CONGRESS. (DBS MOINES EIVEB LANDS.) 



249 



1862 an act of Congress was passed for the same gen- 

 eral purpose. 



Without detailing the exact language of this reso- 

 lution and statute, it certainly seems to be such a 

 transfer and relinquishment of all interests in the 

 land mentioned on the part of the United States as to 

 relieve the Government from any further concern 

 therein. 



The questions unfortunately growing out of this 

 grunt, and the legislation relating thereto have been 

 passed upon by the United States Supreme Court in 

 numerous cases ; and as late as 1883 that court, refer- 

 rino p to its many previous decisions, adjudged : 



< F That the act of 1862 (C. 161, 12 Stats., 543) trans- 

 ferred the title from the United 'States and vested it 

 in the State of Iowa, for the use of* its grantees under 

 the river grant." 



Bills similar to this have been before Congress for 

 a number of years, and have failed of passage ; and at 

 least on one occasion the Committee on the J udiciary 

 of the Senate reported adversely upon a measure cov- 

 ering the same ground. 



I nave carefully examined the legislation upon the 

 subject of this grant, and studied the decisions of the 

 court upon the numerous and complicated questions 

 which have arisen from such legislation, and the posi- 

 tions of the parties claiming an interest in the land 

 covered by said grant ; and I can not but think that 

 every possible question that can be raised, or at least 

 that ought to be raised, in any suit relating to these 

 lands, has been determined by the highest judicia 

 authority in the land. And if any substantial point 

 remains yet unsettled, I believe there is no difficulty 

 in presenting it to the proper tribunal. 



This bill declares that certain lands which nearly 

 twenty -four years ago, the United States entirely re- 

 linquished are still public lands, and directs the At- 

 torney-General to begin suits to assert and protect the 

 title of the United States in such lands. 



If it be true that these are public lands, the declara- 

 tion that they are so by enactment is entirely unne- 

 cessary ; and if they are wrongfully withheld from the 

 Government, the duty and authonty of the Attorney- 

 General are not aided by the proposed legislation. If 

 they are not public lands because the United States 

 have conveyed them to others, the bill is subject to 

 grave objections as an attempt to destroy vested rights 

 and disturb interests which have long since become 

 fixed. 



If a law of Congress could, in the manner contem- 

 plated by the bill, change, under the Constitution, the 

 existing rights of any of the parties claiming interests 

 in these lands, it hardly seems that any new questions 

 could be presented to the courts which would do more 

 than raise false hopes and renew useless and bitter 

 strife and litigation. 



It seems to me that all controversies which can 

 hereafter arise between those claiming these lands 

 have been fairly remitted to the State of Iowa, and 

 that there they can be properly and safely left ; and 

 the Government, through its Attorney-General, should 

 not be called upon to litigate the rights of private 

 parties. 



It is not pleasant to contemplate loss threatened to 

 any party acting in good faithj caused by uncertainty 

 in the language of laws or their conflicting interpreta- 

 tion; and if there are persons occupying these lands 

 who labor under such disabilities as prevent them 

 from appealing to the courts for a redress of their 

 wrongs, a plain statute, directed simply to a remedy 

 for such disabilities, would not be objectionable. 



Should there be meritorious cases of hardship and 

 loss, caused by an invitation on the part of the Gov- 

 ernment to settle upon lands apparently public, but to 

 which no right nor lawful possession can be secured, 

 it would be better, rather than to attempt a disturb- 

 ance of titles already settled, to ascertain such losses 

 and do equity by compensating the proper parties 

 through an appropriation for that purpose. 



A law to accomplish this very object was passed by 



Congress in the year 1873. Valuable proof is thus 

 furnished by the only law ever passed upon the sub- 

 ject of the manner in which it was thought proper by 

 the Congress at that time to meet the difficulties sug- 

 gested by the bill now under consideration. 



Notwithstanding the fact that there may be parties 

 in the occupancy of these lands who suffer hardship 

 by the application of strict legal principles to their 

 claims, safety lies in the non-interference by Congress 

 with matters which should be left to judicial cogni- 

 zance ; and 1 am unwilling to concur in legislation 

 which, if not an encroachment upon judicial power, 

 trenches so closely thereon as to be of doubtful ex- 

 pediency, and which at the same time increases the 

 elements of litigation that have heretofore existed and 

 endangers vested rights. GKOVEB CLEVELAND. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 11,1886. 



In the debate in the Senate on the motion to 

 pass the bill over the President's veto, Mr. 

 Evarts, of New York, said : 



" If any one will point out to me the right 

 or the method of asserting these homestead or 

 pre-emption claims against the title made un- 

 der the State of Iowa to the Des Moines Navi- 

 gation Company by the United States in their 

 legislation I shall be happy to consider it ; but 

 I do not know that when this was challenged 

 in the last debate in the last Congress in this 

 body then that an attempt was made to do so. 



" Of course that there should be a body of 

 land in dispute is injurious to all concerned. 

 It is always injurious to the neighborhood, to 

 the development of the State. These lands, I 

 am told, are as fortunate and fertile perhaps as 

 any equal amount of the favored land of that 

 great State of Iowa ; and all who are involved 

 in either the discouragement or despair of fail- 

 ing in lands which they thought they could 

 gain are entitled to full and ample considera- 

 tion; but the question of the method to be 

 adopted and pursued to that end brings us now 

 to what is a very simple and a very intelligible 

 proposition. 



" If it be true that the United States now 

 has any title in this land, if it now constitutes 

 a part of the public domain, the United States 

 can assert by such methods as the law opens to 

 the United States the maintenance of that title ; 

 and when that title has been established and 

 by determination the land has come back into 

 the public domain, then I suppose not a single 

 voice would be raised against entertaining and 

 disposing of just claims that have rested upon 

 this dormant title that is finally established, as 

 it would be in the case I have supposed, in the 

 United States. 



" But this bill does not proceed upon that 

 proposition. Pending the course of legislation 

 and pending the course of judicial determina- 

 tion, such as it is, for a series of years an at- 

 tempt has been made to put these claimants or 

 the United States in their behalf upon a footing 

 which the law' and the courts did not give 

 them. Several times in past sessions the bill 

 has passed one or the other of the bodies of 

 Congress, but not until now has it passed both 

 houses and been presented to the President for 

 his sanction to its becoming a law. His ex- 



