow the course of the river.

A brief description of each and how they impact Texas and the HENDERSON CASE.

This treaty settled the boundaries of USA purchase/ownership of land. One of the issues was the boundary between current day Oklahoma and Texas.

Adams was determined to have the whole of the Red River belong to the USA. The Spanish representative wanted it to be the medial point of the River, but eventually aquiesed to Adams.(Note many states do use the medial line of a river as the boundary between them). If the medial point had been chosen, there would not have been as much contention.

Both parties agreed that the people of both nations could continue to use the Red River. Any islands in the River were to also be the property of the USA. Any grants made prior to Jan 24, 1818 to individuals were to be honored.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Treaty in their decision regarding the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. There is also the treaty with the Indians to consider, which I haven’t had time to track down.

The various court rulings have resulted in the following:

1. Oklahoma Plaintiffs awarded the lands north of the medial line of the Red River.

2. Lands lying in the bed of the river south of the medial line are in trust for the Indians (owned by USA).

3. Lands of the south bank belong to Texas Land Owners subject to the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion.

4. The bank of the river on the south side was determined by the Supreme Court to be the high water mark - not the low water mark.(I agree with the dissenting opinion here - it should have been the low water mark).

The judge who ruled on the Henderson case relied on the prior court rulings and the rules of erosion, accretion, and avulsion. Here’s a link to the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/220303420/Currington-v-Henderson-1986

It sucks. I think if Henderson could trace the ownership back to an original Spanish Land Grant which included ownership to the medial point of the River, or even to the low water mark, he might have been able to prevail.