GROVER CLEVELAND.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 21, 1889_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith return without approval House bill No. 1368, entitled "An act

to quiet title of settlers on the Des Moines River lands, in the State

of Iowa, and for other purposes."

This bill is to all intents and purposes identical with Senate bill

No. 150, passed in the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, which

failed to receive Executive approval. My objections to that bill are set

forth in a message transmitted to the Senate on the 11th day of March,

1886.[32] They are all applicable to the bill herewith returned, and

a careful reexamination of the matters embraced in this proposed

legislation has further satisfied me of their validity and strength.

The trouble proposed to be cured by this bill grew out of the

indefiniteness and consequent contradictory construction by the officers

of the Government of a grant of land made in 1846 by Congress to the

State of Iowa (then a Territory) for the purpose of aiding in the

improvement of the Des Moines River. This grant was accepted on the 9th

day of January, 1847, by the State of Iowa, as required by the act of

Congress, and soon thereafter the question arose whether the lands

granted were limited to those which adjoined the river in its course

northwesterly from the southerly line of the State to a point called the

Raccoon Fork, or whether such grant covered lands so adjoining the river

through its entire course through the Territory, and both below and

above the Raccoon Fork.

The Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office, on the 17th day of

October, 1846, instructed the officers of the land office in Iowa that

the grant extended only to the Raccoon Fork.

On the 23d day of February, 1848, the Commissioner of the General

Land Office held that the grant extended along the entire course of the

river.

Notwithstanding this opinion, the President, in June, 1848, proclaimed

the lands upon the river above the Raccoon Fork to be open for sale and

settlement under the land laws, and about 25,000 acres were sold to and

preempted by settlers under said proclamation.

In 1849, and before the organization of the Department of the Interior,

the Secretary of the Treasury decided, upon a protest against opening

said lands for sale and settlement, that the grant extended along the

entire course of the river.

Pursuant to this decision, and on the 1st day of June, 1849, the

Commissioner of the General Land Office directed the reservation or the

withholding from sale of all lands on the odd-numbered sections along

the Des Moines River above the Raccoon Fork.

This reservation from entry and sale under the general land laws seems

to have continued until a deed of the lands so reserved was made by the

State of Iowa and until the said deed was supplemented and confirmed by

the action of the Congress in 1861 and 1862.

In April, 1850, the Secretary of the Interior, that Department having

then been created, determined that the grant extended no farther than

the Raccoon Fork; but in view of the fact that Congress was in session

and might take steps in the matter, the Commissioner of the General Land

Office expressly continued the reservation.

In October, 1851, another Secretary of the Interior, while expressing

the opinion that the grant only extended to the Raccoon Fork, declared

that he would approve the selections made by the State of Iowa of lands

above that point, "leaving the question as to the construction of the

statute entirely open to the action of the judiciary."

In this condition of affairs selections were made by Iowa of a large

quantity of land lying above the Raccoon Fork, which selections were

approved and the land certified to the State. In the meantime the State

had entered upon the improvement of the river and it appears had

disposed of some of the land in furtherance of said improvement. But in

1854 the State of Iowa made a contract with the Des Moines Navigation

and Railroad Company for the continuance of said work at a cost of

$1,300,000, the State agreeing in payment thereof to convey to the

company all the land which had been or should thereafter be certified to

the State of Iowa under the grant of 1846.

In November, 1856, further certification of lands above the Raccoon Fork

under the grant to the State of Iowa was refused by the Interior

Department. This led to a dispute and settlement between the State of

Iowa and the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company, by which the

State conveyed by deed to said company--

All lands granted by an act of Congress approved August 8, 1846, to the

then Territory of Iowa to aid in the improvement of the Des Moines River

which have been approved and certified to the State of Iowa by the

General Government, saving and excepting all lands sold and conveyed,

or agreed to be sold and conveyed, by the State, by its officers and

agents, prior to the 23d day of December, 1853, under said grant.

This exception was declared in the deed to cover the lands above the

Raccoon Fork disposed of to settlers by the Government in 1848 under the

proclamation of the President opening said lands to sale and settlement,

which has been referred to; and it is conceded that neither these lands

nor the rights of any settlers thereto are affected by the terms of the

bill now under consideration.

The amount of land embraced in this deed located above the Raccoon Fork

appears to be more than 271,000 acres.

It is alleged that the company in winding up its affairs distributed

this land among the parties interested, and that said land, or a large

part of it, has been sold to numerous parties now claiming the same

under titles derived from said company.

In December, 1859, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that

the grant to the Territory of Iowa under the law of 1846 conveyed no

land above the Raccoon Fork, and that all selections and certifications

of lands above that point were unauthorized and void, and passed no

title or interest in said lands to the State of Iowa. In other words, it

was determined that these lands were, in the language of the bill under

consideration, "improperly certified to Iowa by the Department of the

Interior under the act of August 8, 1846."

This adjudication would seem to conclusively determine that the title to

these lands was, as the law then stood, and notwithstanding all that had

taken place, still in the United States. And for the purpose of granting

all claim or right of the Government to said lands for the benefit of

the grantees of the State of Iowa, Congress, on the 2d day of March,

1861, passed a joint resolution providing that all the title still

retained by the United States in the lands above the Raccoon Fork, in

the State of Iowa, "which have been certified to said State improperly

by the Department of the Interior as part of the grant by act of

Congress approved August 8, 1846, and which is now held by _bona

fide_ purchasers under the State of Iowa, be, and the same is hereby,

relinquished to the State of Iowa."

Afterwards, and on the 12th day of July, 1862, an act of Congress was

passed extending the grant of 1846 so as to include lands lying above

the Raccoon Fork.

The joint resolution and act of Congress here mentioned have been

repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of the United States to supply a

title to the lands mentioned in the deed from the State of Iowa to the

Navigation and Railroad Company, which inured to the benefit of said

company or its grantees.

No less than ten cases have been decided in that court more or less

directly establishing this proposition, as well as the further

proposition that no title to these lands could prior to said

Congressional action be gained by settlers, for the reason that it had

been withdrawn and reserved from entry and sale under the general land

laws. It seems to be perfectly well settled also, if an adjudication was

necessary upon that question, that all interest of the United States in

these lands was entirely and completely granted by the resolution of

1861 and the act of 1862.

The act of 1862 provides for the setting apart of other lands in lieu of

such as were covered by the act, but had been before its passage sold

and disposed of by the United States, excepting such as had been

released to the State of Iowa under the joint resolution of 1861.

It is claimed, I believe, that in a settlement of land grants thereafter

had between the United States and the State of Iowa lands were allowed

to the State in lieu or indemnity for some of the lands which it had

conveyed to the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Company. But if the

title of the company is valid to lands along the river and above the

Raccoon Fork, under the deed from Iowa and the joint resolution and act

of Congress, it can not be in the least affected by the fact that the

State afterwards, justly or unjustly, received other lands as indemnity.

The bill under consideration provides that all the lands "improperly

certified to Iowa" under the grant of 1846, as referred to in the joint

resolution of 1861, and for which indemnity lands were selected and

received by the State, as provided in the act of 1862, "are, and are

hereby, declared to be public lands of the United States."

The claims of persons and their heirs who, with intent in good faith to

obtain title under the preemption and homestead laws of the United

States, have entered and remained upon any tract of said land prior to

1880 are confirmed and made valid to them and their heirs, not exceeding

160 acres; and upon due proof and payment of the usual price or fees it

is directed that such claims shall be carried to patent.

It is further provided that the claims of settlers and claimants which

do not come in conflict with the claims of the parties above mentioned

are confirmed and made valid. By the second section of the bill it is

made the duty of the Attorney-General, as soon as practicable, and

within three years after the passage of the act, to institute legal

proceedings to assert and protect the title of the United States to said

lands and to remove all clouds from its title thereto.

One result of this legislation, if consummated and if effectual, would

be to restore to the United States, as a part of the public domain,

lands which more than twenty-five years ago the Government expressly

granted and surrendered, and which repeated decisions of the Supreme

Court have adjudged to belong by virtue of this action of the Government

to other parties.

Another result would be not only to validate claims to this land which

our highest judicial tribunal have solemnly declared to be invalid, but

to actually direct the issue of patents in confirmation of said claims.

Still another result would be to oblige the Government of the United

States to enter the courts ostensibly to assert and protect its title to

said land, while in point of fact it would be used to enforce private

claims to the same and unsettle private ownership.

It is by no means certain that this proposed legislation, relating to a

subject peculiarly within the judicial function, and which attempts to

disturb rights and interests thoroughly intrenched in the solemn

adjudications of our courts, would be upheld. In any event, it seems to

me that it is an improper exercise of legislative power, an interference

with the determinations of a coordinate branch of the Government, an

arbitrary annulment of a public grant made more than twenty-five years

ago, an attempted destruction of vested rights, and a threatened

impairment of lawful contracts.

The advocates of this measure insist that a point in favor of the

settlers upon these lands and important in the consideration of this

bill is found in the following language of the constitution of the State

of Iowa, which was adopted in 1857:

The general assembly shall not locate any of the public lands which have

been or may be granted by Congress to this State, and the location of

which may be given to the general assembly, upon lands actually settled,

without the consent of the occupant.

The State under its constitution was perfectly competent to take the

grants of 1861 and 1862. The clause of the constitution above quoted

deals expressly with "lands which have been or may be granted by

Congress to the State," and thus of necessity recognizes its right to

take such grants. This competency in the State as a grantee was all that

was needed to create, under the joint resolution of 1861 and the act of

1862, a complete divestiture of the interests of the United States in

these lands. It must be borne in mind, too, that prior to this time

these lands had been conveyed by the State of Iowa in furtherance of the

purposes of the original Congressional grants, and that the joint

resolution of 1861 and the act of 1862 were really made for the benefit

of those who held under grants from the State. After these grants by the

Government it had no concern with these lands. If in any stage of the

proceedings the general assembly of Iowa was guilty of any neglect of

duty or failed to act in accordance with the constitution of the State

of Iowa, the remedy should be found in the courts of that State; and it

is difficult to see how the situation in this aspect can be changed or

improved by the bill under consideration.

I am not unmindful of the fact that there may be persons who have

suffered or who are threatened with loss through a reliance upon the

erroneous decisions of Government officials as to the extent of the

original grant from the United States to the Territory of Iowa. I

believe cases of this kind should be treated in accordance with the

broadest sentiments of equity, and that where loss is apparent arising

from a real or fairly supposed invitation of the Government to settle

upon the lands mentioned in the bill under consideration such loss

should be made good. But I do not believe that the condition of these

settlers will be aided by encouraging them in such further litigation as

the terms of this bill invite, nor do I believe that in attempting to

right the wrongs of which they complain legislation should be sanctioned

mischievous in principle, and in its practical operation doing injustice

to others as innocent as they and as much entitled to consideration.

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Volume 8, part 3: Grover Cleveland, First Term · 第 825 / 872 题